-------
AIR PARTICULATES NO. 1
Study Number 22
Report of a Study Conducted by the
ANALYTICAL REFERENCE SERVICE
James S. Ferguson
Ronald T. Cope
Earl F. McFarren
Training Program
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Air Pollution
Cincinnati, Ohio
1965
-------
The ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERIES of reports was
established to report the results of scientific and engineering
studies of man's environment: The community, whether urban,
suburban, or rural, where he lives, works, and plays; the air,
water, and earth he uses and re-uses; and the wastes he pro-
duces and must dispose of in a way that preserves these natural
resources. This SERIES of reports provides for professional
users a central source of information on the intramural research
activities of Divisions and Centers within the Public Health
Service, and on their cooperative activities with State and local
agencies, research institutions, and industrial organizations.
The general subject area of each report is indicated by the two
letters that appear in the publications number; the indicators are
AP Air Pollution
WP - Water Supply
and Pollution Control
AH Arctic Health
EE Environmental Engineering
FP Food Protection
OH Occupational Health
RH Radiological Health
Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are provided with
reports in the SERIES to facilitate information retrieval. Space
is provided on the cards for the user's accession number and
key words.
Reports in the SERIES will be distributed to requesters, as
supplies permit. Requests should be directed to the Division
identified on the title page or to the Publications Office, Robert
A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-22
-------
A CKNOWLEDGMENTS
The assistance of Dr. W. C. McCrone, McCrone Research
Institute, Chicago, Illinois, and Mrs. Foymae Kelso West, former
Chief of Analytical Reference Service, in designing this study is grate-
fully acknowledged.
iii
-------
FOREWORD
The Analytical Reference Service is conducted by the Environmental
Health Sciences & Engineering Training Program of the Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center for the evaluation of laboratory methods in
the environmental field. Cooperative studies by member organizations,
through analysis of identical samples and critical review of methodology,
provide the mechanism for:
*
Evaluation of analytical procedures,
including precision and accuracy,
by comparison of the procedures and
results reported by participating
laboratories.
Exchange of information regarding
method characteristics.
Improvement or replacement of
existing methods by development
of more accurate procedures, and
development of new methodology for
determination of new pollutional
compounds.
Samples are designed to contain measured amounts of selected
constituents. Decisions as to qualitative makeup are made by the ARS
staff, the membership, and consultants. Notice of each study is sent to
the entire membership.
A portion of the study sample with accompanying data forms for
reporting numerical values, a critique of the procedures used, comments
on modifications, sources of error, difficulties encountered, or other
pertinent factors is then shipped to each of those who express a desire
to participate. The results and comments of each study are compiled
and a report is prepared.
Initially directed toward examination of water, studies now include
air, milk, and food. Some studies are periodically repeated for the
advantage of new members to evaluate new methods or to reevaluate
existing methods.
-------
The selection of studies is guided by the responses to question-
naires periodically circulated among the membership, which now includes
201 Federal, state, and municipal agencies; industries; universities; con-
sulting firms; and foreign agencies.
James P. Sheeny
Director, Training Program
vi
-------
STUDIES WITH COMPLETED REPORTS
Water-Minerals
Water-Metals
Water-Fluoride
Water - Radioa cti vity
Water-Surfactant
Water-Oxygen Demand
Water-Trace Elements
Freshwater Plankton
Air-Inorganics
Air-Lead
Air-Sulfur Dioxide
Calcium, magnesium, hardness, sulfate,
chloride, alkalinity, nitrite, nitrate, sodium,
and potassium. Studies completed in 1956,
1958, and 1961.
Lead, copper, cadmium, aluminum, chromium,
iron, manganese, and zinc. Studies completed
in 1957 and 1962.
Fluoride in the presence and absence of inter-
ferences, with and without distillation with the
use of a specified procedures. Studies comple-
ted in 1958 and 1961.
Gross beta activity. Studies completed in 1959,
and 1961. Gross beta and strontium-90 activity.
Study completed in 1963.
Surfactant in various waters. Studies comple-
ted in 1959 and 1963.
Biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen
demand. Studies completed in 1960. Chemical
oxygen demand. Study completed in 1965.
Arsenic, boron, selenium, and beryllium. Study
completed in 1962.
Evaluation of the precision and accuracy obtain-
able by the use of various methods of plankton
counting and identification. Study completed in
1964.
Chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and nitrate in
aqueous solution and on glass fiber hi-vol
filter mats. Study completed in 1958.
Filter paper tape impregnated with lead.
Study completed in 1961.
Sulfur dioxide in air with the use of a specified
method. Study completed in 1963.
Milk-DDT Residue
DDT in milk. Study completed in 1962.
-------
PARTICIPANTS IN THIS STUDY
Bethlehem Steel Company, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
British Coke Research Association, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England
California State Department of Public Health, Berkeley
City-County Health Unit Laboratory, El Paso, Texas
City of New York Department of Air Pollution Control
County of Fresno (California) Department of Public Health
Department of Health, Manila, Phillippines
DHEW, PHS, Aerometry Section, Field Studies Branch, Division of Air
Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio
Department of Health and Hospitals, St. Louis, Missouri
Department of Municipal Laboratories, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Department of National Health & Welfare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Electric Illuminating Company (Bolivar Laboratory), Cleveland, Ohio
Florida State Board of Health, Winter Haven
Hawaii State Department of Health, Honolulu
Internal Revenue Service, Cincinnati, Ohio
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Louisiana State Board of Health, New Orleans
Maryland State Department of Health, Bureau of Laboratories, Baltimore
National Lead Company of Ohio, Cincinnati
New Hampshire Department of Health and Welfare, Concord
New Mexico State University, University Park
New York State Department of Health, Albany
Ohio State Department of Health Laboratory, Columbus
Olin Mathieson Chemical Company, New Haven, Connecticut
Orange County (California) Air Pollution Control District
Regional Environmental Health Laboratory, McClelland Air Force
Base, California
Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Air-Maze Division, Cleveland, Ohio
Rutgers The State University, Radiation Science Center, New Brunswick,
New Jersey
Tennessee Valley Authority, Wilson Dam, Alabama (Occupational Health
Branch)
U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Maryland
U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado
U.S. Naval Avionics Facility, Indianapolis, Indiana
University of Florida, Civil Engineering Department, Gainesville
Vanderbilt University Hospital, Department of Preventive Medicine and
Public Health, Nashville, Tennessee
Vermont State Department of Health, Industrial Hygiene Division, Barre
-------
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT xi
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 1
DESIGN OF THE STUDY 1-3
REFEREES AND REFEREE ANALYSES 4-5
DISCUSSION 6-24
Highlights of the Study 6
Identification of Particulates 6-21
Polarizing versus Nonpolarizing Microscope .... 21
Magnification Used 22
Particle Size Determination 23
Estimation of Percent by Weight 23-24
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 25
REFERENCES 26
APPENDICES 27
A. Tabulation of Results 29-70
B. Analytical Reference Service Membership . . . .71-75
-------
ABSTRACT
In this study, 35 participants each analyzed 10 slides of selected
air particulates permanently mounted in a solid plasticizer. Slides 1
through 7 contained a single particulate, while slides 8 and 9 contained
three each, and slide 10 contained 9 particulates.
Of 770 possible correct identifications that could be made by the
35 participants analyzing the 10 slides, 247 correct identifications were
made. Among the participants identifying these particulates, those using
a polarizing microscope and a range of magnifications did better than those
not doing so. Whereas most of the participants did reasonably well in
estimating the size of the particulate on slide number 2, most did very
poorly in estimating the percent by weight of each component on slides
8, 9 and 10.
Although no text or standard method on identification of atmospheric
particulates exists, the overall results of this study were very good.
-------
AIR PARTICULATES NUMBER 1
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to gather information on the ability
of individual microscopists to determine the identities and/or sources
of some common atmospheric particulates.
