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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |