Letter to the Editor on "Chrysotile and rock wool fibers induce chromosome aberrations and DNA damage in V79 lung fibroblast cells"

Our plain-English summary of Letter to the Editor on "Chrysotile and rock wool fibers induce chromosome aberrations and DNA damage in V79 lung fibroblast cells", by J.G. Hadley, A.E. Crane (Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2019).

The study

• Authors: J.G. Hadley, A.E. Crane
• Journal: Environmental Science and Pollution Research International
• Published: 2019;26(3):3091-3093
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reports no new data. The authors wrote for the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA), which represents makers of fiber glass, rock wool and slag wool insulation. They criticized a 2017 article by Cui and colleagues, which tested chrysotile and rock wool fibers at 50, 100 and 200 micrograms per milliliter on V79 lung fibroblast cells in the laboratory. The authors argued that the way the fibers were crushed and ground left no verification that any fibers remained. They also argued that tests lasting such short times cannot tell durable fibers from soluble ones, and they described asbestos fibers as durable and rock wool fibers as soluble. They quoted passages from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the toxicologist Thomas W. Hesterberg warning that short-term cell tests can give misleading results. They stated that long-term animal inhalation studies and a 2001 epidemiological update are the gold standard. The authors concluded that the conclusions of the Cui article are not credible.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Letter to the editor commenting on another published study; no original research
• Who was studied: No people, animals or cells were studied by the letter's authors. The letter discusses a laboratory study by Cui et al. (2017) in V79 lung fibroblast cells.
• Exposure: In the study being criticized (Cui et al. 2017), chrysotile and rock wool fibers were tested as suspensions at 50, 100 and 200 micrograms per milliliter.
• Main results:
  • The authors argued that the fiber preparation in Cui et al. (crushing, grinding, ball-milling and screening) was not checked to show that any fibers remained afterward.
  • The authors argued that the short duration of the cell tests could not distinguish durable fibers from soluble fibers. They described asbestos fibers as durable and rock wool fibers as soluble.
  • The authors quoted the IARC Monograph on Man-Made Vitreous Fibers as cautioning that short-term tests could give a misleading impression of long-term biological effects.
  • The authors stated that long-term animal inhalation studies and a 2001 epidemiological update remain the gold standard for judging hazards of respirable fibers.
  • The authors quoted testimony by toxicologist Thomas W. Hesterberg stating that cell culture models of fibers generated false positive results.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the conclusions of the Cui et al. article are not credible. They also said the study has serious limitations because short-term cell testing cannot account for differences in fiber durability.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Chrysotile.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Chrysotile, Fibroblast.

Related studies

• Chrysotile and rock wool fibers induce chromosome aberrations and DNA damage in V79 lung fibroblast cells — Y. Cui, J. Ma, et al. (2018)
• Comparative cytotoxicity study of rock wool and chrysotile by cell magnetometric evaluation — Y. Kudo, M. Watanabe, et al. (2003)
• Chrysotile asbestos induces PDGF-A chain-dependent proliferation in human and rat lung fibroblasts in vitro — J.A. Lasky, J.C. Bonner, et al. (1996)
• Letter to the Editor re Bernstein et al: Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2013; 43(2): 154-183 — M.M. Finkelstein (2013)
• Response to Murray M. Finkelstein, letter to the editor re Bernstein et al: Health risk of chrysotile revisited. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2013; 43(2): 154-183 — D. Bernstein, J. Dunnigan, et al. (2013)
• Cytotoxicity and multinucleate giant cell formation in Chinese hamster lung fibroblast caused by crocidolite and chrysotile — Y.C. Hong, S.S. Choi (1997)

Browse more research in Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, or return to medical research.