ASTM D7390-18e1

Standard Guide for Evaluating Asbestos in Dust on Surfaces by Comparison Between Two Environments

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This guide describes factors to be considered by an investigator designing a sampling program to compare the asbestos dust loadings in two environments and presents statistical methods for making the comparison. Each user is responsible for the design of an investigation and the interpretation of data collected when using dust data.  
5.2 This guide does not deal with situations where dusts of different compositions or from different surfaces are to be evaluated.  
5.3 This guide describes methods for interpreting the results of sampling and analysis performed in accordance with Test Methods D5755 and D6480. It may be appropriate to use the procedures in this guide with other dust collection and analysis methods, but it is the responsibility of the user to make this determination.  
5.4 The methods described in this guide are not intended to be used alone. They are intended to be used along with various evaluation methods that may include consideration of building use, activities within the building, air sampling, asbestos surveys (refer to Practice E2356), evaluation of building history and study of building ventilation systems.  
5.5 This guide describes methods for comparing environments and does not draw any conclusions relating asbestos surface loadings to the potential safety or habitability of buildings.  
5.6 This guide does not address risk assessments or the use of dust sampling in risk assessment. Health based risk assessments are beyond the scope of this guide.  
5.7 Warning—Asbestos fibers are acknowledged carcinogens. Breathing asbestos fibers can result in disease of the lungs including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. Precautions should be taken to avoid creating and breathing airborne asbestos particles when sampling and analyzing materials suspected of containing asbestos. Regulatory requirements addressing asbestos are defined by USEPA3,4 and OSHA.5
SCOPE
1.1 There are multiple purposes for determining the loading of asbestos in dust on surfaces. Each particular purpose may require unique sampling strategies, analytical methods, and procedures for data interpretation. Procedures are provided to facilitate application of available methods for determining asbestos surface loadings and/or asbestos loadings in surface dust for comparison between two environments. At present, this guide addresses one application of the ASTM surface dust methods. It is anticipated that additional areas will be added in the future. It is not intended that the discussion of one application should limit use of the methods in other areas.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For specific warning statements, see 5.7.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

General Information

• Status: Published
• Publication Date: 31-May-2018
• ICS: 13.040.20 - Ambient atmospheres
• ICS: 13.300 - Protection against dangerous goods
• Technical Committee: D22 - Air Quality
• Drafting Committee: D22.07 - Sampling, Analysis, Management of Asbestos, and Other Microscopic Particles

Relations

• Replaces: ASTM D7390-18 - Standard Guide for Evaluating Asbestos in Dust on Surfaces by Comparison Between Two Environments
• Effective Date: 01-Jun-2018
• Refers: ASTM E456-13a(2022)e1 - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 01-Apr-2022
• Refers: ASTM D6480-19 - Standard Test Method for Wipe Sampling of Surfaces, Indirect Preparation, and Analysis for Asbestos Structure Number Surface Loading by Transmission Electron Microscopy
• Effective Date: 01-Jun-2019
• Refers: ASTM E2356-18 - Standard Practice for Comprehensive Building Asbestos Surveys
• Effective Date: 01-Oct-2018
• Refers: ASTM E456-13A(2017)e3 - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 01-Oct-2017
• Refers: ASTM E456-13A(2017)e1 - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 01-Oct-2017
• Refers: ASTM E2356-14 - Standard Practice for Comprehensive Building Asbestos Surveys
• Effective Date: 15-Jan-2014
• Refers: ASTM E456-13ae2 - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 15-Nov-2013
• Refers: ASTM E456-13ae1 - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 15-Nov-2013
• Refers: ASTM E456-13a - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 15-Nov-2013
• Refers: ASTM E456-13ae3 - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 15-Nov-2013
• Refers: ASTM E456-13 - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 15-Aug-2013
• Refers: ASTM E456-12e1 - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 01-May-2012
• Refers: ASTM E456-12 - Standard Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
• Effective Date: 01-May-2012
• Refers: ASTM D6480-05(2010) - Standard Test Method for Wipe Sampling of Surfaces, Indirect Preparation, and Analysis for Asbestos Structure Number Concentration by Transmission Electron Microscopy
• Effective Date: 01-Oct-2010

Overview

ASTM D7390-18e1 is an internationally recognized standard guide developed by ASTM International. This guide provides practical direction for evaluating asbestos in dust on surfaces through comparison between two environments. Designed for use by building investigators, industrial hygienists, and environmental professionals, the standard helps inform procedures for sample collection, evaluation, and statistical comparison of asbestos loading on building surfaces. It is intended to support informed decisions regarding environmental quality where asbestos presence is a concern, especially following disturbances or remediation.

Key Topics

• Sampling Program Design

  • Guidance on factors to consider when planning to compare asbestos dust loadings between two environments.
  • Emphasis on choosing appropriate sampling locations, types of samples, and ensuring representativeness and homogeneity.

• Statistical Comparison Methods

  • Outlines procedures for interpreting quantitative results from dust sample analysis.
  • Provides methods for estimating asbestos loading, calculating confidence intervals, and evaluating statistical differences between environments.

• Data Interpretation and Reporting

  • Describes requirements for data analysis-including use of results from ASTM D5755 (microvacuum sampling) and D6480 (wipe sampling).
  • Specifies quality control practices (use of field blanks, background samples, and control samples).
  • Offers structured formats for data presentation and complete reporting, fostering transparency and reproducibility.

• Scope and Limitations

  • Clarifies that the guide solely addresses comparison of asbestos loading on surfaces-not health risk assessment or regulatory compliance.
  • Advises integration with other evaluation methods, such as building use reviews, air sampling, and comprehensive asbestos surveys.
  • Warns of health and safety risks associated with asbestos fibers and highlights the need to follow all related regulatory guidelines (e.g., USEPA and OSHA rules).

Applications

Practical Uses of ASTM D7390-18e1:

• Building Renovation and Remediation:
  Used to assess the effectiveness of asbestos abatement or cleaning by comparing post-remediation conditions to designated background or control environments.

• Environmental Investigations:
  Supports comparative studies following accidental asbestos disturbance, such as after construction, damage, or disaster events (e.g., fire or flood).

• Occupancy Re-Evaluation:
  Helps building owners or facility managers determine the cleanliness of occupied versus unoccupied or undisturbed sections regarding asbestos surface contamination.

• Legal and Regulatory Support:
  Provides scientifically valid methodologies for evidence gathering in compliance with local, state, or federal requirements.

