The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 41 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Significance of durability of mineral fibers for their toxicity and carcinogenic potency in the abdominal cavity of rats in comparison with the low sensitivity of inhalation studies.
Open accessAbstract
At the same time that carcinogenicity of very thin glass fibers after intrapleural and intraperitoneal (ip) administration was demonstrated (1,2) researchers found that gypsum fibers and HCI-leached chrysotile fibers were easily soluble in the peritoneal cavity. This led to the conclusion that the chemical composition of fibers was not responsible for the carcinogenesis but that the degree of carcinogenic potency of a fiber depended on the extent to which it retained its fibrous structure. A thin glass fiber with a low biodurability did not induce tumors after ip injection of a high dose, although the ip test had been criticized for being "overly sensitive." The ip model has been the most successful for determining carcinogenicity of inorganic fibers and establishing dose-response relationships; but to determine the possibilities and limitations of this test model, very high doses of nonfibrous silicon carbide and of a slightly durable glass fiber type were injected ip in Wistar rats. No obviously acute or chronic toxic effect was observed in 90 weeks, but there was a 40% incidence of serosal tumors in the group treated with glass fibers. A pilot study on the persistence of slag fibers in the omentum of rats after ip injection showed a half-time of about 1 year. It was calculated that an ip injection of 10(9) fibers would lead to a concentration of fiber numbers in the ash of the omentum in the same range as the concentration in the lung after 2 years of inhalation exposure. The long-term inhalation study with fibers in rats has been called the "gold standard" for risk characterization.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper argues that the carcinogenic potency of mineral fibers in the rat abdominal cavity depends on fiber biodurability and that the intraperitoneal (ip) model is more sensitive than rat inhalation studies. It reports a slag-fiber half-time of about 356 days in the omentum and contrasts a roughly 200-fold higher human asbestos tumor risk per fiber with negative rat inhalation studies at >1000-fold higher lung fiber burdens.
Key findings
- In ip carcinogenicity tests, very high doses of nonfibrous silicon carbide produced no serosal tumors in 35 histopathologically examined rats and mortality was <20% at 90 weeks; slightly durable glass fibers produced 3 serosal tumors in the 20 × 25 mg group and 20 serosal tumors in the 40 × 25 mg group within 87 weeks, with about 40% incidence at the 1000 mg dose.
- In a pilot persistence study, slag fibers in rat omentum after ip injection had an estimated half-time of 356 days (95% CI: 163 days–∞); there were insufficient data to estimate a half-time for basalt fibers. An ip injection of 10⁹ fibers was calculated to produce about 240 fibers/µg dry omentum, in the same range as lung concentrations after 2 years of inhalation exposure.
- The lowest ip injected fiber dose that significantly increased serosal tumors was 0.004 × 10⁹ fibers >5 µm in 10 µg actinolite dust; a thin glass fiber with low biodurability induced no tumors after ip injection of 5.8 × 10⁹ fibers in 100 mg.
- The tumor risk from inhalation of asbestos fibers in humans was estimated to be about 200 times higher per fiber than in rats, and a negative rat inhalation study had crocidolite lung concentrations more than 1000-fold higher than the median amphibole fiber concentration in asbestos workers with mesotheliomas, indicating that the inhalation model is too insensitive.
Methods
- Persistence pilot: 12 female Wistar rats, aged 17 weeks, were injected ip with 50 mg slag fibers in 2 ml saline and killed up to 673 days later; omentum majus was freeze-dried, low-temperature ashed, and fibers were counted by phase contrast optical microscopy, with half-time estimated from an exponential regression curve. Omenta from five rats from a positive basalt-wool carcinogenicity test (five weekly ip injections of 30 mg dust; 71% tumor incidence) were also measured.
- Carcinogenicity study: Wistar rats (8–10 weeks) were repeatedly injected ip under CO₂ anesthesia with dust suspensions. Silicon carbide was given as 5 × 50 mg or 20 × 50 mg at 2-week intervals to 48 female and 72 male rats; glass fibers were given as 20 × 25 mg at 2-week intervals or 40 × 25 mg weekly to 54 male rats per group. Suspected tumor tissue was examined histologically.
