CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109

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

The Sizes, Shapes, and Mineralogy of Asbestos Structures that Induce Lung Tumors or Mesothelioma in AF/HAN Rats Following Inhalation1

Berman, D. Wayne, Crump, Kenny S., Chatfield, Eric J., Davis, John M.G., Jones, Alan D.·1995·Risk Analysis
DOI 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00312.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 >20 μm 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 (>5 μm) thin (0.4 μm) fibers and bundles, with a possible contribution by long and very thick (>5 μm) complex clusters and matrices. Potency appears to increase with increasing length, with structures longer than 40 um being about 500 times more potent than structures between 5 and 40 um in length. Structures <5 μm 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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00312.x

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

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. HEI‐AR (Health Effects Institute‐Asbestos Research), 1991, Asbestos in Public and Commercial Buildings: A Literature Review and Synthesis of Current Knowledge
  2. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1986, Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment Update
  3. Walton W.H., “The Nature, Hazards and Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Airborne Dust: A Review.”, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 26, 115
  4. 10.1093/annhyg/26.5.569 · DOI
  5. Bolton R.E., 1984, The Effect of Dose of Asbestos on Mesothelioma Production in the Laboratory Rat, Proceedings of the VIth International Pneumoconiosis Conference, 2, 1028
  6. 10.1016/S0013-9351(86)80005-6 · DOI
  7. 10.1038/bjc.1978.105 · DOI
  8. Davis J.M.G., 1980, Biological Effects of Mineral Fibres, 288
  9. 10.1093/carcin/6.5.667 · DOI
  10. Davis J.M.G., 1986, The Pathogenicity of Long Versus Short Fibre Samples of Amosite Asbestos Administered to Rats by Inhalation and Intraperitoneal Injection, British Journal of Experimental Pathology, 67, 415
  11. Davis J.M.G., 1986, Inhalation and Injection Studies in Rats Using Dust Samples from Chrysotile Asbestos Prepared by a Wet Dispersion Process, British Journal of Pathology, 67, 113
  12. Davis J.M.G., 1988, Effects of Electrostatic Charge on the Pathogenicity of Chrysotile Asbestos, British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 45, 292
  13. Davis J.M.G., 1988, Comparisons of the Pathogenicity of Long and Short Fibres of Chrysotile Asbestos in Rats, British Journal of Exposure Pathology, 69, 171
  14. 10.1136/thx.1.3.188 · DOI
  15. 10.1093/annhyg/31.4B.755 · DOI
  16. 10.2307/3428305 · DOI
  17. Pott F., 1976, (Occupational Exposure to Fibrous Glass, 183
  18. Pott F., 1978, Some Aspects on the Dosimetry of the Carcinogenic Potency of Asbestos and Other Fibrous Dusts, Staub-Reinhalt, 38, 486
  19. Pott F., 1982, Proceedings from a symposium, Short and Thin Mineral Fibres: Identification, Exposure, and Health Effects, 133
  20. F.Pott U.Ziem andU.Mohr “Lung Carcinomas and Mesotheliomas Following Intratracheal Instillation of Glass Fibres and Asbestos(Proceedings of the 6th Pneumoconiosis Conference pp.747–756 1983).
  21. 10.1016/S0232-1513(87)80044-0 · DOI
  22. Stanton M., 1972, Mechanisms of Mesothelioma Induction with Asbestos and Fibrous Glass, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 48, 797
  23. 10.1093/jnci/58.3.587 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Stanton M., 1981, Relation of Particle Dimension to Carcinogenicity in Amphibole Asbestos and Other Fibrous Minerals, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 67, 965
  25. J.C.Wagner G.Berry andJ.W.Skidmore “Studies of the Carcinogenic Effects of Fiber Glass of Different Diameters Following Intrapleural Inoculation in Experimental Animals(NIOSH 76‐151 pp.193–197 1976).
  26. Wagner J.C., 1982, Animal Experiments with MMM(V)F‐Effects of Inhalation and Intrapleural Inoculation in Rats. Biological Effects of Man‐made Fibres, 209
  27. 10.1038/bjc.1980.168 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/bjc.1985.108 · DOI
  29. Bertrand R., 1980, Fibrous Glass: Carcinogenicity and Dimensional Characteristics. Biological Effects of Mineral Fibres, 901
  30. 10.1016/S0013-9351(86)80188-8 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/S0013-9351(87)80043-9 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1016/0013-9351(81)90143-2 · DOI
  33. E.McConnell J.C.Wagner J.W.Skidmore andJ.Moore “A Comparative Study of the Fibrogenic and Carcinogenic Effects of UICC Canadian Chrysotile B Asbestos and Glass Microfibre (JM 100)(Biological Effects of Man‐made Fibres Proceedings of a WHO/IARC Conference pp.234–252 1982).
  34. 10.1093/annhyg/31.4B.731 · DOI
  35. 10.1038/bjc.1974.65 · DOI
  36. Wagner J.C., 1987, Experimental Studies with Palygorskite Dusts, British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 44, 749
  37. National Research Council, 1990, Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR V. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations
  38. 10.1016/S0013-9351(88)80061-6 · DOI
  39. 10.2307/3431092 · DOI
  40. Nicholson W.J., 1988, Division of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 109

Metadata

Authors
Berman, D. W., Crump, K. S., Chatfield, E. J., Davis, J. M. G., & Jones, A. D.
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-04
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
181-195
ISSN
  • 0272-4332
  • 1539-6924
DOI
10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00312.x
Cited by
109
References
1
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 4076 d)

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