22.02.2013 Views

Asbestos Fibers and Other Elongate Mineral Particles: State of the ...

Asbestos Fibers and Other Elongate Mineral Particles: State of the ...

Asbestos Fibers and Other Elongate Mineral Particles: State of the ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se populations should be pursued if <strong>the</strong>se<br />

improvements are deemed feasible.<br />

2.7.1.1.2 Animal Studies<br />

The second element <strong>of</strong> NIOSH’s rationale for<br />

recommending in 1990 that nonasbestiform<br />

analogs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> asbestos minerals be encompassed<br />

by <strong>the</strong> REL is related to evidence from<br />

animal studies. Citing several original studies<br />

<strong>and</strong> reviews [Stanton et al. 1977, 1981; Wagner<br />

et al. 1982; Muhle et al. 1987; Pott et al. 1974,<br />

1987; Lippmann 1988], NIOSH [1990a] concluded<br />

that <strong>the</strong>y provided evidence that fiber<br />

dimension (<strong>and</strong> not fiber composition) was <strong>the</strong><br />

major determinant <strong>of</strong> carcinogenicity for mineral<br />

fibers, stating that<br />

Literature reviews by Lippmann [1988]<br />

<strong>and</strong> Pott et al. [1987] enhance <strong>the</strong> hypo<strong>the</strong>sis<br />

that any mineral particle can induce<br />

cancer <strong>and</strong> meso<strong>the</strong>lioma if it is sufficiently<br />

durable to be retained in <strong>the</strong> lung <strong>and</strong> if<br />

it has <strong>the</strong> appropriate aspect ratio <strong>and</strong> dimensions.<br />

Similarly, Wagner [1986] concluded<br />

that all mineral particles <strong>of</strong> a specific<br />

diameter <strong>and</strong> length size range may<br />

be associated with development <strong>of</strong> diffuse<br />

pleural <strong>and</strong> peritoneal meso<strong>the</strong>liomas.<br />

That general conclusion notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing, a study<br />

by Smith et al. [1979] that was not cited by<br />

NIOSH in 1990 addressed <strong>the</strong> specific question<br />

<strong>of</strong> carcinogenicity <strong>of</strong> EMPs from nonasbestiform<br />

amphiboles. Pleural tumor induction by intrapleural<br />

(IP) injection challenge in hamsters was<br />

compared for various challenge materials, including<br />

two asbestiform tremolites <strong>and</strong> two<br />

nonasbestiform (prismatic) tremolitic talcs. In<br />

contrast to <strong>the</strong> two asbestiform tremolites, which<br />

induced tumors in 22% <strong>and</strong> 42% <strong>of</strong> challenged<br />

hamsters at <strong>the</strong> higher dose, no tumors resulted<br />

following challenge with ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two<br />

NIOSH CIB 62 • <strong>Asbestos</strong><br />

nonasbestiform tremolites [Smith et al. 1979]. In<br />

its rule-making, OSHA noted several limitations<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> study, including <strong>the</strong> small number <strong>of</strong> animals<br />

studied, <strong>the</strong> early death <strong>of</strong> many animals,<br />

<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> systematic characterization <strong>of</strong> fiber<br />

size <strong>and</strong> aspect ratio [OSHA 1992]. One <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> nonasbestiform tremolitic talcs was later analyzed<br />

<strong>and</strong> determined to have tremolitic chemical<br />

composition <strong>and</strong> 13% “fibers,” as defined by<br />

a 3:1 aspect ratio [Wylie et al. 1993].<br />

Since 1990, ano<strong>the</strong>r carcinogenicity study <strong>of</strong><br />

nonasbestiform amphibole minerals has been<br />

published. An IP injection study in rats used six<br />

samples <strong>of</strong> tremolite, including three asbestiform<br />

samples that induced meso<strong>the</strong>lioma in 100%,<br />

97%, <strong>and</strong> 97% <strong>of</strong> challenged animals [Davis et<br />

al. 1991]. Two nonasbestiform tremolite samples<br />

resulted in meso<strong>the</strong>liomas in 12% <strong>and</strong> 5%<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> animals, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> response rate <strong>of</strong> 12% was<br />

above <strong>the</strong> expected background rate. Ano<strong>the</strong>r<br />

sample that was predominantly nonasbestiform<br />

but reported to contain a small amount <strong>of</strong><br />

asbestiform tremolite resulted in meso<strong>the</strong>lioma<br />

in 67% <strong>of</strong> animals. Of note, <strong>the</strong> nonasbestiform<br />

material associated with <strong>the</strong> 12% meso<strong>the</strong>lioma<br />

incidence <strong>and</strong> this latter material contained an<br />

approximately equal number <strong>of</strong> EMPs longer<br />

than 8 μm <strong>and</strong> thinner than 0.5 μm.<br />

Studies <strong>of</strong> in vitro assays <strong>of</strong> various biological<br />

responses, some published before <strong>and</strong><br />

some after 1990, have also found relative toxicities<br />

<strong>of</strong> asbestiform <strong>and</strong> non asbestiform<br />

minerals that generally parallel <strong>the</strong> differences<br />

observed in <strong>the</strong> in vivo IP injection studies<br />

<strong>of</strong> tumorigenicity [Wagner et al. 1982;<br />

Woodworth et al. 1983; Hansen <strong>and</strong> Mossman<br />

1987; Marsh <strong>and</strong> Mossman 1988; Sesko <strong>and</strong><br />

Mossman 1989; Janssen et al. 1994; Mossman<br />

<strong>and</strong> Sesko 1990] A recent review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> literature<br />

concluded that low-aspect-ratio cleavage<br />

31

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!