Classification of man-made vitreous fibers: Comments on the revaluation by an IARC working group

In 2001, an IARC working group revaluated the carcinogenic risks of man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF). Compared with the IARC evaluation in 1987, the overall evaluations of insulation glass wool, rock (stone) wool, and slag wool were changed from Group 2B to Group 3. These changes ensued from an alter...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 2005-11, Vol.43 (2), p.181-193
Hauptverfasser: Wardenbach, P., Rödelsperger, K., Roller, M., Muhle, H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 193
container_issue 2
container_start_page 181
container_title Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology
container_volume 43
creator Wardenbach, P.
Rödelsperger, K.
Roller, M.
Muhle, H.
description In 2001, an IARC working group revaluated the carcinogenic risks of man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF). Compared with the IARC evaluation in 1987, the overall evaluations of insulation glass wool, rock (stone) wool, and slag wool were changed from Group 2B to Group 3. These changes ensued from an alteration in the evidence for cancer in humans and in experimental animals: Instead of “sufficient,” the evidence for cancer in experimental animals is now looked upon as “limited” if there is a carcinogenic response after intraperitoneal injection but not after recently conducted inhalation experiments. For these studies, it is argued that they did properly address the technological limitations of earlier inhalation experiments. For Maxim and McConnell [Maxim L.D., McConnell E.E., 2001. Interspecies comparisons of the toxicity of asbestos and synthetic vitreous fibers: a weight-of-the-evidence approach. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 33, 319–342], well-conducted inhalation studies are very sensitive and rats may be more sensitive than humans in detecting the carcinogenic potential of MMVF. However, their arguments are highly questionable. The explanations of the IARC working group for preferring the newer inhalation studies are not sufficiently supported by the published data. Having in mind the higher sensitivity of humans compared to rats after inhalation of asbestos, more emphasis should have been given to the carcinogenic response after intraperitoneal injection.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.06.011
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17411842</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0273230005001194</els_id><sourcerecordid>17411842</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-f6dbee74e40ebdd6ed2f6243aff1c17cbc78f3b127e58e0eaf3126ef525882093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFq3DAURUVJ6EzTfkGhaJWdnSfZluVCFsEkTSAQKO1aleWnjKa25Uj2hPn7ejoD2WX1Nufexz2EfGWQMmDiapvuwzRuUg5QpCBSYOwDWTOoRAK8Ks7IGniZJTwDWJFPMW4BgEtZfiQrJqCqipKtyZ-60zE664yenB-ot7TXQ9LrFunOTQH9HKl1DYb4nda-73GYIl3AaYM04E538zHY7Kke6MPNz5q--vDXDc_0Ofh5_EzOre4ifjndC_L77vZXfZ88Pv14qG8eE5NJOSVWtA1imWMO2LStwJZbwfNMW8sMK01jSmmzhvESC4mA2maMC7QFL6TkUGUX5PLYOwb_MmOcVO-iwa7Tw2GDYmXOmMz5AmZH0AQfY0CrxuB6HfaKgTqIVVv1X6w6iFUg1CJ2SX071c9Nj-1b5mRyAa6PAC4jdw6DisbhYLB1Ac2kWu_effAP-UeMSQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17411842</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Classification of man-made vitreous fibers: Comments on the revaluation by an IARC working group</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Wardenbach, P. ; Rödelsperger, K. ; Roller, M. ; Muhle, H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wardenbach, P. ; Rödelsperger, K. ; Roller, M. ; Muhle, H.</creatorcontrib><description>In 2001, an IARC working group revaluated the carcinogenic risks of man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF). Compared with the IARC evaluation in 1987, the overall evaluations of insulation glass wool, rock (stone) wool, and slag wool were changed from Group 2B to Group 3. These changes ensued from an alteration in the evidence for cancer in humans and in experimental animals: Instead of “sufficient,” the evidence for cancer in experimental animals is now looked upon as “limited” if there is a carcinogenic response after intraperitoneal injection but not after recently conducted inhalation experiments. For these studies, it is argued that they did properly address the technological limitations of earlier inhalation experiments. For Maxim and McConnell [Maxim L.D., McConnell E.E., 2001. Interspecies comparisons of the toxicity of asbestos and synthetic vitreous fibers: a weight-of-the-evidence approach. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 33, 319–342], well-conducted inhalation studies are very sensitive and rats may be more sensitive than humans in detecting the carcinogenic potential of MMVF. However, their arguments are highly questionable. The explanations of the IARC working group for preferring the newer inhalation studies are not sufficiently supported by the published data. Having in mind the higher sensitivity of humans compared to rats after inhalation of asbestos, more emphasis should have been given to the carcinogenic response after intraperitoneal injection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0273-2300</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0295</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.06.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16099571</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Animals ; Asbestos ; Asbestos - toxicity ; Carcinogenicity ; Carcinogenicity Tests ; Carcinogens - administration &amp; dosage ; Carcinogens - classification ; Carcinogens - toxicity ; Humans ; IARC ; Inhalation Exposure ; Injections, Intraperitoneal ; Intraperitoneal injection ; Man-made vitreous fibers ; Mineral Fibers - classification ; Mineral Fibers - toxicity ; Rats ; Sensitivity of rats and humans ; Species Specificity</subject><ispartof>Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 2005-11, Vol.43 (2), p.181-193</ispartof><rights>2005 Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-f6dbee74e40ebdd6ed2f6243aff1c17cbc78f3b127e58e0eaf3126ef525882093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-f6dbee74e40ebdd6ed2f6243aff1c17cbc78f3b127e58e0eaf3126ef525882093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.06.011$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16099571$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wardenbach, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rödelsperger, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roller, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muhle, H.</creatorcontrib><title>Classification of man-made vitreous fibers: Comments on the revaluation by an IARC working group</title><title>Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology</title><addtitle>Regul Toxicol Pharmacol</addtitle><description>In 2001, an IARC working group revaluated the carcinogenic risks of man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF). Compared with the IARC evaluation in 1987, the overall evaluations of insulation glass wool, rock (stone) wool, and slag wool were changed from Group 2B to Group 3. These changes ensued from an alteration in the evidence for cancer in humans and in experimental animals: Instead of “sufficient,” the evidence for cancer in experimental animals is now looked upon as “limited” if there is a carcinogenic response after intraperitoneal injection but not after recently conducted inhalation experiments. For these studies, it is argued that they did properly address the technological limitations of earlier inhalation experiments. For Maxim and McConnell [Maxim L.D., McConnell E.E., 2001. Interspecies comparisons of the toxicity of asbestos and synthetic vitreous fibers: a weight-of-the-evidence approach. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 33, 319–342], well-conducted inhalation studies are very sensitive and rats may be more sensitive than humans in detecting the carcinogenic potential of MMVF. However, their arguments are highly questionable. The explanations of the IARC working group for preferring the newer inhalation studies are not sufficiently supported by the published data. Having in mind the higher sensitivity of humans compared to rats after inhalation of asbestos, more emphasis should have been given to the carcinogenic response after intraperitoneal injection.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Asbestos</subject><subject>Asbestos - toxicity</subject><subject>Carcinogenicity</subject><subject>Carcinogenicity Tests</subject><subject>Carcinogens - administration &amp; dosage</subject><subject>Carcinogens - classification</subject><subject>Carcinogens - toxicity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>IARC</subject><subject>Inhalation Exposure</subject><subject>Injections, Intraperitoneal</subject><subject>Intraperitoneal injection</subject><subject>Man-made vitreous fibers</subject><subject>Mineral Fibers - classification</subject><subject>Mineral Fibers - toxicity</subject><subject>Rats</subject><subject>Sensitivity of rats and humans</subject><subject>Species Specificity</subject><issn>0273-2300</issn><issn>1096-0295</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFq3DAURUVJ6EzTfkGhaJWdnSfZluVCFsEkTSAQKO1aleWnjKa25Uj2hPn7ejoD2WX1Nufexz2EfGWQMmDiapvuwzRuUg5QpCBSYOwDWTOoRAK8Ks7IGniZJTwDWJFPMW4BgEtZfiQrJqCqipKtyZ-60zE664yenB-ot7TXQ9LrFunOTQH9HKl1DYb4nda-73GYIl3AaYM04E538zHY7Kke6MPNz5q--vDXDc_0Ofh5_EzOre4ifjndC_L77vZXfZ88Pv14qG8eE5NJOSVWtA1imWMO2LStwJZbwfNMW8sMK01jSmmzhvESC4mA2maMC7QFL6TkUGUX5PLYOwb_MmOcVO-iwa7Tw2GDYmXOmMz5AmZH0AQfY0CrxuB6HfaKgTqIVVv1X6w6iFUg1CJ2SX071c9Nj-1b5mRyAa6PAC4jdw6DisbhYLB1Ac2kWu_effAP-UeMSQ</recordid><startdate>20051101</startdate><enddate>20051101</enddate><creator>Wardenbach, P.</creator><creator>Rödelsperger, K.</creator><creator>Roller, M.</creator><creator>Muhle, H.