Cargando…

Health risk of chrysotile revisited

This review provides a basis for substantiating both kinetically and pathologically the differences between chrysotile and amphibole asbestos. Chrysotile, which is rapidly attacked by the acid environment of the macrophage, falls apart in the lung into short fibers and particles, while the amphibole...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bernstein, David, Dunnigan, Jacques, Hesterberg, Thomas, Brown, Robert, Velasco, Juan Antonio Legaspi, Barrera, Raúl, Hoskins, John, Gibbs, Allen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare USA, Inc 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581056/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23346982
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2012.756454
_version_ 1782260361265676288
author Bernstein, David
Dunnigan, Jacques
Hesterberg, Thomas
Brown, Robert
Velasco, Juan Antonio Legaspi
Barrera, Raúl
Hoskins, John
Gibbs, Allen
author_facet Bernstein, David
Dunnigan, Jacques
Hesterberg, Thomas
Brown, Robert
Velasco, Juan Antonio Legaspi
Barrera, Raúl
Hoskins, John
Gibbs, Allen
author_sort Bernstein, David
collection PubMed
description This review provides a basis for substantiating both kinetically and pathologically the differences between chrysotile and amphibole asbestos. Chrysotile, which is rapidly attacked by the acid environment of the macrophage, falls apart in the lung into short fibers and particles, while the amphibole asbestos persist creating a response to the fibrous structure of this mineral. Inhalation toxicity studies of chrysotile at non-lung overload conditions demonstrate that the long (>20 µm) fibers are rapidly cleared from the lung, are not translocated to the pleural cavity and do not initiate fibrogenic response. In contrast, long amphibole asbestos fibers persist, are quickly (within 7 d) translocated to the pleural cavity and result in interstitial fibrosis and pleural inflammation. Quantitative reviews of epidemiological studies of mineral fibers have determined the potency of chrysotile and amphibole asbestos for causing lung cancer and mesothelioma in relation to fiber type and have also differentiated between these two minerals. These studies have been reviewed in light of the frequent use of amphibole asbestos. As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer. The importance of the present and other similar reviews is that the studies they report show that low exposures to chrysotile do not present a detectable risk to health. Since total dose over time decides the likelihood of disease occurrence and progression, they also suggest that the risk of an adverse outcome may be low with even high exposures experienced over a short duration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3581056
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Informa Healthcare USA, Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35810562013-03-05 Health risk of chrysotile revisited Bernstein, David Dunnigan, Jacques Hesterberg, Thomas Brown, Robert Velasco, Juan Antonio Legaspi Barrera, Raúl Hoskins, John Gibbs, Allen Crit Rev Toxicol Review Article This review provides a basis for substantiating both kinetically and pathologically the differences between chrysotile and amphibole asbestos. Chrysotile, which is rapidly attacked by the acid environment of the macrophage, falls apart in the lung into short fibers and particles, while the amphibole asbestos persist creating a response to the fibrous structure of this mineral. Inhalation toxicity studies of chrysotile at non-lung overload conditions demonstrate that the long (>20 µm) fibers are rapidly cleared from the lung, are not translocated to the pleural cavity and do not initiate fibrogenic response. In contrast, long amphibole asbestos fibers persist, are quickly (within 7 d) translocated to the pleural cavity and result in interstitial fibrosis and pleural inflammation. Quantitative reviews of epidemiological studies of mineral fibers have determined the potency of chrysotile and amphibole asbestos for causing lung cancer and mesothelioma in relation to fiber type and have also differentiated between these two minerals. These studies have been reviewed in light of the frequent use of amphibole asbestos. As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer. The importance of the present and other similar reviews is that the studies they report show that low exposures to chrysotile do not present a detectable risk to health. Since total dose over time decides the likelihood of disease occurrence and progression, they also suggest that the risk of an adverse outcome may be low with even high exposures experienced over a short duration. Informa Healthcare USA, Inc 2013-02 2013-01-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3581056/ /pubmed/23346982 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2012.756454 Text en © 2013 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Bernstein, David
Dunnigan, Jacques
Hesterberg, Thomas
Brown, Robert
Velasco, Juan Antonio Legaspi
Barrera, Raúl
Hoskins, John
Gibbs, Allen
Health risk of chrysotile revisited
title Health risk of chrysotile revisited
title_full Health risk of chrysotile revisited
title_fullStr Health risk of chrysotile revisited
title_full_unstemmed Health risk of chrysotile revisited
title_short Health risk of chrysotile revisited
title_sort health risk of chrysotile revisited
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581056/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23346982
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2012.756454
work_keys_str_mv AT bernsteindavid healthriskofchrysotilerevisited
AT dunniganjacques healthriskofchrysotilerevisited
AT hesterbergthomas healthriskofchrysotilerevisited
AT brownrobert healthriskofchrysotilerevisited
AT velascojuanantoniolegaspi healthriskofchrysotilerevisited
AT barreraraul healthriskofchrysotilerevisited
AT hoskinsjohn healthriskofchrysotilerevisited
AT gibbsallen healthriskofchrysotilerevisited