- Analysis compared dose-response relationships across fiber types, exposure-dose-response relationships between ip and inhalation routes, and human versus rat asbestos tumor risks.
Limitations
- The paper states that it is necessary to be very cautious in applying ip carcinogenicity results to risk assessment, and it notes large variations in omental fiber concentrations due to inhomogeneous suspension, difficulty injecting very long and thick fibers, and different deposition patterns; there were also insufficient data to estimate a basalt-fiber half-time.
- The paper acknowledges substantial uncertainties in the experimental data and states that the glass fiber data were insufficient to permit a firm conclusion that they were not carcinogenic, partly because the glass fiber dose was low.
- Evident from the text: the persistence pilot used only 12 rats and no concurrent control group is described for that pilot; the carcinogenicity study relies on high bolus ip doses, which the paper notes are criticized as unphysiologic but argues do not make the results an artifact.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
21 Own interpretation · 19 Sources not found · 15 Own result · 6 No basis given · 1 Own method
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The right-hand curve shows the tumor risk for rats derived from inhalation studies (20-22); the difference in the two dose- response relationships can be estimated to be 1 to 200.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 1000 mg dose is already associated with a tumor incidence of about 40%”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The body weight of the two groups injected with glass fibers was not lower than in the other groups.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The difference increases if only malignant tumors are evaluated.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within 87 weeks after the first injection, three rats were diagnosed with serosal tumors in the group treated with 20 x 25 mg glass fibers”
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This concentra- tion is more than 1000-fold higher than the median concentration of amphibole fibers found in the lungs of asbestos work- ers with mesothelioma (Figure 9), which emphasizes the relatively low sensitivity of the inhalation model.”
plainstates an associationSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but the three mesotheliomas indicate a carcinogenicity that may become statistically significant”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The concentration of 2 slag fibers/pg dry omentum found in this study was com- pared to the fiber concentrations in the lungs of rats”
plain- Asserted: unclear — It is unclear whether the authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A relatively low exposure con- centration of about 200 ceramic (RCF 1) fibers/ml giving a dose of about 600 fibers/pg lung dry weight, with a geo- metric mean fiber length of 8 pm, is associ- ated with a tumor incidence of 16%.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, a trend of decreas- ing numbers of slag fibers during the obser- vation time can be observed”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
- The quote only partly states this claim. 6
- Probably not a substantial claim. 5
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One year after the first ip injection of sili- con carbide, the average body weight of the rats injected with 20 x 50 mg was about 5% lower in both sexes than in the control group injected 20 times with 2 ml saline. Six months later this difference was between 7 and 8% in both sexes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ip model has been used success- fully for determining the dose-response relationships of several fiber types (Figure 1); the results show clear differences between some fiber types that depend sim- ply on the numbers of fibers longer than 5 pm and thinner than 2 pm.”
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The results were almost all negative (23-25), in spite of the high concentration (2500/pg lung dry weight) of fibers longer than 6 pm that were identified in the lung ash after the experiment.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [25]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No obviously acute or chronic toxic effect was observed in 90 weeks, but there was a 40% incidence of serosal tumors in the group treated with glass fibers.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A pilot study on the persistence of slag fibers in the omentum of rats after ip injection showed a half-time of about 1 year.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were insufficient data to estimate a half-time for basalt fibers, but their behavior seemed similar to that of the slag fibers.”
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but there was a 40% incidence of serosal tumors in the group treated with glass fibers.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“and 20 serosal tumors were found in the group treated with 40 x 25 mg.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Observations 90 weeks after the start of the experiment do not indicate any obviously acute or chronic toxic effect in male and female rats”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neither did 500 mg glass fibers containing 13 x 1 09 fibers influence the body weight or mortality”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No serosal tumors were found in the abdominal cavity of 35 histopathologically examined rats.”
plainn = 35- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average fiber length in the exposure atmosphere was about 20 pm, but the geometric mean fiber length in the lung was reported to be 8 pm (Figure 8).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Early studies showed that gypsum fibers (2) and later, HCl-leached chrysotile fibers (3) dissolved in the intraperitoneal cavity a few days after injection”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No findings to date plausibly explain the hypothesis that the carcinogenicity of fibers after intraperitoneal injection of doses up to about 109 fibers in 250 mg dust is an artifact and not relevant for humans”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the long fibers are also usually thick and would therefore be deposited to a large degree in the nose of rats.”