This report furnishes the participants in this study, as well as
other readers, information as to the identities of the samples used.
The particulates on each slide are described, and some of the most
frequently given incorrect answers are discussed. This report should
be of value not only for the data contained herein, but as a reference for
future microscopic studies of dust.
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The particulates used in this study were selected to be represent-
ative of particles commonly found in the ambient atmosphere. The
participants were informed that slides 1 through 7 were one component
and 8 through 10 were mixtures and that all particulates on the slides
were selected from the following:
Cotton
Quartz
Cement
Oil soot
Incinerator ash
Wheat starch
Wood flour
Power-plant fly ash
Gypsum
Fiber glass
Wool
Metal dust
Styrofoam
Mineral wool
Coniferous wood
Fluorite
Orion
Nylon
Graphite
Domestic-stoker ash
Ground glass
Potato starch
Rabbit hair
Mica
Catalyst dust
Paint spray
Ragweed pollen
Tobacco dust
Cork dust
Nonconiferous wood
Straw
Fertilizer dust
Zinc shot
Talc
Sodium chloride
Limestone
A staff member of McCrone Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois
prepared all the slides; slides of each particulate were made before slides
for the next particulate were made. Although care was taken to minimize
contamination by unwanted particles, some foreign particles that might
have appeared should not have been of sufficient quantity to affect the
results of the examination. Because the number of particulates on slides
number 8, 9, and 10 was more than one, the possibility of contamination
was greater. For these three slides, exact quantities of each component
-------
were successively weighed on a micro-balance until the desired number
of particles had been reached. A total of only a few milligrams of each
of the three mixtures was prepared in this way, and slides 8, 9, an'd 10
were made up from these respective bulk mixtures.
In all cases, the mounts were prepared by placing a small portion
of the particulate on a slide, adding a few pieces of Aroclor 5460 (a solid
plasticizer having a refractive index of 1.66), covering with a coverslip,
and warming slightly. The mounting medium melts, spreads, and solidi-
fies, giving a permanent preparation. In some cases, if the cooling was
too rapid, the cement cracked and gave an overall spider-web appearance
to the preparation. Study participants were informed that this could be
corrected by warming slightly and allowing the slide to cool slowly. The
slides were then enclosed in cardboard mailers designed for this purpose,
sealed with tape, and mailed in padded envelopes to each of the participants
in the study.
Each slide was intended to contain the particulates indicated in Table 1
Table 1. INTENDED COMPOSITION OF SLIDES
Slide No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Identification
Power-plant fly ash
Limestone
Wood flour
Talc
Cement
Incinerator ash
Oil soot
Orion, cotton, and mineral wool
Wheat starch, wood flour, and quartz
Gypsum, wool, talc, fluorite, graphite
power-plant fly ash, metal dust, oil soot,
styrofoama, domestic -stoker ash
Supposedly added, but not found by referees
-------
On slide 2, the participants were also asked to estimate the average
particle size and the size range in microns. The limestone used on slide
2 was obtained from a sieve-sample of 325 mesh or less particles. Theo-
retically, therefore, all particles should have been of such dimension that
they would pass through a 44-micron-square sieve hole.
On slides 8, 9, and 10 the participants were asked to estimate the
percent by weight of each particle. The intended percent compositions of
these slides is given in Table 2.
Table 2. INTENDED PERCENT COMPOSITION OF SLIDES 8, 9, AND 10
Slide No.
8
9
10
Particle type
Orion
Cotton
Mineral wool
Wood flour
Quartz
Wheat starch
Gypsum
Wool
Talc
Fluorite
Power-plant fly ash
Metal dust
Oil soot
Graphite
Styrofoam
Domestic -stoker ash
Perceht by weight
25
25
50
49
49
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-------
REFEREES AND REFEREE ANALYSES
Dr. W. C. McCrone, Jr., McCrone Research Institute, Chicago,
Illinois, andJ.S. Ferguson, Air Pollution Training, Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center, served as referees for this study.
Before the slides were mailed out to the participants, 25 of the 58
sets mailed to prospective participants were examined to insure uniformit
of sample sets and to establish the true makeup of the slides. (Responses
were received from 35 participants.) Both referees used a Zeiss, Jr.
polarizing microscope with an eyepiece micrometer for measuring and
counting the particles. Martin's diameter1 was used in size estimation.
Weight percentages were obtained by examining the slides, noting the par-
ticulates and their relative densities, and finally, estimating the relative
weight percentages of the particles contained on the slides.
The results of the referees are given in Table 3.
GPO 823325z
-------
Table 3. RESULTS OF REFEREES ANALYSES OF SLIDES
Slide No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
Particle identified
Power-plant fly ash
Limestone
Wood flour
Talc
Cement
Incinerator ash
Oil soot
Orion
Cotton
Mineral wool
Wood flour
Quartz
Wheat starch
Gypsum
Wool
Talc
Fluorite
Graphite
Power-plant fly ash
Metal dust
Oil soot
Styrofoam
Domestic-stoker ash
Particle
size range
0.3 40^
Particle
size average
4n
Estimated
percent
by weight
---
---
---
-_-
---
---
25
25
50
50
50
Trace
a
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
1 Since estimations are generally made to the nearest 5 percent, percent-
ages for slide 10 add up to 90. Even though referees found equal amounts
of components, estimates within 1 percent are not practical.
-------
DISCUSSION
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE STUDY
Since a study of this exact nature has not been conducted before,
there was no established pattern to follow and no previous work with
which to compare results. The results themselves varied greatly; for
example, 66 percent of the participants identified wood flour correctly,
whereas only 14 percent could identify cement. Throughout the study,
those particles that were found to be identifiable by their morphology
alone were easier to recognize than those that required knowledge of
optical properties, refractive index or other study.
No one identified all the components on the three multicomponent
slides correctly. Identification of a single-particle type in mixtures
obviously becomes more difficult as the number of components increases.
The use of the polarizing microscope proved to be a definite aid in
correct identification. The best success was attained with the use of a
wide range of magnification rather than low or high magnification alone.
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICULATES
The correct identifications of the unknown or unknowns on each slide
and the incorrect identifications that comprised a high percentage of
reported answers will be discussed for each slide. The participants
were given a list of 36 possible particles from which to choose and in
some cases the number of incorrect identifications approached this limit.
The figures related to the following discussion contain a photomicrograph
of each slide and a bar graph which indicates the participant response on
each slide.
Slide 1, Figure 1
This slide consisted of fly ash from a large power plant
such as a municipal electrical generating station. In
many of our larger cities, low-grade coal is ground to
a 200-mesh size and sprayed into the combustion chamber
of a furnace. If complete combustion occurred, no carbon
would be present in the sample, and the particles would be
sm 1, clear, glassy spheres in a wide variety of colors.
Normally, however, combustion of the fuel is not complete,
and these particles will vary in size: some are large,
irregular, gray masses and others are spheres with many
air bubbles trapped inside. Fes 04, magnetite, a black
porous magnetic particle, usually spherical, is found in
fly ash from pulverized-coal boilers. Forty-six percent
-------
46%
40 h
30
20
,**
CORRECT
INCORRECT
POWER-PLANT ... .... CATALYST ALL OTHER NnT
FIYAQU DUST IDENTIFICATIONSNOT
FLY ASH
PARTICIPATES REPORTED
Figure 1. Responses for slide number
-------
of the participants identified this slide correctly.
The other two particulates mentioned most fre-
quently as possible answers were oil soot and
catalyst dust. The appearance of oil soot is
described under slide 7.
Catalyst-dust particles are, in general, much
larger than those found and many of the spheres
or globular particles are black or dark brown.
Slide 2, Figure 2
In this sample of limestone, the particles were
quite small; they were highly birefringent and
showed high-order white under crossed polars.
Typically, limestone particles will show definite
crystalline cleavage.
