CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Potential Contribution of Hexavalent Chromium to the Carcinogenicity of Chrysotile Asbestos

Walter, Martin, Schenkeveld, Walter D.C., Tomatis, Maura, Schelch, Karin, Peter-Vörösmarty, Barbara, Geroldinger, Gerald, Gille, Lars, Bruzzoniti, Maria C., Turci, Francesco, Kraemer, Stephan M., Grusch, Michael·2022·Chemical Research in Toxicology
DOI 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00314PMC PMC9768810
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00314

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Cr concentrations (in μmol L–1) mobilized from 1 g L–1 pristine fibers at pH 7.4 by 1 mmol L–1 of the synthetic chelators DTPA and EDTA and the siderophore DFOB and in the absence of ligands (blank). Error bars indicate standard deviations (n = 2). Data presented in this figure are reported in Table S2.
Figure 1 Cr concentrations (in μmol L–1) mobilized from 1 g L–1 pristine fibers at pH 7.4 by 1 mmol L–1 of the synthetic chelators DTPA and EDTA and the siderophore DFOB and in the absence of ligands (blank). Error bars indicate standard deviations (n = 2). Data presented in this figure are reported in Table S2.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Cr concentrations (in μmol L–1) mobilized from 1 g L–1 pristine (panel a), blank-altered (panel b), and DFOB-altered chrysotile fibers (panel c) as a function of time at pH 7.4, either in the presence or absence of 3.3 g L–1 H2O2 (∼100 mmol L–1) (starting concentration). Error bars indicate standard deviations (n = 2). Data presented in this figure are reported in Table S3.
Figure 2 Cr concentrations (in μmol L–1) mobilized from 1 g L–1 pristine (panel a), blank-altered (panel b), and DFOB-altered chrysotile fibers (panel c) as a function of time at pH 7.4, either in the presence or absence of 3.3 g L–1 H2O2 (∼100 mmol L–1) (starting concentration). Error bars indicate standard deviations (n = 2). Data presented in this figure are reported in Table S3.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Cr redox speciation of selected samples from the leaching experiments (all at an ionic strength of 300 mmol L–1) determined by LC-ICP-MS. For the chromatographic conditions, see the experimental section. The Cr(III) retention time was <4 min, whereas the Cr(VI) retention time was >5 min. (a) Cr(III) (left peak) and Cr(VI) (right peak) standard, both at 50 ppb, used as upper limit for the calibration of the LC-ICP-MS speciation method. (b) Leachate collected after incubation of 1 g L–1 chrysotile at pH 7.4 for 168 h at an initial H2O2 concentration of 3.3 g L–1 (∼100 mmol L–1) (sample was diluted 10 times). (c) Leachate collected after incubation of 1 g L–1 chrysotile at pH 3.0 for 168 h (sample was diluted 20 times). The corresponding Cr redox species concentrations in the leachates for which the chromatograms are presented in panels (b) and (c) are reported in Table S4; full chromatograms up to approximately 15 min retention time are presented in Figure S7.
