A Comparison of Fibre Counting Across Three European National Proficiency Testing Schemes

Abstract

Proficiency testing (PT) schemes seek to improve and maintain consistency in asbestos fibre counting by circulating mounted samples to laboratories, which return counts for comparison with consensus reference values. This study compares the level of these consensus values in three (Spanish, Belgian and UK) national PT schemes. It also assesses the effect of the imminent change in the European standard rules for counting asbestos fibres, to the new rules from the World Health Organisation (WHO), which will include more fibres. Forty samples from the three schemes were circulated to six laboratories, two in each national scheme. The UK and Spanish laboratories counted using both the ERM and the WHO method. Belgian laboratories already use the WHO method, and they counted only by this method. Densities from counts in this sample exchange served as a common basis against which we compared the national reference values (R). This produced a geometric overall mean ratio of R to exchange mean density of 0.94 for the UK scheme, 1.01 for the Spanish and 0.97 for the Belgian scheme, and thus indicated remarkably similar levels. Nevertheless, non-trivial systematic inter-laboratory differences confirmed the need for regular PT and international inter-laboratory comparisons. Examination of previous data from the national PT schemes and from an international scheme (AFRICA) provided further comparisons for the same laboratories (either comparing the laboratory's data with R values or making direct comparisons between laboratories) that are consistent with those from this special exchange. The change in fibre counting rule (to include fibres apparently touching particles with diameter >3 microm) produced mean increases in reported densities that ranged among samples from 0 to 70% (highest individual estimate 170%); the effect was broadly similar for the three schemes. The laboratories gave mostly similar estimates of percentage increase; however, one laboratory occasionally produced high estimates indicating a possible need for training for using the new method.