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with the expo- sure-dose-response relationship of asbestos, the dose of glass fibers was low, and a positive effect was thus unlikely.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this test model was the first to show clearly differences in carcinogenic potency between long and short, and between durable and nondurable fibers.”
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Carcinogenicity of such fibers can only be detected if the carcinogenic potency per fiber is not lower than that of thinner fibers and if the dust sample does not contain a substantial proportion of other particles.”
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The higher deposition rate of crocidolite fibers com- pared to ceramic fibers can be explained by their smaller aerodynamic diameter.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Based on the data reproduced in Figure 8, it would appear that the vitreous ceramic fibers (RCF 1) are not only more carcino- genic than the crocidolite fibers of similar lengths in the lung (25), but also are more carcinogenic per fiber than the asbestos fibers used by Davis [Figure 7, and (20-22,27)].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [25]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [22]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [27]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This led to the conclusion that the chemical composition of fibers was not responsible for the carcinogenesis but that the degree of carcinogenic potency of a fiber depended on the extent to which it retained its fibrous structure.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“Those studies led to the conclusion that the chemical compo- sition of a fiber, although not responsible for fiber carcinogenesis, did modify the car- cinogenic potency from fiber type to fiber type, with variations that ranged between noncarcinogenicity and the carcinogenicity of crocidolite asbestos.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This concentration is low compared with the positive asbestos groups, and could be explained by the greater fiber length, if indeed the fibers reaching the lung are also very long.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The reduction of carcino- genicity of acid-leached chrysotile in intrapleural experiments had been observed previously (5,6).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“and that the leached chrysotile was as acutely toxic as amorphous silicic acid.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
The authors state this as an assumption.
The dissolution rate of mineral fibers is similar in the lung and in the peritoneal cavity.
“Provided that the dissolution rate of mineral fibers were similar in the lung and in the peritoneal cavity”
The paper relies on this without support.
The tumor risk from inhalation of asbestos fibers in man is about 200 times higher per fiber than the risk in rats.
“However, the tumor risk from inhalation of asbestos fibers in man has been estimated to be about 200 times higher per fiber than the risk in rats.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The concentration of crocidolite fibers in the lung of rats in a negative inhalation study was more than 1000-fold higher than the median concentration of amphibole fibers in the lungs of asbestos workers with mesotheliomas.
“The concentration of crocidolite fibers in the lung of rats in an inhalation study that was negative was more than 1 000-fold higher than the median concentration of amphibole fibers in the lungs of asbestos workers with mesotheliomas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When rats were treated with 250 mg of nonfibrous dusts or fibers >3 µm in diameter or <3 µm in length, no carcinogenic effect could be detected.
“When several groups of rats were treated with 250 mg of nonfibrous dusts or fibers >3 pm in diame- ter or <3 pm in length, no carcinogenic effect could be detected.”
Citations
Cites
Carcinogenicity studies on fibres, metal compounds, and some other dusts in rats
POTT, F., Ziem, U., Reiffer, F. J., Huth, F., Ernst, H., & Möhr, U. (1987) · Experimental Pathology · doi:10.1016/s0232-1513(87)80044-0 · Cited by 265
Self-citationErionite exposure and mesotheliomas in rats
Wagner, J. C., Skidmore, J., Hill, R. J., & Griffiths, D. M. (1985) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1985.108 · Cited by 228
Mass and number of fibres in the pathogenesis of asbestos-related lung disease in rats
Davis, J. M., BECKETT, S. T., Bolton, R., Collings, P., & Middleton, A. (1978) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1978.105 · Cited by 210
Asbestos content of lung tissue in asbestos associated diseases: a study of 110 cases.
