Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 1999 Aug;107(8):607–611. doi: 10.1289/ehp.99107607

Comparative hazards of chrysotile asbestos and its substitutes: A European perspective.

P T Harrison 1, L S Levy 1, G Patrick 1, G H Pigott 1, L L Smith 1
PMCID: PMC1566482  PMID: 10417355

Abstract

Although the use of amphibole asbestos (crocidolite and amosite) has been banned in most European countries because of its known effects on the lung and pleura, chrysotile asbestos remains in use in a number of widely used products, notably asbestos cement and friction linings in vehicle brakes and clutches. A ban on chrysotile throughout the European Union for these remaining applications is currently under consideration, but this requires confidence in the safety of substitute materials. The main substitutes for the residual uses of chrysotile are p-aramid, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and cellulose fibers, and it is these materials that are evaluated here. Because it critically affects both exposure concentrations and deposition in the lung, diameter is a key determinant of the intrinsic hazard of a fiber; the propensity of a material to release fibers into the air is also important. It is generally accepted that to be pathogenic to the lung or pleura, fibers must be long, thin, and durable; fiber chemistry may also be significant. These basic principles are used in a pragmatic way to form a judgement on the relative safety of the substitute materials, taking into account what is known about their hazardous properties and also the potential for uncontrolled exposures during a lifetime of use (including disposal). We conclude that chrysotile asbestos is intrinsically more hazardous than p-aramid, PVA, or cellulose fibers and that its continued use in asbestos-cement products and friction materials is not justifiable in the face of available technically adequate substitutes.

Full text

PDF
607

Images in this article

609Figure 1
on p.609

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Adamis Z., Tátrai E., Honma K., Ungváry G. In vitro and in vivo assessment of the pulmonary toxicity of cellulose. J Appl Toxicol. 1997 Mar-Apr;17(2):137–141. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1263(199703)17:2<137::aid-jat423>3.0.co;2-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Carver M. P., Monteiro-Riviere N. A., Brown T. T., Riviere J. E. Dose-response studies of gentamicin nephrotoxicity in rats with experimental renal dysfunction. II. Polyvinyl alcohol glomerulopathy. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1985 Sep 15;80(2):264–273. doi: 10.1016/0041-008x(85)90083-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Egilman D., Reinert A. Lung cancer and asbestos exposure: asbestosis is not necessary. Am J Ind Med. 1996 Oct;30(4):398–406. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199610)30:4<398::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Liddell F. D., McDonald A. D., McDonald J. C. The 1891-1920 birth cohort of Quebec chrysotile miners and millers: development from 1904 and mortality to 1992. Ann Occup Hyg. 1997 Jan;41(1):13–36. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4878(96)00044-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. McDonald A. D., Case B. W., Churg A., Dufresne A., Gibbs G. W., Sébastien P., McDonald J. C. Mesothelioma in Quebec chrysotile miners and millers: epidemiology and aetiology. Ann Occup Hyg. 1997 Dec;41(6):707–719. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4878(97)00020-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Peto J., Hodgson J. T., Matthews F. E., Jones J. R. Continuing increase in mesothelioma mortality in Britain. Lancet. 1995 Mar 4;345(8949):535–539. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90462-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Sanders C. L., Lauhala K. E., McDonald K. E. Lifespan studies in rats exposed to 239PuO2 aerosol. III. Survival and lung tumours. Int J Radiat Biol. 1993 Oct;64(4):417–430. doi: 10.1080/09553009314551601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Saracci R. Asbestos and lung cancer: an analysis of the epidemiological evidence on the asbestos-smoking interaction. Int J Cancer. 1977 Sep 15;20(3):323–331. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910200302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Stayner L., Smith R., Bailer J., Gilbert S., Steenland K., Dement J., Brown D., Lemen R. Exposure-response analysis of risk of respiratory disease associated with occupational exposure to chrysotile asbestos. Occup Environ Med. 1997 Sep;54(9):646–652. doi: 10.1136/oem.54.9.646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Tátrai E., Brozik M., Adamis Z., Merétey K., Ungváry G. In vivo pulmonary toxicity of cellulose in rats. J Appl Toxicol. 1996 Mar-Apr;16(2):129–135. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1263(199603)16:2<129::AID-JAT316>3.0.CO;2-C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Warheit D. B., Hartsky M. A., Frame S. R. Pulmonary effects in rats inhaling size-separated chrysotile asbestos fibres or p-aramid fibrils: differences in cellular proliferative responses. Toxicol Lett. 1996 Nov;88(1-3):287–292. doi: 10.1016/0378-4274(96)03751-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Warheit D. B., Hartsky M. A., McHugh T. A., Kellar K. A. Biopersistence of inhaled organic and inorganic fibers in the lungs of rats. Environ Health Perspect. 1994 Oct;102 (Suppl 5):151–157. doi: 10.1289/ehp.94102s5151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES