Air sample data were collected during asbestos abate ment of two buildings using area and personal sampling methods. Abatement involved removal of pipe insula tion from crawl spaces. The two sampling methods were compared to determine if there was a relationship be tween them. A relationship was observed between area and personal airborne samples in building 2 as deter mined by correlation and regression but is most likely due to chance. One major outlier was detected for both area and personal measurement sample data sets in building 2. It was concluded that any relationship be tween area and personal sample measurements must be viewed with caution. Concentrations measured from personal sampling were statistically higher than those from area sampling. Also, the distributions of concentra tions in the samples were calculated to be nonnormal (logarithmic form). It is proposed that area sampling under-estimates worker exposure compared to personal measurements and is not applicable for exposure and hazard assessment. It is suggested that area and person al samples measure two different population concentra tions of airborne fibers. Use of area samples in lieu of personal measurements should only be employed with caution.

Air sample data were collected during asbestos abatement of two buildings using area and personal sampling methods. Abatement involved removal of pipe insulation from crawl spaces. The two sampling methods were compared to determine if there was a relationship between them. A relationship was observed between area and personal airborne samples in building 2 as determined by correlation and regression but is most likely due to chance. One major outlier was detected for both area and personal measurement sample data sets in building 2. It was concluded that any relationship between area and personal sample measurements must be viewed with caution. Concentrations measured from personal sampling were statistically higher than those from area sampling. Also, the distributions of concentrations in the samples were calculated to be nonnormal (logarithmic form). It is proposed that area sampling under-estimates worker exposure compared to personal measurements and is not applicable for exposure and hazard assessment. It is suggested that area and personal samples measure two different population concentrations of airborne fibers. Use of area samples in lieu of personal measurements should only be employed with caution.

Pleuroparenchymal fibro-elastosis (PPFE) is a rare idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. Secondary forms of PPFE may occur in patients following lung-or bone marrow transplantation. Here we report a middle-aged woman who presented with dyspnea and cough. She had been working as a cleaning woman in an agriculture company and logistic firm. Chest HRCT was highly suggestive for PPFE. Histopathological examination of a surgical biopsy showed a pattern of PPFE with airway-centered fibro-elastosis, constrictive bronchiolitis and birefringent particles in the pathological areas only. Using transmission electron microscopy with X-ray diffraction (TEM/EDX) these particles were identified as quartz and silicates, both components generally found in soil. The present case illustrates that secondary PPFE may result from agricultural dust exposure and stresses the need for a careful workup of the occupational history.

No abstract