Roggli, V. L., Pratt, P. C., & Brody, A. R. (1986) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oem.43.1.18 · Cited by 141
Comparisons of the pathogenicity of long and short fibres of chrysotile asbestos in rats.
Davis, J. M., & Jones, A. D. (1988) · PubMed · Cited by 133
Tumoren der Ratte nach i.p.-Injektion faserf�rmiger St�ube
Pott, F., & Friedrichs, K. H. (1972) · Die Naturwissenschaften · doi:10.1007/bf00593370 · Cited by 122
Self-citationPERSISTENCE OF MAN-MADE MINERAL FIBRES (MMMF) AND ASBESTOS IN RAT LUNGS
Bellmann, B., Muhle, H., POTT, F., König, H. E., Klöppel, H., & Spurny, K. R. (1987) · The Annals of Occupational Hygiene · doi:10.1093/annhyg/31.4b.693 · Cited by 90
Self-citationThe biological effects of magnesium-leached chrysotile asbestos.
Morgan, A. E., Davies, P., Wagner, J. C., Berry, G., & Holmes, A. (1977) · PubMed · Cited by 79
Monchaux, G., Bignon, J., Jaurand, M. C., Lafuma, J., Sebastien, P., Masse, R., Hirsch, A., & Goni, J. (1981) · Carcinogenesis · doi:10.1093/carcin/2.3.229 · Cited by 76
Roggli, V. L. (1990) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.9088295 · Cited by 65
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Takagi, A., Hirose, A., Nishimura, T., Fukumori, N., Ogata, A., Ohashi, N., Kitajima, S., & Kanno, J. (2008) · The Journal of Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.2131/jts.33.105 · Cited by 841
Takagi, A., Hirose, A., Futakuchi, M., Tsuda, H., & Kanno, J. (2012) · Cancer Science · doi:10.1111/j.1349-7006.2012.02318.x · Cited by 209
Huaux, F., de Bousies, V. D., Parent, M.-A., Orsi, M., Uwambayinema, F., Devosse, R., Ibouraadaten, S., Yakoub, Y., Panin, N., Palmai‐Pallag, M., et al. (2015) · Particle and Fibre Toxicology · doi:10.1186/s12989-016-0158-0 · Cited by 60
BIOPERSISTENCE, FIBER LENGTH, AND CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT FOR INHALED FIBERS
Moolgavkar, S. H., Brown, R. C., & Turim, J. (2001) · Inhalation Toxicology · doi:10.1080/089583701316941294 · Cited by 53
Dörger, M., Münzing, S., Allmeling, A.-M., Meßmer, K., & Krombach, F. (2001) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1006/enrs.2001.4234 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Pott, F., Roller, M., Kamino, K., & Bellmann, B.
- Affiliations
- Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
- Venue
- Environmental Health Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1994-10
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- suppl 5
- Pages
- 145-150
- ISSN
- 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-9924
- PMC
- PMC1567282
- OpenAlex
- W1967454436
- Semantic Scholar
- ade4234e76ea361872af15f3170e925d3ffffff4
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Occupational and environmental lung diseases
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
- Social Sciences › Health › Occupational Health and Global Justice
- Keywords
- mineral fibers, fiber durability, intraperitoneal injection, inhalation exposure, glass fiber, chrysotile fibers, silicon carbide, fiber toxicity, dose-response relationship, risk characterization
- MeSH terms
- Abdomen, Administration, Inhalation, Animals, Carbon, Carcinogens, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Glass, Humans, Injections, Intraperitoneal, Intubation, Intratracheal, Minerals, Pilot Projects, Sensitivity and Specificity, Hazardous Substances, Rats, Wistar, Carbon Compounds, Inorganic, Silicon Compounds, Rats
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Significance of durability of mineral fibers for their toxicity and carcinogenic potency in the abdominal cavity of rats in comparison with the low sensitivity of inhalation studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.94102s5145
- The paper
- Pott, F., Roller, M., Kamino, K., & Bellmann, B. (1994). Significance of durability of mineral fibers for their toxicity and carcinogenic potency in the abdominal cavity of rats in comparison with the low sensitivity of inhalation studies. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.94102s5145