Seventeen percent identified this slide correctly.
Other particles mentioned were quartz and cement.
Quartz would show conchoidal fracture rather than
cleavage and the particles would vary in color with
thickness. Cement might contain some limestone,
but not in so high a quantity as that in slide 2.
Slide 3, Figure 3
This sample was wood flour. One distinguishing
feature of wood is the criss cross arrangement of
fibers. Coniferous wood fibers under high magni-
fication (500X) have a double row of round pits that
are not on nonconiferous fibers.
The largest number of participants, 71 percent,
identified this slide correctly. Some called it
nonconiferous wood, which it was mostly; others
identified it as coniferous wood, which may have
been present in small quantity on some slides.
Both coniferous and nonconiferous wood were also
accepted as correct answers.
A few participants selected straw, presumably since
wood fibers are somewhat similar in appearance;
however, straw contains characteristic large bag-
like cells and appears yellow in color, whereas wood
does not. Inasmuch as the slides were unstained to
retain the natural appearance of the particles, it was
possible to note the latter difference.
-------
40
30
20
10
CORRECT
=INCORRECT
17%
v-
"
-------
70-
60-
50-
40 -
30 -
20 -
10-
0 -
WOOD FLOUR NONCONI- TOTALCORRRT CONIFER- STRAW OTHER ANDNOT
FEROUSWOOD IDEMTI- OUSWOOD IDENTIFIED
Fl CATIONS
PARTICULATES REPORTED
CORRECT
-INCORRECT
Figure 3. Responses for slide number 3.
-------
Slide 4. Figure 4
One of the most difficult preparations to identify
correctly is talc. Talc has no readily apparent
crystal form, but shows a variety of subtle colors
under crossed polars, and no extinction. Still, 20
percent of those responding identified it correctly.
Slide 5. Figure 5
Cement can be found to have a variety of appearances.
The most common particles indicative of cement are
spheres that are formed in the kiln. These spheres
are usually larger and fewer than the spheres in power-
plant fly ash. Other indications to look for are small
botrioidal or grape-like clusters that results when
particles agglomerate during roasting. Most of the
particles in a cement sample will have refractive indices
higher than that of the mounting medium. The amount of
unreacted limestone would be very small in comparison
with that found on slide 2. Fourteen percent of the
participants did identify cement correctly.
Slide 6, Figure 6
Incinerator ash is best characterized by the presence of
some glassy spheres, the number and size being depend-
ent upon burning conditions; various colored and irregu-
larly shaped particles; paper ash in varying states of
ignition; and bits of wood also burnt to various degrees.
The number of correct identifications, 51 percent for
this sample, was very high. Domestic-stoker ash
ranked first in the number of incorrect identifications.
Domestic-stoker ash, however, would contain many
unburned and partially burned coal particles, which if
present, would be a minor constituent of incinerator ash.
Slide 7, Figure 7
This sample, oil soot, is best characterized by many
small centospheres. These particles are the results
of incomplete burning of oil in oil-fired boilers or
heating plants. They appear as rough black spheres
with holes in their surfaces, consist of carbon, and
often have a tiny droplet of oil inside. Sizes vary from
source to source. Here again, the desired solid product
of complete combustion would be small, glassy spheres,
composed of the oxides of various metals present in the oil.
11
-------
50
40
30
20
10
20 %
CORRECT
I |= INCORRECT
TALC
OTHER NOT
RESPONSES IDENTIFIED
PARTICIPATES REPORTED
Figure 4. Responses for slide number 4.
-------
50
40
30
20
10
14%
- CORRECT
- INCORRECT
CEMENT POWER-PLANT LIMESTONE OTHERS NOT
FLY ASH IDENTIFIED
PARTICULATES REPORTED
Figure 5. Responses for slide number 5.
-------
50
40
30
20
10
51%
0
INCINERATOR
ASH
- CORRECT
= INCORRECT
DOMESTIC-
STOKER ASH
OTHER
NOT
IDENTIFIED
PARTICULATES REPORTED
Figure 6. Responses for slide number 6.
-------
40
30
20
10
20%
= CORRECT
HI] = INCORRECT
OIL SOOT POWER-PLANT DOMESTIC- OTHER NOT
FLY ASH STOKERASH IDENTIFIED
PARTICIPATES REPORTED
Figure 7. Responses for slide number 7
-------
Twenty percent identified this correctly. Domestic-
stoker ash and power-plant fly ash were the predomi-
nant incorrect answers given.
Slide 8, Figure 8
This slide contained a mixture of three fibers: cotton,
orlon, and mineral wool. Twenty-nine percent identified
all three correctly.
Cotton fiber is rather easy to identify under the micro-
scope because of its flat, twisted appearance. Under
crossed polars the color is a light gray and white, and
it is the only fiber that shows no extinction when the stage
is rotated. Eighty percent identified cotton correctly.
Mineral wool is a type of industrial fiber glass very
unlike ordinary fiber glass in appearance. The parti-
cles are usually shaped like spheres or elongated
teardrops. They have a light brownish color and
often have dark particles trapped inside. Mineral
wool is also isotropic. Forty-nine percent found this
particle.
Orion is synthetic fiber best characterized by its
dumbbell-shaped cross section. Forty-six percent
identified orlon correctly.
Nylon and fiber glass were listed as possibilities by
a large number of participants. Although nylon seems
reasonable at first glance, closer inspection under the
microscope shows the dumbbell-shaped cross section of
orlon, whereas nylon is cylindrical. Under crossed
polars, nylon shows high-order colors, and orlon shows
first-order gray and white color.
Fiber glass might be mistaken for orlon. Fiber glass,
however, is isotropic and would disappear under crossed
polars, whereas orlon would still be visible.
Slide 9, Figure 9
This slide consisted of two major components, quartz
and wood flour, and a minor component, starch, present
in very small quantity. Only one participant identified
all three correctly.
16
-------
CORRECT
INCORRECT
COTTON MINERAL ORLON FIBERGLASS NYLON OTHER NOSUBSTANCES
WOOL IDENTIFIED
PARTICUIATES REPORTED
Figure 8. Responses for slide number 8.
-------
801
60
40
20
43% f
CORRECT
I I -INCORRECT
QUARTZ WOOD CONIFERGUSNONCONIF-STARCH GROUND OTHER NOSUBSTANCES
FLOUR WOOD EROUSWOOD GLASS IDENTIFIED
PARTICULATES REPORTED
Figure 9. Responses for slide number 9.
-------
Some of the identifying qualities of quartz are con-
choidal fracture, low-order polarization colors, and
refractive index lower than that of the mounting medium.
Quartz can be distinguished from ground glass by
crossing the polars: ground glass disappears, the
quartz shows up quite vividly. Forty-three percent
identified quartz correctly.
The wood-flour sample was almost completely made
up of nonconiferous wood, but there could very well
have been a few particles of the coniferous type on
some slides. In the construction of the bar graph for
this slide (Figure 9) coniferous and nonconiferous wood
were also accepted as correct answers. Eighty percent
identified wood in one of the three forms.
The starch, a very minor constituent on this slide, is
readily identified by the dark cross or other interfer-
ence figure that shows up when the grains are viewed
under crossed polars. Only a very few grains were
put in each preparation. Because of the small amount
added, some slides may have had none or appeared to
have none. In fact, only two participants found starch
on slide 9.
Slide 10, Figure 10
Slide 10 was a mixture of nine components, although
10 were intended. Some of the constituents were used
singly on the other slides of the series. Two partici-
pants identified correctly five out of the 10 possible
components. Although these seem to be rather poor
results, it should be recognized that the greater the
number of the components on a slide, the greater the
problems of identification. The correct and some of
the incorrect identifications are listed on the bar chart
(Figure 10), but only some of the incorrect identifica-
tions are discussed.
