Caution on Using Tetrahydrofuran for Processing Crystalline Silica Samples From Engineered Stone for XRD Analysis

• Published in: Annals of work exposures and health Vol. 66; no. 9; p. 1210
• Main Authors: Qi, Chaolong, Thompson, Drew, Amy Feng, H
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 15.11.2022
• Subjects: Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis; Dust - analysis; Furans - analysis; Humans; Inhalation Exposure - analysis; Occupational Exposure - analysis; Silicon Dioxide - analysis; tetrahydrofuran; crystalline silica; engineered stone
• ISSN: 2398-7316
• DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxac063

We conducted laboratory experiments to investigate a suspected effect of tetrahydrofuran (THF) on quantifying crystalline silica in samples collected from working with engineered stone when THF is used to process samples prior to the X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. Two groups of samples from grinding either engineered stone or granite were simultaneously taken from a laboratory testing system, with one group of samples using THF for processing and another group using muffle furnace for ashing. For each stone type, we also tested four levels of respirable dust loading on the samples by varying the grinding time from 1 to 8 min. Statistical analysis of the experimental results on crystalline silica contents of the two groups of samples showed that the difference between the two methods was not significant (P ≥ 0.05) for the granite at all four levels of respirable dust loading and for the engineered stone at the two levels of respirable dust loading greater than 0.5 mg. However, the crystalline silica content from using THF processing was significantly lower (P = 0.001) than that from using muffle furnace ashing for engineered stone when the respirable dust loading levels were less than 0.5 mg. For the engineered stone dust samples with grinding times of 1 and 2 min, the average respirable dust loading was about 0.19 and 0.34 mg, respectively; while the crystalline silica content from using THF processing was 30.9 and 21.5% lower than that from using muffle furnace ashing, respectively. Since most full-shift samples from field assessments in this industry are expected to have respirable dust loading less than 0.5 mg, muffle furnace or radio frequency plasma ashing should be specified as the preferred sample processing method instead of the THF processing method for quantification of crystalline silica when engineered stone is expected to present to avoid artificially reduced silica content values, which are likely caused by the reactions between THF and the resins in engineered stone.