• Quality Assurance in Environmental Services:
  Guides laboratories and consultants in integrating standardized statistical methods and reporting into their asbestos dust analysis services.

Related Standards

The successful application of ASTM D7390-18e1 is closely linked with several other ASTM standards and practices:

• ASTM D5755: Test Method for Microvacuum Sampling and Indirect Analysis of Dust by Transmission Electron Microscopy for Asbestos Structure Number Surface Loading.

• ASTM D6480: Test Method for Wipe Sampling of Surfaces, Indirect Preparation, and Analysis for Asbestos Structure Number Surface Loading by Transmission Electron Microscopy.

• ASTM E2356: Practice for Comprehensive Building Asbestos Surveys.

• ASTM E456: Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics.

Additionally, compliance with federal regulations such as USEPA (40 CFR Part 61 & 763) and OSHA (29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926) is required when sampling and handling asbestos-containing materials.

Conclusion

Employing ASTM D7390-18e1 enhances the reliability and scientific rigor of asbestos dust evaluations in buildings. By following its standardized approach to sampling, analysis, and statistical comparison, professionals can draw clear, defendable conclusions about asbestos presence in different environments-supporting safer buildings, informed remediation, and regulatory compliance. Proper adherence to safety protocols and integrated use with related standards is essential for effective and responsible asbestos surface dust evaluation.

Standards Content (Sample)

