Literature DB >> 7597255

The sizes, shapes, and mineralogy of asbestos structures that induce lung tumors or mesothelioma in AF/HAN rats following inhalation.

D W Berman1, K S Crump, E J Chatfield, J M Davis, A D Jones.   

Abstract

Data from inhalation studies in which AF/HAN rats were exposed to nine different types of asbestos dusts (in 13 separate experiments) are employed in a statistical analysis to determine if a measure of asbestos exposure (expressed as concentrations of structures with defined sizes, shapes and mineralogy) can be identified that satisfactorily predicts the observed lung tumor or mesothelioma incidence in the experiments. Due to limitations in the characterization of asbestos structures in the original studies, new exposure measures were developed from samples of the original dusts that were re-generated and analyzed by transmission electron microscopy using a direct transfer technique. This analysis provided detailed information on the mineralogy (i.e., chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite or tremolite), type (i.e., fiber, bundle, cluster, or matrix), size (length and width) and complexity (i.e., number of identifiable components of a cluster or matrix) of each individual structure. No univariate measure of exposure was found to provide an adequate description of the lung tumor responses observed among the inhalation studies, although the measure most highly correlated with tumor incidence is the concentration of structures > or = 20 microns in length. Multivariate measures of exposure were identified that do adequately describe the lung tumor responses. Structures contributing to lung tumor risk appear to be long (> or = 5 microns) thin (0.4 microns) fibers and bundles, with a possible contribution by long and very thick (> or = 5 microns) complex clusters and matrices. Potency appears to increase with increasing length, with structures longer than 40 microns being about 500 times more potent than structures between 5 and 40 microns in length. Structures < 5 microns in length do not appear to make any contribution to lung tumor risk. This analysis did not find a difference in the potency of chrysotile and amphibole toward the induction of lung tumors. However, mineralogy appears to be important in the induction of mesothelioma with chrysotile being less potent than amphibole.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7597255     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00312.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  17 in total

1.  Size- and type-specific exposure assessment of an asbestos products factory in China.

Authors:  Midori N Courtice; D Wayne Berman; Eiji Yano; Norihiko Kohyama; Xiaorong Wang
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 5.563

Review 2.  Dosimetry of inhaled elongate mineral particles in the respiratory tract: The impact of shape factor.

Authors:  Bahman Asgharian; T Price Owen; Eileen D Kuempel; Annie M Jarabek
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 4.219

Review 3.  Evaluating the mechanistic evidence and key data gaps in assessing the potential carcinogenicity of carbon nanotubes and nanofibers in humans.

Authors:  Eileen D Kuempel; Marie-Claude Jaurand; Peter Møller; Yasuo Morimoto; Norihiro Kobayashi; Kent E Pinkerton; Linda M Sargent; Roel C H Vermeulen; Bice Fubini; Agnes B Kane
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 5.635

Review 4.  Role of mutagenicity in asbestos fiber-induced carcinogenicity and other diseases.

Authors:  Sarah X L Huang; Marie-Claude Jaurand; David W Kamp; John Whysner; Tom K Hei
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 6.393

Review 5.  Pulmonary endpoints (lung carcinomas and asbestosis) following inhalation exposure to asbestos.

Authors:  Brooke T Mossman; Morton Lippmann; Thomas W Hesterberg; Karl T Kelsey; Aaron Barchowsky; James C Bonner
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 6.393

6.  Airborne fiber size characterization in exposure estimation: Evaluation of a modified transmission electron microcopy protocol for asbestos and potential use for carbon nanotubes and nanofibers.

Authors:  John M Dement; Eileen D Kuempel; Ralph D Zumwalde; Anna M Ristich; Joseph E Fernback; Randall J Smith
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 2.214

Review 7.  Health risk of chrysotile revisited.

Authors:  David Bernstein; Jacques Dunnigan; Thomas Hesterberg; Robert Brown; Juan Antonio Legaspi Velasco; Raúl Barrera; John Hoskins; Allen Gibbs
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.635

8.  Follow-up study of chrysotile textile workers: cohort mortality and exposure-response.

Authors:  Misty J Hein; Leslie T Stayner; Everett Lehman; John M Dement
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2007-04-20       Impact factor: 4.402

Review 9.  Non-neoplastic and neoplastic pleural endpoints following fiber exposure.

Authors:  V Courtney Broaddus; Jeffrey I Everitt; Brad Black; Agnes B Kane
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 6.393

10.  Asbestos fibre dimensions and lung cancer mortality among workers exposed to chrysotile.

Authors:  Dana Loomis; John Dement; David Richardson; Susanne Wolf
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2009-11-05       Impact factor: 4.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.