Fluorite is an isotropic, crystalline material that could
be mistaken for ground glass. Ground glass, however
always shows conchoidal fracture, whereas fluorite does
so only in the case of some particles. Fluorite more
often tends to cleave along definite patterns and the
particles show definite crystalline faces. The most
easily recognized is the 60 degree angle between two
of the faces, which is often seen if the particle is
positioned properly.
19
-------
look
CORRECT
INCORRECT
PARTICULATES REPORTED
Figure 10. Responses for slide number 10.
-------
Incinerator ash might be given as an answer for
domestic-stoker ash (see slide 6, Figure 6).
Styrofoam was listed as a component by two of the
participants. Possibly some was present on a few
of the slides, but a careful check by both referees
of 25 of the 58 slides revealed no styrofoam at all.
Some other component could be mistaken for styro-
foam if one did not know what to look for. Stvro-
foam was either omitted from the preparation or
else it dissolved in the mounting medium.
POLARIZING VERSUS NONPOLARIZING MICROSCOPE
Each participant was asked whether his microscope was equipped
with a polarizer. Table 4 summarizes the results reported by those
using and those not using polarizing microscopes.
Although the evidence in favor of the polarizing microscope is not
overwhelming, those laboratories equipped with polarizing microscopes
did better than those not so equipped. Because approximately half of the
substances did not necessitate the use of a polarizing microscope for
identification, the results undoubtedly are biased.
Table 4. COMPARATIVE USEFULNESS OF A
POLARIZING AND NONPOLARIZING MICROSCOPE
IN ESTABLISHING CORRECT IDENTITY OF
PARTICULATES IN STUDY
Number of laboratories
Correctly identified
particles, mean
Standard deviation
Laboratories
with polarizing
microscope
21
8.5
3.0
Laboratories
without polarizing
microscope
10
4.3
3.3
' Four laboratories did not specify which was used.
21
-------
MAGNIFICATIONS USED
Another consideration of this study was the importance of the
degree of magnification and the range of magnifications employed in
successful identification of slides.
In an attempt to evaluate or measure laboratory techniques, the
total number of substances correctly identified by each participant was
used as the criterion of participant performance. On this basis, the
laboratories were divided into two approximately equal groups; the 16
laboratories in the "high group" identified from 8 to 15 of a possible
22, the laboratories in the "low group" from 0 to 7 (Table 5).
To compare the magnifications used by the low and high groups,
the average magnification was computed. For example, if a partici-
pant used magnifications of 100, 400, and 700, the average magnification
was 400. If a participant used only one magnification, it was taken as
the average. The average magnification for the high and low groups
was 257 and 259, respectively, and the standard deviations (variabili-
ties from the averages) 200 and 180, respectively (Table 5). As can be
seen, the averages are practically the same, whereas the variabilities
are quite large relatively. Within the range of magnifications used by
the participants, therefore, degree of magnification does not appear to
be of great importance.
To investigate whether the ability to identify is increased by the
use of a range of magnifications, the percent of participants using more
than one magnification was computed for the high and the low correct
identification groups (Table 5). The more successful group tended to
use multiple magnifications (75% versus 44%). This factor, of course,
would not be solely responsible for their success.
Table 5. CORRELATION BETWEEN
MICROSCOPE MAGNIFICATIONS USED AND
CORRECT IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICULATES
Number of participants
Average magnification
Standard deviation
Percent using more than
one magnification
Q
Participants
identifying 0 7
substances correctly
16
259
180
44
Participants
identifying 8 15
substances correctly
16
257
200
75
Three participants did not indicate magnifications used.
22
-------
PARTICLE SIZE DETERMINATION
On slide 2, limestone, all participants were asked to estimate
the particle size range and the average particle size. The limestone
was a 325-mesh sieve sample. No data were available from the supplier
on the average particle size, but, theoretically, all limestone particles
should have been able to pass through a 44-micron-square sieve hole.
As indicated in Table 6, the referees reported an average particle size
of 4 microns and a range of 0.3 to 40 microns. Table 6 shows reason-
able agreement between the results of the referees and those reported
by the participants.
ESTIMATION OF PERCENT BY WEIGHT
On slides 8, 9, and 10 each participant was asked to estimate the
percent by weight of each component. Table 7 shows the range of percent
by weight of each component reported by the participants and the referees.
No attempt was made to apply any statistical measure of comparison,
because few identified correctly even a major portion of the components
on each slide and some reported no weight percentage value.
In measuring and counting the particles on slides 2, 8, 9, and 10,
the participants reported that the following methods were used:
Eyepiece micrometer 21
Porton disc 5
Whipple disc 4
Other 1
Not reported _4
Total 35
Table 6. COMPARISON OF AVERAGE AND RANGE OF PARTICULATE
SIZES AS DETERMINED BY PARTICIPANTS WITH REFEREE
DETERMINED VALUES FOR SLIDE NUMBER 2
Participants
Referees
Particle size, n
Average
15
4
Minimum
2.6
0.3
Maximum
51
40
23
-------
Table 7. ESTIMATION BY PARTICIPANTS AND REFEREES OF
PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF EACH COMPONENT ON SLIDES 8, 9 AND 10
Slide
8
9
10
Component
Orion
Cotton
Mineral wool
Wood flour
Quartz
Wheat starch
Gypsum
Wool
Talc
Fluorite
Graphite
Power-plant fly ash
Metal dust
Oil soot
Styrofoam
Domestic-stoker ash
Participants analysis,
^percent by weight
10 to 50
<1 to 50
20 to 75
25 to 90
15 to 75
None found
5 to 85
<1 to 38
20 to 25
5 to 33
15 to 60
0. 8 to 33
10a
15u
30b
20 to 50
Referees'
analysis, percen
by weight
25
25
50
20
80
<1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
Found by only one participant.
Found by only two participants.
24
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Of 35 participants, 16 correctly identified the particulates on
slide 1, 6 on slide 2, 25 on slide 3, 7 on slide 4, 5 on slide 5, 18 on
slide 6, 7 on slide 7, 61 of a possible 105 on slide 8, 43 of a possible
105 on slide 9, and 66 of a possible 315 on slide 10. Of the participants
correctly identifying these particulates, those equipped with polarizing
microscopes appeared to do better than those who were not so equipped.
The degree and range of magnification used by the participants in identi-
fying the particulates was also studied; and, although the degree of
magnification used did not seem of great importance, the more success-
ful group tended to use a greater range of magnification.
In estimating the particle size on slide 2, the results obtained by
the participants showed reasonably good agreement with the referee
results. On the other hand, the participants did very poorly in estimating
the percent by weight of each component on slides 8, 9, and 10. This was,
in part, because they failed to identify a major portion of the components
on each slide.
In view of the lack of standard methods for identification of atmos-
pheric particulates by using the microscope, the overall results of this
study were very good. For most chemical analyses, standard methods
exist; tables of data, results, photographs, and other material are
available for reference. This is not the case with microscopic analysis.
Most of the particulates used have not been studied to an extent that would
make much data available for use in this study. Minerals and natural and.
synthetic fibers are the exception since considerable microscopic work
has been done on them.
25
-------
REFERENCES
1. Chamot, E.M., and C.W. Mason. Handbook of Chemical Microscopy,
Vol. I & II, 3rd ed. Wiley and Sons, New York, New York,
1960.
2. McCrone, W. C. Microscopic analysis of atmospheric particu-
lates. To be published.
3. McCrone, W.C., and M.A. Salzenstein. The microscopic
identification of atmoshpheric particulates. JAPCA.
12(4): 195-97. April 1962.
26
-------
APPENDICES
27
-------
APPENDIX A.
TABULATION OF RESULTS
A tabulation was made of the participants responses to each
slide (Tables A-l through A-10) and from these, a summary of the
laboratories correctly identifying the particulates on each slide was
compiled (Table A-11). Figure A-l shows the distribution of the
number of substances correctly identified by the participants. As
a measure of how difficult each particulate was to identify. Figure A-2
compares the number of correct responses with the total possible
number of correct responses for each slide.