This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
´1
Designation: D7390 − 18
Standard Guide for
Evaluating Asbestos in Dust on Surfaces by Comparison
Between Two Environments
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D7390; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
ε NOTE—Editorial corrections were made throughout in October 2018.
1. Scope D6480 Test Method forWipe Sampling of Surfaces, Indirect
Preparation, and Analysis for Asbestos Structure Number
1.1 There are multiple purposes for determining the loading
Surface Loading by Transmission Electron Microscopy
of asbestos in dust on surfaces. Each particular purpose may
E456 Terminology Relating to Quality and Statistics
require unique sampling strategies, analytical methods, and
E2356 Practice for Comprehensive Building Asbestos Sur-
procedures for data interpretation. Procedures are provided to
veys
facilitate application of available methods for determining
asbestos surface loadings and/or asbestos loadings in surface
3. Terminology
dust for comparison between two environments. At present,
this guide addresses one application of theASTM surface dust 3.1 Definitions—Unless otherwise noted all statistical terms
methods. It is anticipated that additional areas will be added in
are as defined in Terminology E456.
the future. It is not intended that the discussion of one
3.1.1 activity generated aerosol, n—adispersionofparticles
application should limit use of the methods in other areas.
in air that have become airborne due to physical disturbances
such as human activity, sweeping, airflow, etc.
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
3.1.2 background samples, n—samples taken from surfaces
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
that are considered to have concentrations of asbestos in
priate safety, health, and environmental practices and deter-
surfacedustthatarerepresentativeofconditionsthatexistinan
mine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
environment that is affected by only prevailing conditions and
For specific warning statements, see 5.7.
has not experienced events, disturbances or activities unusual
1.3 This international standard was developed in accor-
for the environment.
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
3.1.3 control, n—an area that is used as the basis for a
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
comparison.
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
3.1.3.1 Discussion—This could be an area where the dust
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
has been previously characterized, an area thought to be
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
suitable for occupancy, an area that has not experienced a
disturbance of asbestos-containing materials, or that is for
2. Referenced Documents
some other reason deemed to be suitable as the basis for a
2.1 ASTM Standards:
comparison.
D5755 TestMethodforMicrovacuumSamplingandIndirect
3.1.4 control samples, n—samples collected for comparison
Analysis of Dust by Transmission Electron Microscopy
to the study samples.
for Asbestos Structure Number Surface Loading
3.1.4.1 Discussion—These differ from background samples
in that they are collected: either: in an area where the dust has
been previously characterized, or in an area that has not
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D22 on Air Quality
experienced a disturbance of asbestos-containing materials, or
and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D22.07 on Sampling, Analysis,
in an area that is for some other reason deemed to be suitable
Management of Asbestos, and Other Microscopic Particles.
CurrenteditionapprovedJune1,2018.PublishedJuly2018.Originallyapproved
as the basis for comparison.
in 2007. Last previous edition approved in 2012 as D7390 – 07 (2012). DOI:
3.1.5 dust, n—any material composed of particles in a size
10.1520/D7390-18E01.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or range of <1 mm.
contact ASTM Customer Service at [e-mail]. For Annual Book of ASTM
3.1.6 environment, n—well defined three-dimensional area
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website. and everything that is in it.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
´1
D7390 − 18
3.1.7 homogeneous samples, n—group of samples that are confidence intervals for such estimates, and comparing be-
collected from surfaces that are visually similar in texture, dust tween such estimates.
loading and environment.
5. Significance and Use
3.1.8 laboratory blank, n—a cassette or wipe taken from
5.1 This guide describes factors to be considered by an
laboratory stock that are not affected by field activities.
investigator designing a sampling program to compare the
3.1.9 loading, n—quantity of asbestos in the dust found on
asbestos dust loadings in two environments and presents
a surface as measured by the ASTM standard methods for
statistical methods for making the comparison. Each user is
evaluating asbestos in dust on surfaces.
responsible for the design of an investigation and the interpre-
3.1.10 open field blank, n—cassette or wipe opened in the
tation of data collected when using dust data.
field as if for sample collection and then immediately closed
5.2 This guide does not deal with situations where dusts of
that is analyzed in the same manner as a regular sample.
different compositions or from different surfaces are to be
3.1.11 power, n—power of the test is the probability, ex-
evaluated.
pressed as a decimal fraction, that a specified difference
5.3 This guide describes methods for interpreting the results
between asbestos surface loadings in two environments will be
of sampling and analysis performed in accordance with Test
detected by the test.
Methods D5755 and D6480. It may be appropriate to use the
3.1.12 replicates, n—samples collected from an area that is
procedures in this guide with other dust collection and analysis
visually identified as homogeneous.
methods, but it is the responsibility of the user to make this
3.1.13 sampling set, n—samples collected on the same day
determination.
on surfaces in an area for the purpose of characterizing the
5.4 The methods described in this guide are not intended to
asbestosloadinginthedustofthesamplessurfacesinthatarea.
be used alone.They are intended to be used along with various
3.1.14 sealed field blank, n—cassette or wipe taken to the
evaluation methods that may include consideration of building
field but remaining closed at all times.
use, activities within the building, air sampling, asbestos
3.1.15 study samples, n—samples collected in an area be-
surveys (refer to Practice E2356), evaluation of building
lieved to have experienced events, disturbances or activities
history and study of building ventilation systems.
affecting asbestos-containing materials.
5.5 This guide describes methods for comparing environ-
3.1.15.1 Discussion—The area in which these samples are
ments and does not draw any conclusions relating asbestos
taken is called the study area. Study samples are compared to
surface loadings to the potential safety or habitability of
background samples or control samples.
buildings.
4. Summary of Guide
5.6 This guide does not address risk assessments or the use
of dust sampling in risk assessment. Health based risk assess-