Figure 3 Cr redox speciation of selected samples from the leaching experiments (all at an ionic strength of 300 mmol L–1) determined by LC-ICP-MS. For the chromatographic conditions, see the experimental section. The Cr(III) retention time was <4 min, whereas the Cr(VI) retention time was >5 min. (a) Cr(III) (left peak) and Cr(VI) (right peak) standard, both at 50 ppb, used as upper limit for the calibration of the LC-ICP-MS speciation method. (b) Leachate collected after incubation of 1 g L–1 chrysotile at pH 7.4 for 168 h at an initial H2O2 concentration of 3.3 g L–1 (∼100 mmol L–1) (sample was diluted 10 times). (c) Leachate collected after incubation of 1 g L–1 chrysotile at pH 3.0 for 168 h (sample was diluted 20 times). The corresponding Cr redox species concentrations in the leachates for which the chromatograms are presented in panels (b) and (c) are reported in Table S4; full chromatograms up to approximately 15 min retention time are presented in Figure S7.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 (a) Expression of SLC4A1 and SLC26A1 in mesothelial (MeT-5A, NP1, NP2), mesothelioma (P31, MM05, SPC212, VMC23, VMC40), lung epithelial (BEAS-2B), and lung carcinoma (A549) cells assessed by qPCR. All expression values were calculated as 2–dCT × 106 relative to two housekeeping genes (β-actin and GAPDH). Medians for each category (horizontal lines) and expression levels of individual cell lines are shown. (b) Expression levels of SLC4A1 and SLC26A1 (two oligos, v1 and v1) in a panel of mesothelial (n = 2) and mesothelioma (n = 35) cells extracted from Agilent 44 K microarray data, shown as raw hybridization signal. Horizontal lines indicate mean values of the presented data. (c) Immunoblots of the SLC4A1 and SLC26A1 proteins in MeT-5A, P31, BEAS-2B, and A549 cells. β-actin was used as loading control. (d) Cr(VI) uptake in MeT-5A, P31, BEAS-2B, and A549 cells when either 0.2, 2, 20, 200, and 2000 μmol L–1 Cr(VI) were spiked into the cell incubation media. Mean background protein normalized intracellular Cr concentrations ranged from 18 (P31) to 57 (MeT-5A) nmol g–1 (Table S7). (e) Cr(VI) uptake in MeT-5A, P31, BEAS-2B, and A549 cells in the presence and absence of 200 μmol L–1 of the anion transporter inhibitor DIDS when the cell incubation media had initially been spiked with 2 μmol L–1 of Cr(VI)). (f) Accumulation of Cr(VI) in the intracellular compartment of MeT-5A, P31, BEAS-2B, and A549 cells as compared to measured Cr(VI) concentrations in the cell media alone (”Medium” replicates) when 0.2, 2, 20, 200, and 200 μmol L–1 Cr(VI) were spiked into the cell media. Measured intracellular Cr contents [μmol L–1] in panels (d) and (e) were normalized to the cellular protein content [g L–1]. Data to this Figure are presented in Table S7 (the plotted data) and Table S1 (list of used cell lines, their type and source). **p < 0.005, ***p < 0.001 DIDS versus no DIDS. Error bars in panels (d) and (e) represent standard deviations (n = 3–5).
Figure 4 (a) Expression of SLC4A1 and SLC26A1 in mesothelial (MeT-5A, NP1, NP2), mesothelioma (P31, MM05, SPC212, VMC23, VMC40), lung epithelial (BEAS-2B), and lung carcinoma (A549) cells assessed by qPCR. All expression values were calculated as 2–dCT × 106 relative to two housekeeping genes (β-actin and GAPDH). Medians for each category (horizontal lines) and expression levels of individual cell lines are shown. (b) Expression levels of SLC4A1 and SLC26A1 (two oligos, v1 and v1) in a panel of mesothelial (n = 2) and mesothelioma (n = 35) cells extracted from Agilent 44 K microarray data, shown as raw hybridization signal. Horizontal lines indicate mean values of the presented data. (c) Immunoblots of the SLC4A1 and SLC26A1 proteins in MeT-5A, P31, BEAS-2B, and A549 cells. β-actin was used as loading control. (d) Cr(VI) uptake in MeT-5A, P31, BEAS-2B, and A549 cells when either 0.2, 2, 20, 200, and 2000 μmol L–1 Cr(VI) were spiked into the cell incubation media. Mean background protein normalized intracellular Cr concentrations ranged from 18 (P31) to 57 (MeT-5A) nmol