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20051101</creationdate><title>Classification of man-made vitreous fibers: Comments on the revaluation by an IARC working group</title><author>Wardenbach, P. ; Rödelsperger, K. ; Roller, M. ; Muhle, H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-f6dbee74e40ebdd6ed2f6243aff1c17cbc78f3b127e58e0eaf3126ef525882093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Asbestos</topic><topic>Asbestos - toxicity</topic><topic>Carcinogenicity</topic><topic>Carcinogenicity Tests</topic><topic>Carcinogens - administration &amp; dosage</topic><topic>Carcinogens - classification</topic><topic>Carcinogens - toxicity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>IARC</topic><topic>Inhalation Exposure</topic><topic>Injections, Intraperitoneal</topic><topic>Intraperitoneal injection</topic><topic>Man-made vitreous fibers</topic><topic>Mineral Fibers - classification</topic><topic>Mineral Fibers - toxicity</topic><topic>Rats</topic><topic>Sensitivity of rats and humans</topic><topic>Species Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wardenbach, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rödelsperger, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roller, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muhle, H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wardenbach, P.</au><au>Rödelsperger, K.</au><au>Roller, M.</au><au>Muhle, H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Classification of man-made vitreous fibers: Comments on the revaluation by an IARC working group</atitle><jtitle>Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology</jtitle><addtitle>Regul Toxicol Pharmacol</addtitle><date>2005-11-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>181</spage><epage>193</epage><pages>181-193</pages><issn>0273-2300</issn><eissn>1096-0295</eissn><abstract>In 2001, an IARC working group revaluated the carcinogenic risks of man-made vitreous fibers (MMVF). Compared with the IARC evaluation in 1987, the overall evaluations of insulation glass wool, rock (stone) wool, and slag wool were changed from Group 2B to Group 3. These changes ensued from an alteration in the evidence for cancer in humans and in experimental animals: Instead of “sufficient,” the evidence for cancer in experimental animals is now looked upon as “limited” if there is a carcinogenic response after intraperitoneal injection but not after recently conducted inhalation experiments. For these studies, it is argued that they did properly address the technological limitations of earlier inhalation experiments. For Maxim and McConnell [Maxim L.D., McConnell E.E., 2001. Interspecies comparisons of the toxicity of asbestos and synthetic vitreous fibers: a weight-of-the-evidence approach. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 33, 319–342], well-conducted inhalation studies are very sensitive and rats may be more sensitive than humans in detecting the carcinogenic potential of MMVF. However, their arguments are highly questionable. The explanations of the IARC working group for preferring the newer inhalation studies are not sufficiently supported by the published data. Having in mind the higher sensitivity of humans compared to rats after inhalation of asbestos, more emphasis should have been given to the carcinogenic response after intraperitoneal injection.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>16099571</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.06.011</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0273-2300
ispartof Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 2005-11, Vol.43 (2), p.181-193
issn 0273-2300
1096-0295
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17411842
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Animals
Asbestos
Asbestos - toxicity
Carcinogenicity
Carcinogenicity Tests
Carcinogens - administration & dosage
Carcinogens - classification
Carcinogens - toxicity
Humans
IARC
Inhalation Exposure
Injections, Intraperitoneal
Intraperitoneal injection
Man-made vitreous fibers
Mineral Fibers - classification
Mineral Fibers - toxicity
Rats
Sensitivity of rats and humans
Species Specificity
title Classification of man-made vitreous fibers: Comments on the revaluation by an IARC working group
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T16%3A19%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Classification%20of%20man-made%20vitreous%20fibers:%20Comments%20on%20the%20revaluation%20by%20an%20IARC%20working%20group&rft.jtitle=Regulatory%20toxicology%20and%20pharmacology&rft.au=Wardenbach,%20P.&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=181&rft.epage=193&rft.pages=181-193&rft.issn=0273-2300&rft.eissn=1096-0295&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.06.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17411842%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17411842&rft_id=info:pmid/16099571&rft_els_id=S0273230005001194&rfr_iscdi=true