4.1 Theguidancecontainedinthisdocumentwasdeveloped
ments are beyond the scope of this guide.
for applications of Test Methods D5755 and D6480. The
application addressed in this document is sampling to test for
5.7 Warning—Asbestos fibers are acknowledged carcino-
differences in surface loading in two or more environments
gens. Breathing asbestos fibers can result in disease of the
including comparison to environments that may be considered
lungs including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.
to be “background.”
Precautions should be taken to avoid creating and breathing
airborne asbestos particles when sampling and analyzing
4.2 Factors affecting the selection of sampling sites and
materialssuspectedofcontainingasbestos.Regulatoryrequire-
types of samples to be collected are described in Appendix X1.
3,4
ments addressing asbestos are defined by USEPA and
These factors include:
OSHA.
4.2.1 Uniformity and distribution of dust within a building,
4.2.2 The nature of dust found within buildings,
6. Comparison Between Environments
4.2.3 Thenatureofthesurfacefromwhichsamplesaretobe
collected, 6.1 Oneuseofdustsamplingistocomparetheasbestosdust
4.2.4 Past disturbances of asbestos-containing materials, loadingsonsurfacesintwoenvironments.Thisguidedescribes
4.2.5 Environmental conditions, several ways in which such a comparison might be made. The
4.2.6 Ventilation, user should consider these and other site-specific factors in
Appendix X1, Factors Affecting Sample Collection, that may
4.2.7 Building history,
4.2.8 Occupation and activity of occupants, and affect the interpretation of results and the need to proceed
beyond the Baseline Calculations in Section 7.
4.2.9 Outdoor sampling.
6.1.1 Comparison to Background Samples—If one environ-
4.3 This guide describes statistical procedures to be used
ment is considered to represent conditions that are typical of a
for:
building this could be used as the source of background
4.3.1 Defining sampling needs including the size, number
and location of samples required to address a particular
application; and
USEPA, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M.
4.3.2 Interpreting analytical results—estimating loadings or
USEPA, 40 CFR Part 763, Subpart E.
loadings from single or multiple-sample results, establishing OSHA, 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926.
´1
D7390 − 18
samples against which study samples from areas in questions Field Blanks,” then the “Sealed Field Blanks” should be
could be compared. Areas may be in question due to distur- analyzed. If no asbestos is found on the “Open Field Blank”
bance of an asbestos-containing material, damage to the there is no need to analyze the sealed blanks. If any blank is
building materials, change in occupancy or any other occur- found to contain more than the limit set forth in the section on
rence that could change the asbestos loading in dust. blanks in the appropriate method then the sampling may be
considered to be suspect. Do not adjust the sample results with
6.2 Sample Collection Requirements:
the results of the blank filter analyses.
6.2.1 Homogeneous Dust—A visual determination should
6.6 Data Interpretation:
be made about the homogeneity of the dust and site to be
6.6.1 For each sample set the Analytical Parameters tabu-
sampled. Samples should be collected from homogeneous
lated for the examples in Section 7 should be extracted from
locations within each area—study and background. A location
the laboratory report. For each sample the number of asbestos
is considered to be homogeneous if:
structures counted, analytical sensitivity of the analysis, and
6.2.1.1 Thesamplesiteshavevisuallysimilardepositionsof
surface loading should be entered in the tables for the study
dust on their surfaces, including the absence of visible dust.
samples and background samples. Where both study samples
6.2.1.2 The surfaces to be sampled have the same type of
and background samples are taken, the upper and lower 95 %
surface texture based upon a visual determination.
6.2.2 The efficiency of dust collection on a given surface is confidence limits (95 % combined upper confidence limit (95
% UCL) and 95 % combined lower confidence limit (95 %
likely to be different for wipe and microvacuum methods (see
Crankshaw et al. (1) ). As such, the same sample collection LCL)) can be calculated for the background samples and study
samples, respectively, using the procedures in Section 7. The
method should be used for samples that are to be compared.
example most descriptive of the user’s investigation should be
6.3 Selection of Sampling Locations:
used as a guide.
6.3.1 Representative Locations—Samples should be col-
6.6.2 For each sample set the Combined Measurements
lectedfromlocationsandsurfacesthatarerepresentativeofthe
tables in Section 7 should be completed according to the
environments to be tested. In the study area proximity to
instructions provided. Where both study samples and back-
sources of asbestos fiber release may be a consideration.
ground samples are taken, if the 95 % LCL of the study
6.3.2 Depending on the configuration of the sampling site
samples is less than the 95 % UCLof the background samples
andsurfacestobesampled,itmaybepossibletorandomizethe
the distributions overlap, indicating no statistical difference.
selection of sampling locations with a random number table or
6.6.3 Where no background samples are taken, Section 7
other means.Accessibility of sites for sampling may be limited
presents appropriate comparisons from which the user may
by safety, security, or other considerations.
also draw reasonable inferences.After reviewing the results of
6.4 Number of Samples:
the study sample analyses and, in consultation with the
6.4.1 Asufficient number of samples should be collected to
laboratory, the user may want to dispense with analysis of the
be able to discern differences that may exist between the study
background samples if the information from them would not
area and background area. For the examples of Baseline
justify the cost or time required.
Calculations in Section 7 this number is defined as five study
6.6.4 If the overlap or separation of the confidence intervals
samples and, where taken, five background samples. Cost and
is small the Baseline Calculations in Section 7 may be
accessibility being factors that affect the number of samples
augmented with other statistical tests described in Appendix
taken, this combination of sample sets is seen as the minimum
X2 to confirm the conclusion.
from which a reasonable comparison of results may be made.
6.7 Asbestos Structure Types and Sizes:
If the user cannot do so, additional samples or statistical tests
6.7.1 The mineral form(s) of the asbestos found during
as described in Appendix X2 may be considered.
analysis of dust samples should be considered. If the mineral
6.5 Sampling and Analytical Requirements:
form of the asbestos within or between sample sets (study and
6.5.1 Collect and analyze samples as described in Test
background) differs, the user shall consider the impact on the
Methods D5755 and D6480.
interpretation of the data and the decisions derived therefrom.
6.5.2 Quality Control Requirements—The following blanks
6.7.2 If the size or type of asbestos structures differs
should be collected as part of the sampling:
