09.02.2014 Views

home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

home edit2 whole TSD November 2002 PDF format - OEHHA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

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

male and 121 female rats, was exposed to clean air. The study design included two subtreatments in a<br />

2 4 factorial arrangement. The two subtreatments were: 1) pre-exposure for one month to 0.97 mg/m 3<br />

nickel subsulfide 6 hr/day, 5 day/week; and 2) injection of the pulmonary infarction agent,<br />

hexachlorotetrafluorobutane. Animals found moribund or succumbing during the study and those killed<br />

at the end of the observation period (i.e., 30 weeks) were necropsied. A small number of animals (18<br />

in the exposed and 26 in the control groups) were not examined because of autolysis or cannibalism.<br />

The results demonstrated a significant increase in lung tumors (adenomas, adenocarcinomas, squamous<br />

cell carcinomas, and fibrosarcomas) in the exposed 110 male and 98 female rats examined as<br />

compared with the control 108 male and 107 female rats examined (Table 2).<br />

Table 2:<br />

Neoplastic Changes in Lungs of Rats Exposed to Nickel Subsulfide<br />

Tumors<br />

Controls<br />

Nickel Subsulfide Exposed<br />

Males Females Males<br />

Females<br />

Adenoma 0/108 (0%) 1/107 (1%) 8/110 (7%) b 7/98 (7%) a<br />

Adenocarcinoma 1/108 (1%) 0/107 (0%) 6/110 (5%) a 4/98 (4%) b<br />

Squamous cell 0/108 (0%) 0/107 (0%) 2/110 (2%) 1/98 (1%)<br />

carcinoma<br />

Fibrosarcoma 0/108 (0%) 0/107 (0%) 1/110 (1%) 0/98 (0%)<br />

a p < 0.01, Fisher’s Exact Test<br />

b p < 0.05, Fisher’s Exact Test<br />

The two subtreatments, described above, did not alter the effects produced by nickel subsulfide<br />

treatment (Ottolenghi et al., 1974). Sex of the exposed animal also did not appear to alter the effects<br />

produced by the nickel subsulfide treatment. The study results of Ottolenghi et al. (1974) for nickel<br />

subsulfide were selected for a quantitative risk assessment.<br />

At the time the CDHS (1991) risk assessment was conducted, injection administration (intramuscular)<br />

was the only route of exposure from which data were available for comparison of carcinogenic potency<br />

of a variety of nickel compounds. Injection studies by Sunderman (1984) and Skaug et al. (1984)<br />

demonstrate that based on the incidence of sarcomas produced at the injection site, nickel subsulfide<br />

and nickel oxide possess approximately equal potency following this route of exposure. None of the<br />

studies utilizing oral exposure has produced evidence of carcinogenic potential. However, it should be<br />

noted that only nickel sulfate (NiSO 4 ) has been adequately evaluated in rats by this route.<br />

IV.<br />

DERIVATION OF CANCER POTENCY<br />

Basis for Cancer Potency<br />

Nickel subsulfide has been observed to induce lung tumors in male and female rats (Ottolenghi et al.,<br />

1974). This study and the Ontario cohort study (Chovil et al., 1981; Roberts et al., 1984; Muir et al.,<br />

1985; ICNCM, 1990), which demonstrated an increased risk of lung cancer associated with<br />

380

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!