Table A-12 lists the type of microscope, the method of mea-
surement of particle size, and an estimation of the size of the particles
on slide 2.
Tables A-13 through A-15 tabulate the percent by weight of each
component on slides 8, 9, and 10 as determined by the participants,
and Table A-16 tabulates the magnifications used.
29
-------
Table A-l. PARTICULATE NAMED IN RESPONSE TO
POWER-PLANT FLY ASH, SLIDE 1
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
| |
nj i i ,-t
o "£ § "§ £ £
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Participate
Coniferous
wood
Ground glass
Potato starch
X
3 oi a
+- a, « a E
>> ra
-------
Table A -1. (continue d)
Laboratory
number
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
TOTAL
J3
o
(4
n)
S «
s - § *
s S " «
o 3 3 £
00*0^
X
1
X
1
X
X
3
1
Particulate
« 3 1
| § 43 ^
D.J3 £ W>3
^ 2 a3 -a 'S o
« "3 o § -t;
^ £>« g § -2
O G O P Lt O
PL, O O PL,
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
1
X
1
1
-t->
M ..
! & -o 5
"5 S* tu a .'S
>> 0) OJ . -£
I 1 -f-> fa- I t M C
cd pj Fn r^ T3
cd rf ai D* +-> O -r-t
U P4 « O 15
X
X
X
4
X
X
2
1
X
1
X
4
31
-------
Table A-2. PARTICULATE NAMED IN RESPONSE TO
LIMESTONE. SLIDE 2
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
Particulate
o
i-.
at
-*-»
-H ID
§ £ § «
£ 8 S <>
o 3 a> if?
0 O" U ^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 !
to n m
0. 3 o
>> £ rj
O fe §
X
X
X
X
S 1 1
S -s ra ^
rH CO Q> C
"-§ X fi +.5
-------
Table A-2. (continued)
Laboratory
number
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811-
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
TOTAL
o
rt
-w to
c 13 S *
£ 1 S |
d Ǥ 5 1
X
1
X
X
X
5
X
5
1
Particulate
£. § 8
K -3 3
O fe §
X
X
2
3
X
X
X
4
!H * ^)
fl) " .i-l
S o fl
^ -u a 5
-* "K o> w
4-» w o >i a>
!H 3 rt g +J -S
(U T3 rt .3 O "
fe EH J I?
X
1
X
2
X
X
X
6
X
X
6
33
-------
Table A-3. PARTICULATE NAMED IN RESPONSE TO
WOOD FLOUR, SLIDE 3
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
SH
1 a
1 §
1 $
X
X
X
X
X
X
Particulate
en
ra 3
3 0
0 fc
IH 0
-------
Table A-3. (continued)
Laboratory
number
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
TOTAL
?H
1 6
n 3
1 6
£ 0
X
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
1
Particulate
to
§ §
§ &
!H -o
-------
Table A-4. PARTICULATE NAMED IN RESPONSE TO
TALC, SLIDE 4
Laboratory number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
03
3 1 §
s t3 I "* § o
+ 0) 3 L. '-' o
h S ra Jl id P
1 § S a | ^
<5 0 O fe § 02
X
X
X
X
X
Particulate
ra
2 -
tn -IJ
0) 73 -r1
**-" O ^" ««
ll 1 |
u fe S
X
X
X
-»->
01
§ JH g "0
^ g § -2
" s,, » 5
a «i 5 g .1
^ £fl ^ a igs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
36
GPO 823-325-4
-------
Table A-4. (continued)
Laboratory number
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
TOTAL
CO
to *j
« -g | -3) §
-*-* (U 3 £j i-H
fc £ w S rt
I I s J «
© 0 0 £ §
X
2
X
2
X
2
X
1
X
1
Particulate
Styrofoam
Coniferous
wood
Fluorite
2
1
X
1
-*j
CD
o t* 2 "o
* 5 IS
>5 S u CO JJ
m Is '-H w o 2 c
0 -SSnSrH g^CU
23 cd(DT3oi .SOT)
§ U fe EH J is -1
X
3
X
1
1
X
X
X
7
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
10
37
-------
Table A-5. PARTICULATE NAMED IN RESPONSE TO
CEMENT, SLIDE 5
Laboratory number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
Particulate
| 1 *
ts 2 L" 6 §
t | S* * * S 13
rt B T! n ^ J? P- "K
3 > ^ to -g
S « ^ a «
O -)-. SH g -H t3
^ CtJ O .,-1 O -!
§ U 0 J 15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
38
-------
Table A-5. (continued)
Laboratory number
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
TOTAL
* 1
o 45
« t: ! ?« B
* I 8.C g " 3
rt C -r< to ? J5° p,
3 ,
& 0 £ Pk 0
2
X
X
X
5
X
X
2
X
2
X
2
Particulate
Metal dust
Styrofoam
Domestic-
stoker ash
1
X
1
X
2
to -£
CO «
4 « 1 8 I
*O (0 -i +j .rf
e >> ^ to -s
3 «n 13 ^ 2 §
o o 5 fc g -M -S
fn rj n) 0 .S 0 .3
O § 0 U J g
X
X
2
X
X
2
1
1
X
3
X
X
X
9
39
-------
Table A-6. PARTICULATE NAMED IN RESPONSE TO
INCINERATOR ASH. SLIDE 6
Laboratory number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
^
0
-+-»
g £ g si
3 § 1 3
u u £
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Particulate
03 -^
si « §
2=4!
« 11 § 5
0 a 0 3 ni
, i c +j o -t->
>> O co (H rt
£ Q O 0
X
X
X
+j
CO
e -s
"S c 8 3
-------
Table A-6. (continued)
Laboratory number
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
TOTAL
^
o
! 1 L
+s B 7! to
o
« « 'S g,
d ID ^ S ^
o 5 o 9 es
,-H fl -(J O -t->
>5 O tO ^ OJ
13 O O U
X
1
X
X
X
4
1
1
-H
to
-§ "8
"S«8 S
2 £ ° a
§ S oi g
QB O X! -H «
a o, o o ;!
05 H ^
X
1
1
X
X
6
41
-------
Table A-7. PARTICULATE NAMED IN RESPONSE TO
OIL SOOT, SLIDE 7
Laboratory number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
-t->
o I
1 .
+J ClJ P1 J3
N O SH J «1
-H» O Q> fit
H to ej x! £ ,.
C& I~t M ^ K^
X
X
X
Particulate
3 0) -H ,
S "3 t! * t1
M -< CQ Q;
1 ? ? II
O § O Q
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paint spray
Limestone
Not
identified
X
X
X
X
42
-------
Table A-7. (continued)
Laboratory number
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
TOTAL
* 3
J> 43
-^ tt O« si
to o t-i , ra
1 s s- 1*
4 3 1 s ° ^
(5 O fl PL,
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
7
X
3
X
X
X
3
Particulate
*-» i 03
03 n rt
g ^ $ X h
S "S m D
s « -a g-g
a t; ni B °
>» « ^ o K
O S O Q
X
2
X
X
6
X
2
X
X
X
8
rt oj -a
& § G
« « S
H 2 §
3 S -K T3
Cd -H O -r-l
PH J 15
1
1
X
4
43
-------
Table A-8. PARTICULATES NAMED IN RESPONSE TO
COTTON, MINERAL WOOL, AND ORLON, SLIDE 8
Laboratory number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
Particulate
si
01
nJ TJ
S >> °
CO I-H o
cd *< -< te to J- "°
-"- O !* w ° ^ °
o !3 § S -si 43 d - d 3
s 1 ? -a ill - * \ i
II i I s 1 1 s 1 1 1 I ! I s n 5
ogo0^oa)-^o!-i>^^onica3+30
U^^CMPin^SgUO^OH.aJCLiMO^ Number of components
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5
5
4
5
4
3
5
4
2
5
5
3
-------
Table A-8. (continued)
Laboratory number
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
Particulate
43
to
0)
*O
43 ,S> O
SIJ; Q
rH b. Ml 43 *O
JIM i! HH i
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 li 1 1 1 1 1 1 ?