between the study samples and background samples this also
6.5.2.1 A sealed field blank per lot of cassettes or wipes.
may indicate a difference in the dust loadings at each site. For
6.5.2.2 One open field blank for each set of five study
example, if one set of samples consists of small fibers and the
samples and one open field blank for each set of five back-
other set has large matrices, then these areas would appear to
ground samples, if taken.
bedifferent.Assuch,additionalinvestigationmaybenecessary
6.5.2.3 Blanks should be sent to the laboratory for analysis
in such an instance, even if statistical analysis of the number or
in the same manner as a regular sample. Blanks need not be
mass of particles finds no difference between the sites.
analyzed if no asbestos is found in the study samples or
6.8 Reporting:
background samples. If asbestos is found the “Open Field
6.8.1 Theuser’sreportshouldcontainsufficientinformation
Blanks” should be analyzed. If asbestos is found on the “Open
to allow the reader to locate the sampling sites, and repeat the
sampling if conditions permit.
6.8.2 The complete data set should be reported, including
The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to a list of references at the end of
this standard. results of blanks and background samples.
´1
D7390 − 18
6.8.2.1 For each sample the number of asbestos structures, (CHIINV(0.975,2·N)/2),0)) for the 95 % LCL and (IF(N>0,
analytical sensitivity, asbestos loading and upper and lower (CHIINV(0.025,2·(N+1))/2),(CHIINV(0.05,2)/2))) for the 95
95 % confidence limits on the asbestos loading should be % UCL.
tabulated according to the examples and procedures in Section 7.3.1 The 95 % LCL and 95 % UCL in Table 1 refer to the
7.
number of structures at these limits, not the surface loading,
which is calculated from the analytical parameters as shown in
6.8.2.2 For each Combined Set of samples the total asbestos
structures counted, sum of sensitivity weights, and estimate of the examples.
asbestos loading for the environment along with upper and 7.3.2 The following terms are used in the tables in the
lower 95 % confidence limits on this estimate should be examples. All of the Analytical Parameters should be in the
tabulated according to the examples and procedures in 7. laboratory report or available from the laboratory. (See also
3.1, Definitions.)
6.8.2.3 If statistical tests other than those in Section 7 are
used, the type of statistical comparisons and results of these 7.3.2.1 Effective filter area is the area of the filter on which
the rinse solution aliquot is deposited for TEM analysis. It is
comparisons should be given.
nottheareaofthefilterinthesamplecollectioncassette,which
6.8.3 Laboratory reports should be included as an appendix
is not analyzed.
to the report.
7.3.2.2 Sampleareaistheareaofthesurfacesampledbythe
user and is assumed to be 100 cm² unless the user specifies
7. Examples of Baseline Calculations
otherwise. It may vary for different samples.
7.1 Each of the eight examples in this section illustrates the
7.3.2.3 Volume filtered is the volume of the rinse solution
calculation procedures to compare study samples to back-
aliquotdepositedonthefilterforTEManalysis.Itmayvaryfor
groundsamplesorothercriteria.Theexamplesdescribetypical
different samples.
scenarios encountered in settled dust sampling and analysis for
7.3.2.4 Analytical Sensitivity is the surface loading calcu-
asbestos, and have the following attributes.
lated on the basis of finding one structure in the sample and is
7.1.1 All examples are based on five study samples and,
a function of the analytical parameters. It may vary for
where applicable, five background samples.
different samples.
7.1.2 The tables in each example illustrate separately calcu-
7.3.2.5 Number of Structures is the total number counted in
lations for the individual study samples and, where applicable,
allgridopeningsforthesampleaccordingtothecountingrules
the individual background samples, followed by calculations
of the analytical method.
for the combined study samples and, where applicable, the
7.3.2.6 SensitivityWeight is the reciprocal of theAnalytical
combined background samples, then comparing the distribu-
Sensitivity for each sample.
tions of the combined sample sets.
7.3.2.7 Structures 95 % LCL is the lower 95 % confidence
7.1.3 The combined sample sets are compared by calculat-
limit of the study samples and Structures 95 % UCL is the
ingthe95%LowerConfidenceLimit(95%LCL)ofthestudy
upper 95 % confidence limit of the background samples, based
samples to the 95 % Upper Confidence Limit (95 % UCL) of
on the Poisson distribution in Table 1. (See 7.3.)
the background samples. If the confidence limits overlap the
7.4 Example 1 — Study Samples Exceed Background
user can reasonably conclude that there is no significant
Sample but No Statistical Difference (Tables 2-6):
statistical difference at the 95 % confidence level.
7.4.1 Example 1 illustrates a hypothetical situation where a
7.1.4 TestMethodD5755directstheanalystto“stopongrid
contractor scraped off small sections of asbestos-containing
opening No. 10 or the grid opening which contains the 100th
fireproofing on one floor of an office building. The work was
asbestos structure, whichever comes first.” It is not uncommon
doneatseverallocationsandwhentheerrorwasdiscoveredthe
for the analyst to identify 100 asbestos structures before
area was cleaned up using a high efficiency particulate air
countingtengridopenings.Ifthathappenswithoneormoreof
filtered vacuum cleaner and wet wiping of all surfaces. The
the study samples the 95 % LCLwill far exceed the 95 % UCL
building owner demanded the air and surfaces in the affected
of background samples taken in an uncontaminated back-
area be at least as clean as other parts of the building not
ground environment. The user may conclude that there is a
affected. To answer the surface cleanliness question five
statistical difference between surface loadings in the study and
samples were collected from non-porous surfaces in the
uncontaminated background areas, and dispense with the
affected area and five samples from another floor on a different
collection or analysis of background samples. No calculations
ventilation system (unaffected or background area).The results
are needed to support this decision.
and analysis of the data are described in Tables 2-6.
7.2 These calculations may suffice for the user to make a
7.4.2 ThisexampleusestheanalyticalparametersinTable2
decision based on the results or may be considered an initial
that are taken from the laboratory report.
screening to be followed by additional sampling and analysis,
7.4.3 The analytical parameters are used to calculate the
or the application of further statistical tests as described in
study area results in Table 3 and Table 4.
Appendix X2.
7.4.4 In Table 3:
7.3 The 95 % LCL and 95 % UCL are determined from the (1) The number of structures and analytical sensitivity are
Poisson distribution in Table 1. For each number of structures, taken from the laboratory report.
N, the 95 % LCL and 95 % UCL in Table 1 have been (2) The Estimated Loading is the product of the Number of
calculated by the following formulas: (IF(N>0, Structures and the Analytical Sensitivity.
´1
D7390 − 18
