CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modeling mesothelioma risk factors from amphibole fiber dimensionality: mineralogical and epidemiological perspective

Wylie, Ann G., Korchevskiy, Andrey, Segrave, Alan M., Duane, Andrew·2020·Journal of Applied Toxicology
DOI 10.1002/jat.3923
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Amphiboles are common rock‐forming minerals but when they form asbestos, they are known carcinogens. Mesothelioma mortality among miners and millers per the unit of asbestiform amphibole exposure varies significantly across cohorts when asbestos exposure measurements are based on the membrane filter method. Because the cohorts were exposed to different occurrences of asbestiform amphibole, variance in mesothelioma potency (RM) among cohorts is likely due to differences in exposure characteristics not reflected by the membrane filter method. In this paper using both linear and nonlinear models we correlate R M from four mining and milling cohorts with two‐dimensional parameters of the exposure. The parameters are based on the proportion of elongated minerals that are >5 μm in length from each occurrence that also have either (a) width ≤ 0.15 μm, or (b) width ≤ 0.25 μm. Based on the models we derived, it was possible to quantify RM for the occurrences of asbestiform amphibole associated with mesothelioma excess but for which epidemiologically based RM has not been published. It was demonstrated that modeled RM for amphibole occurrences in nonasbestiform habits are lower (fibrous glaucophane) or not significant (cleavage fragments). The results of the study can be used in a risk assessment of elongated mineral particles and have implications for public policy and regulations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jat.3923

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. 10.1093/annhyg/9.2.73 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.10.001 · DOI
  3. Ahn J. H., 1991, Microstructures and fiber formation mechanisms of crocidolite asbestos, American Mineralogist, 76, 1467
  4. Atkinson G.R., 1981, USEPA contract no 68‐01‐5915 report from MRI
  5. Berman D., 2008, A meta‐analysis of asbestos‐related cancer risk that addresses fiber size and mineral type. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 38, Suppl, 1, 49
  6. 10.5271/sjweh.786 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/jcp.22724 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/BF00550451 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.11.001 · DOI
  10. 10.1080/10937404.2016.1195326 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/jat.3356 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.09.020 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.taap.2018.07.003 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1180/0026461036760160 · DOI
  15. Gibbs G. W., 1980, Biologic Effects of Mineral Fibers, IARC scientific publication number 30, JC Wagner and W Davis, 61
  16. Greenwood W., 1988, Mineralogical characteristics of fibrous talc
  17. 10.1136/oem.56.8.505 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/S0003-4878(00)00045-4 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Kenny L. C., 1987, A direct measurement of the visibility of amosite asbestos fibers by phase contrast optical microscopy, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 31, 261
  20. Korchevskiy A. Rasmuson E. Rasmuson J. &Strode R.(2013).Asbestos Mining in Russia: Approaches to public health risk assessment preprint 13–117 printed in mining: It's all about people pre‐prints of the Society for Mining Metallurgy & Exploration Annual Meeting Denver Colorado February 2013. · DOI
  21. 10.1080/08958378.2019.1640320 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Lee R. J., 2009, Indoor build environment, 524
  23. 10.1080/10473220301404 · DOI
  24. 10.3109/10408444.2014.928266 · DOI
  25. 10.1080/0002889708506298 · DOI
  26. NIOSH, 1979, Technical report no. 79–127
  27. NIOSH, 2011, Asbestos fibers and other elongate mineral particles: State of the science and roadmap for research
  28. NRC, 2017, Using 21st century to improve risk‐related evaluations
  29. OSHA, 1992, Occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite, Federal Register, 57, 24310
  30. 10.1080/15298668891379882 · DOI
  31. Paoletti K., 2009, Caratterizzazione dimensionale di fibre anfiboliche new polmone e pleura di casi di mesothelioma da exposizione ambientale, Medicina del Lavoro, 100, 11
  32. 10.1016/j.taap.2018.10.019 · DOI
  33. Pooley F. D., 1980, Biologic effects of mineral fibers, 79
  34. 10.1080/15298668291410125 · DOI
  35. Shedd K. B., 1985, US Bureau of mines Report of Investigation no. 8998. Washington DC, US Department of the Interior
  36. 10.1093/annhyg/32.inhaled_particles_VI.323 · DOI
  37. 10.1038/232055a0 · DOI
  38. Veblen D. R., 1978, New biopyriboles from Chester Vermont. Part I. Descriptive mineralogy, American Mineralogist, 63, 1000
  39. Veblen D. R., 1978, New biopyriboles from Chester Vermont. Part II. The crystal chemistry of jimthompsonite, clinojimthompsonite, and chesterite and the amphibole‐mica reaction, American Mineralogist, 63, 1053
  40. Watson M. B., 1999, The effect of intergrowths on the properties of fibrous anthophyllite
  41. 10.1007/s10653-012-9500-0 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1979.tb18770.x · DOI
  43. 10.3749/canmin.1500109 · DOI
  44. 10.1080/10937404.2014.997945 · DOI
  45. Wylie A. G., 2015, Size and shape characteristics of airborne amphibole asbestos and amphibole cleavage fragments

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wylie, A. G., Korchevskiy, A., Segrave, A. M., & Duane, A.
Venue
Journal of Applied Toxicology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-02-10
Volume
40
Issue
4
Pages
515-524
ISSN
  • 0260-437X
  • 1099-1263
DOI
10.1002/jat.3923
Cited by
32
References
1
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review