Literature DB >> 18006199

A review of carcinogenicity studies of asbestos and non-asbestos tremolite and other amphiboles.

John Addison1, Ernest E McConnell.   

Abstract

Experimental animal studies comparing asbestos and non-asbestos varieties of tremolite indicate tremolite asbestos is markedly more carcinogenic. By direct analogy, the differences in carcinogenicity between tremolite asbestos and non-asbestos prismatic tremolite should be the same for the other types of amphibole that also crystallize in the asbestos and non-asbestos habits. The earliest of the experiment animal studies, done more than 25 years ago, have design limitations by modern standards including the use of injection or surgical implantation as the route of administration rather than the more relevant route of inhalation. However, the differences in the carcinogenicity of amphibole asbestos and non-asbestos amphiboles are sufficiently large to be clearly discernable even with the study limitations. Together with later studies on these and related minerals, there is strong evidence of a much lower hazard associated with the shorter, thicker fibers of the non-asbestos amphiboles, than is found for the asbestos analogues of the same mineral. It is possible that the non-asbestos amphiboles are no more hazardous than other silicate minerals widely considered nuisance dusts.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18006199     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.10.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0273-2300            Impact factor:   3.271


  6 in total

1.  Electron microscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of epithelial malignant mesothelioma: a case study.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Oczypok; Tim D Oury
Journal:  Ultrastruct Pathol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 1.094

Review 2.  State-of-the-science assessment of non-asbestos amphibole exposure: is there a cancer risk?

Authors:  Cris Williams; Linda Dell; Robert Adams; Tracie Rose; Drew Van Orden
Journal:  Environ Geochem Health       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 4.609

3.  Factors that impact susceptibility to fiber-induced health effects.

Authors:  Jennifer E Below; Nancy J Cox; Naomi K Fukagawa; Ari Hirvonen; Joseph R Testa
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 6.393

4.  Persistent effects of Libby amphibole and amosite asbestos following subchronic inhalation in rats.

Authors:  Stephen H Gavett; Carl U Parkinson; Gabrielle A Willson; Charles E Wood; Annie M Jarabek; Kay C Roberts; Urmila P Kodavanti; Darol E Dodd
Journal:  Part Fibre Toxicol       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 9.400

5.  Using GIS to Estimate Population at Risk Because of Residence Proximity to Asbestos Processing Facilities in Colombia.

Authors:  Benjamin Lysaniuk; María Fernanda Cely-García; Margarita Giraldo; Joan M Larrahondo; Laura Marcela Serrano-Calderón; Juan Carlos Guerrero-Bernal; Leonardo Briceno-Ayala; Esteban Cruz Rodriguez; Juan Pablo Ramos-Bonilla
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 3.390

6.  Integration of Evidence on Community Cancer Risks from Elongate Mineral Particles in Silver Bay, Minnesota.

Authors:  Linda D Dell; Alexa E Gallagher; Lisa J Yost; Kenneth A Mundt
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 4.000

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.