TABLE 1 Upper and Lower 95 % Confidence Limits for the Poisson Distribution
N = Number of Structures N = Number of Structures N = Number of Structures N = Number of Structures
N 95 % LCL 95 % UCL N 95 % LCL 95 % UCL N 95 % LCL 95 % UCL N 95 % LCL 95 % UCL
0 0.000 3.0 50 37.1 65.9 100 81.4 122 150 127 176
1 0.025 5.6 51 38.0 67.1 101 82.3 123 151 128 177
2 0.24 7.2 52 38.8 68.2 102 82.3 124 152 129 178
3 0.62 8.8 53 39.7 69.3 103 84.1 125 153 130 179
4 1.1 10.2 54 40.6 70.5 104 85.0 126 154 131 180
5 1.6 11.7 55 41.4 71.6 105 85.9 127 155 132 181
6 2.2 13.1 56 42.3 72.7 106 86.8 128 156 132 182
7 2.8 14.4 57 43.2 73.9 107 87.7 129 157 133 184
8 3.5 15.8 58 44.0 75.0 108 88.6 130 158 134 185
9 4.1 17.1 59 44.9 76.1 109 89.5 131 159 135 186
10 4.8 18.4 60 45.8 77.2 110 90.4 133 160 136 187
11 5.5 19.7 61 46.7 78.4 111 91.3 134 161 137 188
12 6.2 21.0 62 47.5 79.5 112 92.2 135 162 138 189
13 6.9 22.2 63 48.4 80.6 113 93.1 136 163 139 190
14 7.7 23.5 64 49.3 81.7 114 94.0 137 164 140 191
15 8.4 24.7 65 50.2 82.8 115 94.9 138 165 141 192
16 9.1 26.0 66 51.0 84.0 116 95.9 139 166 142 193
17 9.9 27.2 67 51.9 85.1 117 96.8 140 167 143 194
18 10.7 28.4 68 52.8 86.2 118 97.7 141 168 144 195
19 11.4 29.7 69 53.7 87.3 119 98.6 142 169 144 196
20 12.2 30.9 70 54.6 88.4 120 99.5 143 170 145 198
21 13.0 32.1 71 55.5 89.6 121 100 145 171 146 199
22 13.8 33.3 72 56.3 90.7 122 101 146 172 147 200
23 14.6 34.5 73 57.2 91.8 123 102 147 173 148 201
24 15.4 35.7 74 58.1 92.9 124 103 148 174 149 202
25 16.2 36.9 75 59.0 94.0 125 104 149 175 150 203
26 17.0 38.1 76 59.9 95.1 126 105 150 176 151 204
27 17.8 39.3 77 60.8 96.2 127 106 151 177 152 205
28 18.6 40.5 78 61.7 97.3 128 107 152 178 153 206
29 19.4 41.6 79 62.5 98.5 129 108 153 179 154 207
30 20.2 42.8 80 63.4 99.6 130 109 154 180 155 208
31 21.1 44.0 81 64.3 101 131 110 155 181 156 209
32 21.9 45.2 82 65.2 102 132 110 157 182 157 210
33 22.7 46.3 83 66.1 103 133 111 158 183 157 212
34 23.5 47.5 84 67.0 104 134 112 159 184 158 213
35 24.4 48.7 85 67.9 105 135 113 160 185 159 214
36 25.2 49.8 86 68.8 106 136 114 161 186 160 215
37 26.1 51.0 87 69.7 107 137 115 162 187 161 216
38 26.9 52.2 88 70.6 108 138 116 163 188 162 217
39 27.7 53.3 89 71.5 110 139 117 164 189 163 218
40 28.6 54.5 90 72.4 111 140 118 165 190 164 219
41 29.4 55.6 91 73.3 112 141 119 166 191 165 220
42 30.3 56.8 92 74.2 113 142 120 167 192 166 221
43 31.1 57.9 93 75.1 114 143 121 168 193 167 222
44 32.0 59.1 94 76.0 115 144 121 170 194 168 223
45 32.8 60.2 95 76.9 116 145 122 171 195 169 224
46 33.7 61.4 96 77.8 117 146 123 172 196 170 225
47 34.5 62.5 97 78.7 118 147 124 173 197 170 227
48 35.4 63.6 98 79.6 119 148 125 174 198 171 228
49 36.3 64.8 99 80.5 121 149 126 175 199 172 229
TABLE 2 Analytical Parameters for Example 1
Effective filter area 923 mm
Number of grid openings examined 10
Average grid opening area 0.009 mm
Sample area 100 cm
Total volume 100 mL
Volume filtered 50 mL
Analytical sensitivity 205 s/cm
(3) Structures 95 % LCL is read from Table 1. (2) The Sum of Sensitivity Weights is the sum of Sensitiv-
(4) Loading 95 % LCL is the product of the Structures 95 ity Weights in Table 3.
% LCL and the Analytical Sensitivity. (3) TheWeightedAnalytical Sensitivity is the reciprocal of
7.4.5 In Table 4: the Sum of Sensitivity Weights.
(1) Total Structures is the sum of the Number of Structures (4) The Estimated Loading is the product of the Total
in Table 3. Structures and the Weighted Analytical Sensitivity.
´1
D7390 − 18
TABLE 3 Study Samples for Example 1
Analytical Sensitivity Estimated Loading Structures 95 % LCL Loading 95 % LCL
Sample Number Number of Structures Sensitivity Weight
2 2 2
(s/cm ) (s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm )
S1 10 205 0.0049 2050 4.8 984
S2 4 205 0.0049 820 1.1 226
S3 13 205 0.0049 2665 6.9 1415
S4 4 205 0.0049 820 1.1 226
S5 6 205 0.0049 1230 2.2 451
TABLE 4 Combined Measurements of Study Samples for Example 1
95 % LCL
Weighted Analytical
Sum of Sensitivity Estimated Loading
Total Structures Sensitivity
2 Structures Loading
Weights (s/cm )
(s/cm )
(Table 1) (s/cm )
37 0.024 41.0 1517 26.1 1070
TABLE 5 Background Samples for Example 1
Analytical Sensitivity Loading Structures 95 % UCL Loading 95 % UCL
Sample Number Number of Structures Sensitivity Weights
2 2 2
(s/cm ) (s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm )
B1 3 205 0.0049 615 8.8 1804
B2 4 205 0.0049 820 10.2 2091
B3 3 205 0.0049 615 8.8 1804
B4 4 205 0.0049 820 10.2 2091
B5 6 205 0.0049 1230 13.1 2686
TABLE 6 Combined Measurements of Background Samples for Example 1
95 % UCL
Weighted Analytical
Sum of Sensitivity Estimated Loading
Total Structures Sensitivity
2 Structures Loading
Weights (s/cm )
(s/cm )
(Table 1) (s/cm )
20 0.024 41.0 820 30.9 1267
(5) 95 % LCL Structures is read from Table 1. 7.5 Example2—ClearStatisticalDifferenceBetweenStudy
(6) Loading is the product of 95 % LCL Structures and and Background Samples (Tables 7-11):
Weighted Analytical Sensitivity. 7.5.1 Example 2 illustrates a hypothetical situation where a
7.4.6 The same analytical parameters are used to calculate contractor scraped off small sections of asbestos-containing
the background area results in Table 5 and Table 6. fireproofing on one floor of an office building. The work was
7.4.7 The calculation procedures for the background doneatseverallocationsandwhentheerrorwasdiscoveredthe
samples in Table 5 and Table 6 are the same as for the study area was cleaned up using a high efficiency particulate air
samples in Table 3 and Table 4. For example, Table 5 shows filtered vacuum cleaner only. The building owner demanded
that a structure count of 3 for sample B1 has a 95 % UCL of the air and surfaces in the affected area be at least as clean as
8.8 structures, giving a 95 % UCL loading of 1804 s/cm.In other parts of the building not affected. To answer the surface
Table 6 Total Structures is the sum of the structures in Table 5. cleanliness question five samples were collected from non-
7.4.8 The 95 % LCL for the combined set of study samples porous surfaces in the affected area and five samples from
in Table 4 — 1070 s/cm — is less than the 95 % UCLfor the another floor on a different ventilation system (unaffected or
background samples — 1267 s/cm —in Table 6 . Since the background area). The results and analysis of the data are
distributions for the two sample sets overlap, there is no described in Tables 7-11.
statistical difference at the 95 % confidence level. 7.5.2 ThisexampleusestheanalyticalparametersinTable7
that are taken from the laboratory report.
7.5.3 The analytical parameters are used to calculate the
study area results in Table 8 and Table 9.
TABLE 7 Analytical Parameters for Example 2
Effective filter area 923 mm
Number of grid openings examined 10
Average grid opening area 0.009 mm
Sample area 100 cm
Total volume 100 mL
Volume filtered 50 mL
Analytical sensitivity 205 s/cm
´1
D7390 − 18
TABLE 8 Study Area Samples for Example 2
Analytical Sensitivity Estimated Loading Structures 95 % LCL Loading 95 % LCL
Sample Number Number of Structures Sensitivity Weight
2 2 2
(s/cm ) (s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm )
S1 41 205 0.0049 8405 29.4 6027
S2 27 205 0.0049 5535 17.8 3649
S3 57 205 0.0049 11685 43.2 8856
S4 22 205 0.0049 4510 13.8 2829
S5 46 205 0.0049 9430 33.7 6908