g–1 (Table S7). (e) Cr(VI) uptake in MeT-5A, P31, BEAS-2B, and A549 cells in the presence and absence of 200 μmol L–1 of the anion transporter inhibitor DIDS when the cell incubation media had initially been spiked with 2 μmol L–1 of Cr(VI)). (f) Accumulation of Cr(VI) in the intracellular compartment of MeT-5A, P31, BEAS-2B, and A549 cells as compared to measured Cr(VI) concentrations in the cell media alone (”Medium” replicates) when 0.2, 2, 20, 200, and 200 μmol L–1 Cr(VI) were spiked into the cell media. Measured intracellular Cr contents [μmol L–1] in panels (d) and (e) were normalized to the cellular protein content [g L–1]. Data to this Figure are presented in Table S7 (the plotted data) and Table S1 (list of used cell lines, their type and source). **p < 0.005, ***p < 0.001 DIDS versus no DIDS. Error bars in panels (d) and (e) represent standard deviations (n = 3–5).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 (a) H2O2 degradation at pH 7.4 in the absence of fibers (“MOPS buffer”), by pristine fibers and by fibers that had been preconditioned for 336 h at pH 7.4 in the presence of 1 mmol L–1 EDTA, DTPA or DFOB. The starting H2O2 concentration was 3.3 g L–1 (∼100 mmol L–1). The data were collected in two separate experiments; hence, for both experiments, the MOPS control treatment is reported (the MOPS (DTPA & EDTA) and MOPS (DFOB & pristine) columns). (b) Hydroxyl radical generation by fibers that were preconditioned in the absence of ligands or with DTPA, EDTA, and DFOB. A hydroxyl radical yield of 100% corresponds to the radical generation by pristine fibers (no preconditioning). Error bars indicate standard deviations (n = 2 in panel (a) and n = 4 in panel (b)). Data from the pristine fiber and DFOB treatment and the corresponding MOPS buffer control in panel (a) were taken from Walter et al.30 Data presented in this figure is reported in Table S8.
Figure 5 (a) H2O2 degradation at pH 7.4 in the absence of fibers (“MOPS buffer”), by pristine fibers and by fibers that had been preconditioned for 336 h at pH 7.4 in the presence of 1 mmol L–1 EDTA, DTPA or DFOB. The starting H2O2 concentration was 3.3 g L–1 (∼100 mmol L–1). The data were collected in two separate experiments; hence, for both experiments, the MOPS control treatment is reported (the MOPS (DTPA & EDTA) and MOPS (DFOB & pristine) columns). (b) Hydroxyl radical generation by fibers that were preconditioned in the absence of ligands or with DTPA, EDTA, and DFOB. A hydroxyl radical yield of 100% corresponds to the radical generation by pristine fibers (no preconditioning). Error bars indicate standard deviations (n = 2 in panel (a) and n = 4 in panel (b)). Data from the pristine fiber and DFOB treatment and the corresponding MOPS buffer control in panel (a) were taken from Walter et al.30 Data presented in this figure is reported in Table S8.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. 10.1177/1420326X03037003 · DOI
  2. Frank, A.The History of the Extraction and Uses of Asbestos. 1-7. 2005. · DOI
  3. WHO-IARC, 2012, IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog. Risks Hum., 100, 219
  4. 10.1136/bmj.b3209 · DOI
  5. WHO, 2014, International programme on chemical safety: Chrysotile asbestos
  6. 10.2486/indhealth.39.57 · DOI
  7. 10.1080/10937404.2011.556046 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1289/ehp.11272 · DOI
  9. 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2011.01975.x · DOI
  10. Virta R. L., 2006, Worldwide asbestos supply and consumption trends from1900 through 2003, 1298
  11. 10.1021/es00142a013 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.2747/0020-6814.46.6.479 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1180/claymin.1987.022.1.03 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/0013-9351(71)90016-8 · DOI
  15. 10.1016/0891-5849(92)90117-Y · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1021/cr00033a005 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1016/j.redox.2016.12.035 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1016/0378-4274(95)03531-1 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1021/tx600364d · DOI