CyAJiSkfejSSSUOlsOlliajpHOTOlz; Number of components
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
4
1
2
3
1
6
5
3
5
2
3
-------
Table A-8. (continued)
Laboratory number
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
TOTA L
Particulate
.e
0}
rt
-a
* £ ra o * S | ^ j. 1
S S 3 3 » * 3 -S 3 -S ? 3
01 5 ? "ct -a ^ 2 to js o. c
iliMiiNiflfiln-
Q" .5 |S (1, £ >S §§UO^;O(lHD5CLiwO2 Number of components
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
28
X
1
1
X
1
X
10
X
5
1
X
X
X
X
X
17
2
X
X
X
16
X
X
X
X
13
1
X
1
X
3
X
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
10
X
X
X
8
1
4
5
3
6
5
2
1
2
3
4
-------
Table A-9. PARTICULATES NAMED IN RESPONSE TO
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
Particulate m
* "H
_ tn T3 , o jj ** -o a
m «-H Q I^G no
-------
Table A-9. (continued)
Laboratory
number
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
Parti culate
10
! "§ i
2 f ° °
01 "O m & <1> O«
.c >> o jg -a S
s f - 1 s - ! 13* &l 125
| * o a 45 3 § o).^^^ ^-2 "5 " '§ ?
cNg^^^!6" ^Jjs S^-^ S "» S-g1"
I S ^ o 1 o | | 1 "§ "S " § I^Soll-rtiS.^^!^!
OO'O£^^(XOfa^§Ufa|z;OQOD5§(ilgwNHwg^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
5
2
7
4
2
2
2
3
-------
Table A-9. (continued)
Laboratory
number
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
TOTAL
Cotton
Quartz
Oil soot
Incinerator ash
Wheat starch
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
15
X
1
X
1
X
2
Wood flour
Power-plant fly ash
Gypsum
X
X
X
X
15
X
1
X
3
Fiber glass
Wool
Metal dust
Coniferous wood
2
X
X
3
X
2
X
X
X
6
Particulate
s 5
h G S
§ J3 §
.3 !» h
fc fc O
1
2
X
1
Domestic -stoker ash
X
1
m
I
o a
0 0
* « S-
2-1
n 3 s-i TJ o
3 a & g 1 s «
i2 !1J
g S g S S g g 4i | : 1
»Heiiaoloi-5ol5o3
OoSSp^&^MeHin^ll
X
X
8
X
5
X
X
5
X
1
X
X
7
5
1
2
X
1
X
4
1
6
1
5
4
4
5
3
2
2
-------
en
O
Table A-10. PARTICULATES NAMED IN RESPONSE TO 10 POSSIBLE PARTICLES ON SLIDE 10
!j
>
^
o
-»->
a
^
0
XI
,3
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
Participate
CO
cd -g
"1 1 1 I
rt T3 ^ fe Q> a
X! >> 0 g fl ^ ._ -5 d
rarj o ^ * O P^J-JT-t
w tt t( 3 -H ro_i w ij3-S aJCu " s_i ^QJ*^*"
j^cfl^r-J. cog^nj nl o 'tuo ^ ^ "5^ ^S55oSooQOrtip!«o^^£hw3|g
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4
4
5
7
8
8
3
1
6
5
3
Included In composition of slide.
-------
Table A-10. (continued)
PH
-------
Table A-10. (continued)
k
ID
|
C
>>
!H
O
V J
n)
^
JD
J
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9233
9613
Total
Particulate
00
"a "-s « I
W ol O S
a) , O O
. "U *< fe 4) D,
fi ^? o S c?-H-oP
n « 0 ^ Sramv-do
oJ-C fc O» >-H^3^i.S
7t-M t* -fj^I i-HSr^n^O
.%iu*-, VIH -.HI iti § nn
g-HOiu-JJ^Jj^aj '-''SiS'Sc-GS^''^ -t->£°leJrfe'' sS"13-0
Jjnjrt-^luo^a1o-H^c2^rt'fioSS.S5|rSct'f'2r^^g<-.S
UO'OSllSolll'oEoOQOlSipSKul^hHwJ^I
5
X
3
X
2
X
X
X
X
X
15
X
2
1
X
8
X
X
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
21
X
X
X
3
2
X
3
X
5
X
1
X
10
X
X
5
X
X
X
X
X
14
2
X
4
X
2
X
2
2
1
2
2
X
4
X
1
X
6
X
X
X
7
2
4
5
6
2
7
2
6
4
Included In composition of slide.
-------
Table A-11. SUMMARY OF LABORATORIES CORRECTLY
IDENTIFYING PARTICULATES ON EACH SLIDE
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
Slide number
12 3456789 10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
X
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
2
5
4
2
1
1
1
Total
Components
identified
correctly
6
9
5
10
11
12
11
7
2
11
9
7
7
10
0
0
12
0
13
10
9
8
0
5
4
6
6
No. slides
analyzed by
participant
5
5
5
6
7
7
6
5
2
7
5
4
4
7
0
0
8
0
6
6
6
5
0
4
4
4
5
53
-------
Table A-ll. (continued)
Laboratory
number
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
Correct
identifications,
total
Possible
identifications
Percent
identified
Slide number
123 456789 10
1
1
1
1
1
16
35
46
1
6
35
17
1
1
1
1
1
25
35
71
1
1
7
35
20
1
1
5
35
14
1
1
1
1
1
18
35
51
1
1
1
7
35
20
2
1
2
1
1
3
2
61
105
58
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
43
105
41
1
3
2
1
2
1
5
2
66
315
21
Total
Components
identified
correctly
8
7
8
6
7
6
15
7
No. slides
analyzed by
participant
7
4
5
6
5
6
8
5
54
-------
co
10
0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 18-22
NUMBER OF SUBSTANCES CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED
01
en
Figure A-1. Distribution of correctly identified particles.
-------
Ol
02
60
50
CO
o
40
30
20 -
10-
SUBSTANCES IN INCREASING ORDER OF IDENTIFICATION DIFFICULTY
Figure A-2. Difficulty of identifying single substances
slides 1 through 7.