TABLE 9 Combined Measurements of Study Samples for Example 2
95 % LCL
Weighted Analytical
Sum of Sensitivity Estimated Loading
Total Structures Sensitivity
2 Structures Loading
Weights (s/cm )
(s/cm )
(Table 1) (s/cm )
193 0.024 41.0 7913 167 6847
TABLE 10 Background Area Samples for Example 2
Analytical Sensitivity Loading Structures 95 % UCL Loading 95 % UCL
Sample Number Number of Structures Sensitivity Weights
2 2 2
(s/cm ) (s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm )
B1 3 205 0.0049 615 8.8 1804
B2 4 205 0.0049 820 10.2 2091
B3 3 205 0.0049 615 8.8 1804
B4 4 205 0.0049 820 10.2 2091
B5 6 205 0.0049 1230 13.1 2686
TABLE 11 Combined Measurements of Background Samples for Example 2
95 % UCL
Weighted Analytical
Sum of Sensitivity Estimated Loading
Total Structures Sensitivity
2 Structures Loading
Weights (s/cm )
(s/cm )
(Table 1) (s/cm )
20 0.024 41.0 820 30.9 1267
7.5.4 In Table 8: (6) Loading is the product of 95 % LCL Structures and
(1) The number of structures and analytical sensitivity are Weighted Analytical Sensitivity.
taken from the laboratory report.
7.5.6 The same analytical parameters are used to calculate
(2) The Estimated Loading is the product of the Number of
the background area results in Table 10 and Table 11.
Structures and the Analytical Sensitivity.
7.5.7 The calculation procedures for the background
(3) 95 % LCL is read from Table 1.
samples in Table 10 and Table 11 are the same as for the study
(4) Loading 95 % LCL is the product of the Structures 95
samples in Table 8 and Table 9. For example, Table 10 shows
% LCL and the Analytical Sensitivity.
that a structure count of 3 for sample B1 has a 95 % UCL of
7.5.5 In Table 9:
8.8 structures, giving a 95 % UCL loading of 1804 s/cm.In
(1) Total Structures is the sum of the Number of Structures
Table 11 Total Structures is the sum of the structures in Table
in Table 8.
10.
(2) The Sum of Sensitivity Weights is the sum of Sensitiv-
7.5.8 The 95 % LCL for the combined set of study samples
ity Weights in Table 8.
inTable9—6847s/cm —ismorethanthe95%UCLforthe
(3) TheWeightedAnalytical Sensitivity is the reciprocal of
background samples — 1267 s/cm —in Table 11. Since the
the Sum of Sensitivity Weights.
(4) The Estimated Loading is the product of the Total distributions for the two sample sets do not overlap, the study
Structures and the Weighted Analytical Sensitivity. samples are statistically higher at the 95 % confidence level.
(5) 95 % LCL Structures is read from Table 1. The surfaces are therefore not clean enough.
TABLE 12 Analytical Parameters for Example 3
Effective filter area 923 mm
Number of grid openings examined 10
Average grid opening area 0.009 mm
Sample area 100 cm
Total volume 100 mL
Volume filtered 25 10 5 mL
Analytical sensitivity 410 1025 2050 s/cm
´1
D7390 − 18
7.6 Example 3 — Calculation with Different Analytical UCL of 8.8 structures, giving a 95 % UCL loading of 3608
Parameters (Volume Filtered) (Tables 12-16): s/cm.In Table 16 Total Structures is the sum of the structures
7.6.1 Example 3 illustrates a hypothetical situation where in Table 13.
there was a fire on three floors of an office building. The top
7.6.8 The 95 % LCL for the combined set of study samples
floor had asbestos-containing structural fireproofing applied to
in Table 14 — 24124 s/cm — is more than the 95 % UCLfor
the steel beams.There was a concern raised that there might be
the background samples — 4488 s/cm —in Table 16. Since
asbestos on the surfaces of the top floor due to the fire. The
the distributions for the two sample sets do not overlap, the
decision was made to collect surface dust samples from the top study samples are statistically higher at the 95 % confidence
floorandthelowestfloortolookforasbestosinthedust.Inthis
level. The surfaces on the top floor will need to be cleaned to
examplethesurfaceswerecoveredwithsmokeparticulate,ash, get them at least as clean as the lowest floor.
and other dusts. It was necessary for the laboratory to make
7.7 Example 4 — Background Sample Set with a Zero
dilutions of the samples due to this dust. This resulted in the
Structure Count (Tables 17-21):
analytical sensitivity of the samples to be different depending
7.7.1 One or more zero structure counts can be expected in
on the amount of sample filtered. The results and analysis of
background samples if the area is free of known sources of
the data are described in Tables 12-16.
asbestos-containing materials. In this example, the study
7.6.2 This example uses the analytical parameters in Table
samples and background samples are repeated from Example
12 that are taken from the laboratory report.
1, except that for background sample B3 the laboratory
7.6.3 The analytical parameters are used to calculate the
reported “NSD” for “No Structures detected.”
study area results in Table 13 and Table 14.
7.7.2 This example uses the analytical parameters in Table
7.6.4 In Table 13:
17 that are taken from the laboratory report.
(1) The number of structures and analytical sensitivity are
7.7.3 The analytical parameters are used to calculate the
taken from the laboratory report. The analytical sensitivity
study area results in Table 18 and Table 19.
corresponds to the volume filtered. For example, if only 5 mL
7.7.4 In Table 18:
was filtered then the analytical sensitivity was 2050 s/cm in
(1) The number of structures and analytical sensitivity are
this example.
taken from the laboratory report.
(2) The Estimated Loading is the product of the Number of
(2) The Estimated Loading is the product of the Number of
Structures and the Analytical Sensitivity.
Structures and the Analytical Sensitivity.
(3) Structures 95 % LCL is read from Table 1.
(3) Structures 95 % LCL is read from Table 1.
(4) Loading 95 % LCL is the product of the Structures 95
(4) Loading 95 % LCL is the product of the Structures 95
% LCL and the Analytical Sensitivity.
% LCL and the Analytical Sensitivity.
7.6.5 In Table 14:
7.7.5 In Table 19:
(1) Total Structures is the sum of the Number of Structures
(1) Total Structures is the sum of the Number of Structures
in Table 13.
in Table 18.
(2) The Sum of Sensitivity Weights is the sum of Sensitiv-
(2) The Sum of Sensitivity Weights is the sum of Sensitiv-
ity Weights in Table 13.
ity Weights in Table 18.
(3) TheWeightedAnalytical Sensitivity is the reciprocal of
(3) TheWeightedAnalytical Sensitivity is the reciprocal of
the Sum of Sensitivity Weights.
the Sum of Sensitivity Weights.
(4) The Estimated Loading is the product of the Total
(4) The Estimated Loading is the product of the Total
Structures and the Weighted Analytical Sensitivity.
Structures and the Weighted Analytical Sensitivity.
(5) 95 % LCL Structures is read from Table 1.
(5) 95 % LCL Structures is read from Table 1.
(6) Loading is the product of 95 % LCL Structures and
(6) Loading is the product of 95 % LCL Structures and
Weighted Analytical Sensitivity.
Weighted Analytical Sensitivity.
7.6.6 The same analytical parameters are used to calculate
7.7.6 The same analytical parameters are used to calculate
the background area results in Table 15 and Table 16.
the background area results in Table 20 and Table 21.
7.6.7 The calculation procedures for the background
samples in Table 15 and Table 16 are the same as for the study 7.7.7 The calculation procedures for the background