  20. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199712)32:6<592::AID-AJIM3>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
  21. Schreier H., 1989, Asbestos in the natural environment
  22. 10.1080/0002889718506461 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.06.007 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.envres.2019.01.011 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Morgan A., 1973, Ann. Occup. Hyg., 16, 231
  26. 10.1016/0013-9351(85)90091-X · DOI
  27. 10.1080/00039896.1967.10664930 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/215441b0 · DOI
  29. 10.1021/acs.est.6b03484 · DOI
  30. 10.2747/0020-6814.46.2.97 · DOI
  31. 10.4319/lo.1990.35.3.0730 · DOI
  32. 10.1021/es010597y · DOI
  33. 10.1191/096032701682693062 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.cbi.2010.04.018 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/0165-1110(90)90007-X · DOI
  36. 10.1016/0277-5387(96)00141-6 · DOI
  37. 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03810 · DOI
  38. 10.1007/BF02783843 · DOI
  39. 10.1080/02772248709357205 · DOI
  40. 10.2147/OTT.S139262 · DOI
  41. 10.3109/10408449309105012 · DOI
  42. Bal W., 2011, Met Ions Life Sci, 8, 319
  43. 10.1021/tx049774+ · DOI
  44. 10.1021/tx010096q · DOI
  45. 10.2174/0929867053764635 · DOI · Paper page
  46. WHO-IARC, 2012, IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog. Risks Hum., 100, 147
  47. WHO-IARC, 2012, IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog. Risks Hum., 100, 169
  48. 10.15430/JCP.2015.20.4.232 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/0378-4274(94)90048-5 · DOI
  50. 10.1515/reveh.2011.012 · DOI
  51. 10.1080/00028896709342664 · DOI
  52. 10.1080/00028896809343057 · DOI
  53. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1965.tb41125.x · DOI
  54. 10.1021/ja01485a009 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.128068 · DOI
  56. 10.1002/chem.200500046 · DOI
  57. 10.1007/s12633-014-9260-9 · DOI
  58. 10.1021/ic50011a024 · DOI
  59. 10.1080/00958979109409459 · DOI
  60. 10.1021/ac9902594 · DOI
  61. 10.1006/abbi.1994.1009 · DOI
  62. 10.1093/carcin/9.9.1643 · DOI
  63. 10.1039/C3EM00717K · DOI
  64. 10.1016/j.ab.2005.10.005 · DOI
  65. 10.1080/15287390802529864 · DOI
  66. 10.1164/rccm.201404-0658OC · DOI
  67. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3573 · DOI
  68. 10.1113/jphysiol.1993.sp019919 · DOI
  69. 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2016.04.002 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Parkhurst, D. L., Appelo, C. A. J. (1999.) User’s Guide to PHREEQC (version 2). A Computer Program for Speciation, Batch Reaction, One-Dimensional Transport, and Inverse Geochemical Calculations ; U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report pp. 99–4259.
  71. 10.3184/095422909X12548400846521 · DOI
  72. Maurizio P., 2008, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 72, 5692, 10.1016/j.gca.2008.09.009 · DOI
  73. 10.1021/acs.est.6b05408 · DOI
  74. 10.1371/journal.pone.0027730 · DOI
  75. 10.3109/08958378.2013.807321 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Walter, M., Schenkeveld, W. D. C., Tomatis, M., Schelch, K., Peter-Vörösmarty, B., Geroldinger, G., Gille, L., Bruzzoniti, M. C., Turci, F., Kraemer, S. M., & Grusch, M.
Venue
Chemical Research in Toxicology
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2022-11-21
Volume
35
Issue
12
Pages
2335-2347
ISSN
  • 0893-228X
  • 1520-5010
DOI
10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00314
PMC
PMC9768810
Cited by
10
References
12
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (unspecified)
Funders
  • Austrian Science Fund (T 1062-B33)
  • Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione Contro Gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (Bric2019 ID 57.1)
  • Universit?t Wien
  • Berndorf Private Foundation
  • Stadt Wien

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