The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A STUDY OF THE LENGTH AND DIAMETER OF FIBRES, IN LUNG AND IN BRONCHO-ALVEOLAR LAVAGE FLUID, FOLLOWING EXPOSURE OF RATS TO CHRYSOTILE ASBESTOS
Abstract
This paper describes changes in the dimensions of fibres in the lungs of rats and in fibres removed from the lungs by broncho-alveolar lavage, following a single inhalation exposure to about 5mg m −3 of chrysotile asbestos for 5 h. The lengths and diameters of fibres were measured with the transmission electron microscope. In the 90-day period following exposure, there was a progressive increase in the mean length and decrease in the mean diameter of fibres in the lungs. For fibres recovered by broncho-alveolar lavage, both the mean length and diameter decreased with time. These findings indicate that short fibres are cleared preferentially from the lung and that chrysotile fibres progressively separate into individual fibrils.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The authors found a increase in the average length of fibers in the lung and a reduction in diameter.”
From Quantification of short and long asbestos fibers to assess asbestos exposure: A review of fiber size toxicity (2014) · cites this paper as [122]
Citations
Cited by
Boulanger, G., Andujar, P., Pairon, J.-C., Billon-Galland, M.-A., Dion, C., Dumortier, P., Brochard, P., Sobaszek, A., Bartsch, P., Paris, C., et al. (2014) · Environmental Health · doi:10.1186/1476-069x-13-59 · Cited by 176
Metadata
- Venue
- The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1987-04-01
- ISSN
- 1475-3162
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