on
-------
Table A-12. MICROSCOPE USED, METHOD OF MEASUREMENT, AND PARTICLE SIZE
DETERMINED ON PARTICULATE SLIDE 2, LIMESTONE
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
Microscope
o
Manufacturer
U
B&L
A
U
Z
B&L
U
B&L
B&L
Z
A
Polarizing
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non-
polarizing
X
X
Particle size
Range
--
1-60
0.5-25
0.5-60
1-20
2-40
1-40
5-40
--
12-43
1-40
Average
--
10
3.3
12
5
5
3.9
<5
--
10
Method of measurement
Eyepiece
micrometer
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Porton
disc
Whipple
disc
X
Other
01
-J
-------
Table A-12. (continued)
Laboratory
number
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
1811
2144
2211
2811
Microscope
Q
Manufacturer
B&L
A
A
B&L
A
--
CTS
Z
CTS
U
U
Polarizing
X
X
X
X
X
X
Non-
polarizing
X
X
X
X
Particle size
Range
1-35
5-50
0.5-52
--
1-30
10-50
--
0-58
1-40
2-25
1-50
Average
8-10
5
2.9
--
10
25
1
1. 15
3.3
7.5
20
Method of measurement
Eyepiece i
micrometer
X
X
X
X
X
X
Porton
disc
X
X
X
Whipple
disc
X
X
Other
-------
Table A-12. (continued)
Laboratory
number
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
Microscope
a
Manufacturer
--
S
B&L
Z
Z
--
Z
u
B&L
--
B&L
Polarizing
X
X
X
X
Non-
polarizing
X
X
X
X
Particle size
Range
--
4-48
1-40
--
2-86
--
0.5-9
2.5-40
10-150
--
0.7-100
Average
--
32
17
--
14
--
4.25
12.5
70
--
3.2
Method of measurement
Micrometer
X
X
X
X
X
Porton
disc
X
X
Whipple
disc
X
Other
Ol
CD
-------
en
o
Table A-12. (continued)
Laboratory
number
9223
9613
Microscope
Manufacturer
S
S
Polarizing
X
X
Non-
polarizing
Particle size
Range
1-85
3-54
Average
7.5
10
Method of measurement
Eyepiece
micrometer
X
Porton
disc
Whipple
disc
Other
X
U - Unitron
B&L - Bausch & Lomb
A - American Optical
Z - Zeiss
CTS - Cooke, Troughton & Simms
S - Spencer
-------
Table A-13. ESTIMATE BY PARTICIPANTS OF THE PERCENT
BY WEIGHT OF PARTICULATES ON SLIDE 8
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
1811
2144
Particulate
Orion
10
15
10
20
30
35
20
16
Cotton
10
10
5
30
30
20
<1
50
20
30
12
10
Mineral wool
70
65
20
96
30
20
60
75
45
Other
10
30
40
20
15
40
20
50
5
25
< 1
1
15
4
30
10
~1
10
72
5
10
14
5
36
61
-------
Table A-13. (continued)
Laboratory
number
2211
2811
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
Particulate
Orion
50
50
10
Cotton
10
25
10
90
5
30
Mineral wool
40
60
Other
40
25
20
<10
20
10
25
5
65
62
-------
Table A-14. ESTIMATE BY PARTICIPANTS OF THE PERCENT
BY WEIGHT OF PARTICULATES ON SLIDE 9
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
1811
2144
2211
2811
Particulate
Wheat starch
Wood flour
__
39
55
70
30
60
_-
50
25
50
68
_-
--
25
--
75
60
--
Quartz
59
25
50
50
75
50
15
75
40
Other
2
5
10
15
30
40
5
5
5
10
5
30
30
70
5
15
25
63
-------
Table A-14. (continued)
Laboratory
number
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
7813
8513
9223
9613
Particulate
Wheat starch
Wood flour
__
50
90
--
-_
80
--
--
--
--
40
--
Quartz
60
Other
20
30
10
20
15
35
50
64
-------
Table A-15. ESTIMATE BY PARTICIPANTS OF THE PERCENT
BY WEIGHT OF PARTICULATES ON SLIDE 10
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
Particulate
3 43
,11 a « s
6 .8 -8 ?£§«<«£*<
iHHIj 3 Ill
O^HfeOPk SOwQ O
5
85
<1
5
5
7
4
2
38
25
20
33
15
35
15
25
10
42
33
2
5
10
10
15
'30
--
33
20
25
<1
20
30
10
25
8
10
10
40
5
5
20
40
5
8
10
15
20
1
1
55
8
10
80
65
-------
Table A-15. (continued)
Laboratory
number
018
1116
1225
1314
1315
1811
2144
2211
2811
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
7112
7422
SO)
3
3. § 3 8
& 1 & S
0.9
__
__
--
2.2
10
--
15
5
10
--
--
5
Particulate
Graphite
Power-plant
fly ash
Metal dust
Oil soot
--
__
60
40
--
--
0.8
-_
Styrofoam
Domestic -
stoker ash
Other
2.4
7.0
96
32
10
20
20
10
35
40
20
75
10
50
66
-------
Table A-15. (continued)
Laboratory
number
7813
8513
9223
9613
3 -3 o 1
O J5 H £
35
2
--
Particulate
A to
"S. « 3 rt
30
15
S o S
50
50
3
15
67
-------
Table A-16. MAGNIFICATIONS USED BY PARTICIPANTS
Laboratory
number
02
03
04
05
06
07
09
010
Oil
014
015
016
017
018
Slide number
1
400
200
100
430
100
200
100
100
250
800
200
100
400
1000
40
100
200
100
100
430
2
400
200
100
430
440
550
100
200
400
100
100
150
200
250
800
200
100
400
100
40
100
100
430
3
400
100
100
430
100
200
100
100
150
200
250
800
200
100
400
40
970
100
100
100
430
4
400
100
100
430
100
200
400
100
100
150
200
250
800
200
100
400
100
100
100
100
430
5
400
100
100
430
100
200
400
100
100
150
200
250
800
200
100
400
100
100
100
100
430
6
400
100
100
430
100
200
100
25
100
150
200
250
800
200
100
400
100
100
100
100
430
7
400
200
100
430
100
200
400
100
400
100
150
200
250
200
800
100
400
100
970
430
100
100
430
8
400
200
100
430
100
200
400
100
400
100
150
200
250
800
200
100
400
100
970
430
100
100
430
9
400
100
100
430
50
100
200
25
100
400
100
250
200
800
100
400
100
430
860
100
100
430
10
400
100
100
430
50
100
200
400
25
100
...
250
200
800
100
400
100
430
100
100
430
68
GPO 823-325-8
-------
Fboratory
number
1 1 1 fi
X J. J.U
1225
1314
1315
1811
2144
2211
9 PI i
tt o ± J.
3111
3811
4211
4214
4611
5111
6111
Table
A-16.
(continued)
Slide number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
430
200
1200
128
225
600
200
400
n nn
ci UU
100
210
125
100
430
100
300
100
430
200
1200
128
400
225
600
200
400
100
9 fifi
£ UU
100
210
100
125
100
430
100
300
1000
430
200
1200
128
225
300
100
400
9 fifi
& UU
100
210
125
100
430
100
300
100
430
1200
225
300
100
400
100
210
125
100
430
100
450
300
100
430
1200
225
300
100
400
100
210
125
100
430
100
450
300
100
100
1200
128
225
600
100
100
210
---
100
430
100
450
300
100
430
200
1200
128
225
600
100
400
100
100
125
100
430
100
450
100
300
430
200
1200
128
225
600
100
400
100
100
125
100
4 0
100
450
300
100
430
200
___
128
225
450
100
400
100
100
210
100
430
100
450
100
300
35
430
---
1200
128
225
450
100
400
100
100
210
100
430
100
450
69
-------
Table A-16. (continued)
Laboratory
number
7112
7422
7010
8513
9223
9613
Slide number
1
50
100
400
450
100
430
160
360
---
2
200
400
450
100
430
160
360
100
3 4
50 50
400 100
400
450 450
100 100
430 430
160 160
360
--- 100
5 6
50 ---
100
400
450 ---
100 100
430 430
160 160
360 360
100 ---
789
___ _._ 50
200
._- -__ 100
100 100 100
430
160 160 160
360 360 360
--- --- 100
10
50
200
400
600
970
100
430
160
360
100
70
-------
APPENDIX B.