samples in Table 13 and Table 14. For example, Table 13 samples in Table 20 and Table 21 are the same as for the study
shows that a structure count of three for sample B1 has a 95 % samples in Table 18 and Table 19. Table 1 shows that a zero
TABLE 13 Study Samples for Example 3
Analytical Structures 95 %
Number of Volume Filtered Loading Loading 95 % LCL
Sample Number Sensitivity Loading Sensitivity Weights LCL
2 2
Structures (mL) (s/cm ) (s/cm )
(s/cm ) (Table 1)
S1 16 10 1 025 0.00098 16400 9.1 9328
S2 12 5 2 050 0.00049 24600 6.2 12710
S3 32 5 2 050 0.00049 65600 21.9 44895
S4 18 5 2 050 0.00049 36900 10.7 21935
S5 10 5 2 050 0.00049 20500 4.8 9840
´1
D7390 − 18
TABLE 14 Combined Measurements of Study Samples for Example 3
95 % LCL
Weighted Analytical
Estimated Loading
Total Structures Sum of Sensitivity Weights Sensitivity
2 Structures Loading
(s/cm )
(s/cm )
(Table 1) (s/cm )
88 0.0029 341.7 30070 70.6 24124
TABLE 15 Background Samples for Example 3
Analytical Structures 95 %
Number of Volume Filtered Loading Loading 95 % UCL
Sample Number Sensitivity Sensitivity Weights UCL
2 2
Structures (mL) (s/cm ) (s/cm )
(s/cm ) (Table 1)
B1 3 25 410 0.00244 1230 8.8 3680
B2 3 10 2050 0.00049 6150 8.8 18040
B3 2 10 2050 0.00049 4100 7.2 14760
B4 1 10 2050 0.00049 2050 5.6 11480
B5 2 10 2050 0.00049 4100 7.2 14760
TABLE 16 Combined Measurements of Background Samples for Example 3
95 % UCL
Weighted Analytical
Sum of Sensitivity Estimated Loading
Total Structures Sensitivity
Structures Loading
Weights (s/cm )
(s/cm )
(Table 1) (s/cm )
11 0.004 227.8 2506 19.7 4488
TABLE 17 Analytical Parameters for Example 4
Effective filter area 923 mm
Number of grid openings examined 10
Average grid opening area 0.009 mm
Sample area 100 cm
Total volume 100 mL
Volume filtered 50 mL
Analytical sensitivity 205 s/cm
TABLE 18 Study Samples for Example 4
Analytical Sensitivity Estimated Loading Structures 95 % LCL Loading 95 % LCL
Sample Number Number of Structures Sensitivity Weight
2 2 2
(s/cm ) (s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm )
S1 10 205 0.00049 2050 4.8 984
S2 4 205 0.00049 820 1.1 226
S3 13 205 0.00049 2665 6.9 1415
S4 4 205 0.00049 820 1.1 226
S5 6 205 0.00049 1230 2.2 451
TABLE 19 Combined Measurements of Study Samples for Example 4
Weighted Analytical
Estimated Loading Structures 95 % LCL Loading 95 % LCL
Total Structures Sum of Sensitivity Weights Sensitivity
2 2
(s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm )
(s/cm )
37 0.024 41.0 1517 26.1 1070
structure count has a 95 % UCLof 3 structures, giving a 95 % 7.8 Example 5 — Study Samples Only — No Background
UCL loading of 615 s/cm for sample B3 in Table 20. Samples (Tables 22-24):
7.7.8 The 95 % LCL for the combined set of study samples 7.8.1 Background samples are often not taken because the
in Table 19 — 1,070 s/cm — is less than the 95 % UCL for user is unable to define a suitable location for background
the background samples — 1.115 s/cm —in Table 21. samples with characteristics that are comparable to the study
Although no structures were found in sample B3, indicating a area, or cost, schedule, accessibility or other factors preclude
zero surface loading for that sample, the variability of the taking and analyzing background samples. The user may only
sample affects the combined measurements and the sample wants to know the variability in the study samples and a
cannot be disregarded. Because of the slight overlap of the comparison to background samples is not important for his
distributions for the two sample sets showing no statistical purposes. This example describes a set of study samples that
difference at the 95 % confidence level, the user may decide to enabled the investigator to prioritize cleaning requirements
considerotherfactorsindecidingwhetherornottore-cleanthe based on the results and confidence limits of the individual
study area. samples and the combined sample set.
´1
D7390 − 18
TABLE 20 Background Samples for Example 4
Analytical Sensitivity Loading Structures 95 % UCL Loading 95 % UCL
Sample Number Number of Structures Sensitivity Weights
2 2 2
(s/cm ) (s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm )
B1 3 205 0.0049 615 8.8 1804
B2 4 205 0.0049 820 10.2 2091
B3 0 205 0.0049 0 3 615
B4 4 205 0.0049 820 10.2 2091
B5 6 205 0.0049 1230 13.1 2686
TABLE 21 Combined Measurements of Background Samples for Example 4
Weighted Analytical
Sum of Sensitivity Estimated Loading Structures 95 % UCL Loading 95 % UCL
Total Structures Sensitivity
2 2
Weights (s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm )
(s/cm )
17 0.024 41.0 697 27.2 1115
TABLE 22 Analytical Parameters for Example 5
Effective filter area 962 mm
Number of grid openings examined 10
Average grid opening area 0.012 mm
Sample area 100 cm
Total volume 100 mL
Volume filtered 5 mL
Analytical sensitivity 1603 s/cm
TABLE 23 Study Area Samples for Example 5
Analytical Structures 95 Loading 95 % Structures 95 Loading 95 %
Sample Number of Volume Sensitivity Loading
Sensitivity % LCL LCL % UCL UCL
Number Structures Filtered (mL) Weights (s/cm )
2 2 2
(s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm ) (Table 1) (s/cm )
S1 3 5.0 1603 0.00062 4809 0.62 994 8.8 14106
S2 25 5.0 1603 0.00062 40075 16.0 25648 36.9 59151
S3 4 5.0 1603 0.00062 6412 1.1 1763 10.2 16351
S4 4 5.0 1603 0.00062 6412 1.1 1763 10.2 16351
S5 15 5.0 1603 0.00062 24045 8.4 13465 24.7 39594
TABLE 24 Combined Measurements of Study Samples for Example 5
Weighted
Structures 95 % Structures 95 % Loading 95 %
Sum of Sensitivity Analytical Estimated Loading Loading 95 % LCL
Total Structures LCL UCL UCL
2 2
Weights Sensitivity (s/cm ) (s/cm )
(Table 1) (Table 1) (s/cm )
(s/cm )
51 0.00312 321 16351 38 12183 67.1 21512
7.8.2 This example uses the analytical parameters in Table (2) The Sum of Sensitivity Weights is the sum of Sensitiv-
22 that are taken from the laboratory report.
ity Weights in Table 23.
7.8.3 The analytical parameters are used to calculate the
(3) TheWeightedAnalytical Sensitivity is the reciprocal of
study area results in Table 23 and Table 24.
the Sum of Sensitivity Weights.
7.8.4 In Table 23:
(4) The Estimated Loading is the product of the Total
(1) The number of structures and analytical sensitivity are
Structures and the Weighted Analytical Sensitivity.
taken from the laboratory report.
(5) 95 % LCL Structures is read from Table 1.
(2) TheLoadingistheproductoftheNumberofStructures
(6) Loading is the product of 95 % LCL Structures and
and the Analytical Sensitivity.
Weighted Analytical Sensitivity.
(3) Structures95%LCLandStructures95%UCLareread
7.8.6 The 95 % LCLs and 95 % UCLs are both calculated
from Table 1.
for each sample and the entire sample set. This information
(4) Loading 95 % LCL is the product of the Structures 95
allows the user to compare individual sample confidence limits
% LCL and the Analytical Sensitivity.
as well as the confidence limits of the combined samples and
(5) Loading 95 % UCL is the product of the Structures 95
tomakeinferencesaboutthecleanlinessofindividuallocations
% UCL and the Analytical Sensitivity.
as well as the overall study area.
7.8.5 In Table Table 24:
(1) Total Structures is the sum of the Number of Structures
in Table 23.
´1
D7390 − 18
7.9 Example 6 — Study Samples Compared to Single Value the same number of samples and analytical sensitivities
...