ANALYTICAL REFERENCE SERVICE MEMBERSHIP
STATE AGENCIES
Alabama Water Improvement Commission
Arizona State Department of Health
Arkansas State Board of Health
California Department of Water Resources
California State Department of Public Health (Berkeley)
California State Department of Public Health (Los Angeles)
Colorado State Department of Public Health
Connecticut State Department of Health
Delaware Water Pollution Commission
Florida State Board of Health (Bureau of Laboratories, Jacksonville)
Florida State Board of Health (Division of Sanitary Engineering,
Jacksonville)
Florida State Board of Health (Pensacola)
Florida State Board of Health (Winter Haven)
Hawaii State Department of Health
Idaho Department of Health
Illinois State Department of Public Health (Chicago)
Illinois State Department of Public Health (Springfield)
Illinois State Water Survey Division
Indiana State Board of Health
Kansas State Board of Health (Sanitary Engineering Laboratories)
Kentucky State Department of Health
Louisiana State Board of Health
Maryland State Department of Health
Maryland State Water Pollution Control Commission
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Michigan State Department of Health
Michigan Water Resources Commission
Minnesota State Department of Health
Missouri Department of Public Health and Welfare
Montana State Board of Health
Nassau County Department of Health
Nebraska State Department of Health
Nevada State Department of Health (Las Vegas)
Nevada State Department of Health (Reno)
New Hampshire State Department of Health
New Hampshire Water Pollution Commission
New Jersey State Department of Health
New Mexico State Department of Public Health
New York State Conservation Department
New York State Department of Health
71
-------
North Carolina Department of Water Resources
North Dakota State Department of Health
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Ohio State Department of Health
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Oregon State Board of Health
Pennsylvania Department of Health
Puerto Rico Institute of Health Laboratories
Rhode Island Department of Health
South Carolina Water Pollution Control Authority
South Dakota Department of Health
Tennessee Division of Preventable Diseases
Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Board
Texas State Department of Health
Utah State Department of Health
Vermont State Department of Health
Vermont State Department of Water Resources
Virginia State Department of Health
Virginia State Water Control Board
Washington State Department of Health
West Virginia State Water Resources Commission
Wisconsin State Board of Health
MUNICIPAL AGENCIES
Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, California
Alexander Orr, Jr., Water Treatment Plant, Miami, Florida
City Department of Health, New York, New York
City Department of Public Health, Pasadena, California
City Department of Water, Dayton, Ohio
City Department of Water Resources, Durham, North Carolina
City Health Department, Baltimore, Maryland
City Health Department, Beaumont, Texas
City Health Department, Houston, Texas
City Water Department, Charlotte, North Carolina
Department of Air Pollution Control, Chicago, Illinois
Department of Public Works and Utilities, Flint Water Plant
Flint, Michigan
Department of Service and Buildings, Dayton, Ohio
Department of Water and Sewers, South District Filtration Plant,
Chicago, Illinois
Erie County Laboratory, Buffalo, New York
Long Beach Water Department, Long Beach, California
Los Angeles County Flood Control District
Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Hyperion Treatment Plant
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Louisville Water Company, Incorporated
Metropolitan Utilities District, Omaha, Nebraska
72
-------
Philadelphia Department of Public Health
Philadelphia Department of Public Health (Occupational Environment
Section)
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company
Philadelphia Water Department (Belmont Laboratory)
Philadelphia Water Department (Torresdale Laboratory)
St. Louis County Water Company
St. Louis Department of Health and Hospitals
Water Works, Topoeka, Kansas
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Associated Universities, Incorporated, Brookhaven National Laboratory
DHEW, PHS, Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River Basin Project,
Annapolis, Maryland
DHEW, PHS, Great Lakes-Illinois River Basins Project, Chicago, Illinois
DHEW, PHS, Northeastern Radiological Health Laboratory, Winchester,
Massachusetts
DHEW, PHS, Northeast Shellfish Sanitation Research Center,
Narragansett, Rhode Island
DHEW, PHS, Off-Site Radiological Safety Program, Las Vegas, Nevada
DHEW, PHS, Water Quality Section, Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control, Cincinnati, Ohio
DHEW, PHS, Water Supply Section, Interstate Carrier Branch,
Washington, D. C.
Food and Drug Administration, Division of Pharmacology, Washington, D.C.
Fourth U.S. Army Medical Laboratory, Fort Sam Houston, Texas
Government of the District of Colombia, Department of Public Health
Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, San Francisco, California
Sixth U.S. Army Medical Laboratory, Fort Baker, California
Tennessee Valley Authority, Wilson Dam, Alabama (Occupational
Health Branch)
2793D U.S. Air Force Hospital, Regional Environmental Health
Laboratory, McClelland Air Force Base, California
2794th U. S. Air Force Dispensary - Class B, Kelley AFB, Texas
U. S. Air Force Radiological Health Laboratory, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio
U. S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Maryland
U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,
Colorado
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Colombus, Ohio
U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado
U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Sacramento,
California
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D. C.
73
-------
UNIVERSITIES
Case Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Sanitary Engineering
Columbia University
University of Florida, Department of Chemistry
Georgia Institute of Technology, Department of Applied Biology
Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health
University of Kansas, School of Engineering and Architecture
New Mexico State University, Department of Civil Engineering
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health
Purdue University, Department of Chemistry
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York
Rutgers The State University
Department of Agricultural Chemistry
Department of Environmental Science
University of Vermont, Related Service Division
Washington State University, Division of Industrial Research
INDUSTRY
American Cyanamid Company, Bound Brook, New Jersey
Anaconda Company, Grants, New Mexico
Atlantic Refining Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio
Bethlehem Steel Company, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Borg-Warner Corporation, Des Plaines, Illinois
California Water Service Company, San Jose, California
Culligan, Incorporated, Northbrook, Illinois
Dearborn Chemical Company, Chicago, Illinois
Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Aiken, South Carolina
El Paso Natural Gas Products Company, Conda, Idaho
Ekroth Laboratories, Incorporated, Brooklyn, New York
Fairbanks, Morse, and Company, Research Center, Beloit, Wisconsin
Food Machinery and Chemical Corporation, Pocatello, Idaho
General Electric Company, Louisville, Kentucky
Goodyear Atomic Corporation, Piketon, Ohio
HALL Laboratories Division, Calgon Corporation, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Haxleton Nuclear Science Corporation, Palo Alto, California
Industrial Chemicals, Incorporated, South Bend, Indiana
Ionics, Incorporated, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Kennecott Copper Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah
Maryland Cooperative Milk Producers, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri
Minute Maid Company, Anaheim, California
Monsanto Chemical Company, St. Louis, Missouri
74
-------
NALCO Chemical Company, Chicago, Illinois
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Emerybille, California
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, California
Pan American World Airways, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida
Pomeroy and Associates, Pasadena, California
Radiation Detection Company, Mountain View, California
Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Las Vegas, Nevada
Roy F. Weston, Incorporated, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania
Sandia Corporation, Sandia Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Shell Chemical Company, New York, New York
Southern Testing and Research Laboratories, Wilson, North Carolina
Tracerlab, Incorporated, Richmond, California
U. S. Industrial Chemicals Company, Tuscola, Illinois
Water Service Laboratories, Incorporated, New York, New York
FOREIGN
British Coke Research Association, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, England
Central Electricity Research Laboratories, Leatherhead, Surrey, England
Comissao Inter-Municipal de Controle da Poluicao das Aguas E Do Ar,
Sao Paulo, Brasil
Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, Vancouver,
B. C., Canada
Department of Municipal Laboratories, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Department of National Health and Welfare, Occupational Health
Division, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Department of National Health and Welfare, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Institute Nacional de Obras Sanitarias, Caracas, Venezuela
Metropolitan Corporation of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Metropolitan Water, Sewerage, and Drainage Board, Sydney, Australia
Ministere de la Sante, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
National University of Colombia, Bogota, Colombia, South America
Permutit Company, Limited, London, England
Scientific Research Council, Kingston, Jamaica, West Indies
Taiwan Institute of Environmental Sanitation, PHS, Taiwan
Pingtung Air Pollution Laboratory
Pingtung Organic Waste Laboratory
Taichung Water Laboratory
Tainun Water Laboratory
Taipei Milk Laboratory
Taipei Radiological Health Laboratory
Taipei Water Laboratory
Taitung Water Laboratory
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Didcot, Berks, England
University of Beograd, Civil Engineering Faculty, Beograd, Yugoslavia
University of Leeds, Houldsworth School of Applied Science, Leeds, England
Water Research Association, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, England
GPO 823-325-7 75
------- |