Local inflammatory response produced by solutions sterilized with asbestos type filters

Our plain-English summary of Local inflammatory response produced by solutions sterilized with asbestos type filters, by R.S. Speirs, U. Wenck (Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 1955).

The study

• Authors: R.S. Speirs, U. Wenck
• Journal: Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine
• Published: 1955;88(1):89-93
• Cited by: 5 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy (J-M no. 002678).

Abstract

Summary: 1. This paper demonstrates that filtering through an asbestos type filter disc will change the local cellular responses of the organism to that solution. This reaction is due to particles and fibers which have pulled off the disc and are present in the filtrate at the time of injection. 2. An attempt was made to characterize this reaction and resolve the factors involved in its production. The reaction was manifested by a tremendous increase in number and percent of eosinophils at the injection site. The particles producing this reaction were found to be insoluble in water and not destroyed by ashing. Identical reactions were obtained when asbestos fibers from 3 different sources were substituted for the filter fibers. Thus the local eosinophilia was due to the presence of asbestos fibers in the injected filtrate. Further studies indicated that the eosinophilia was not merely the reaction to a non-specific irritating substance. Talc produced a response identical to the asbestos, glass fibers and mica produced only a slight response and other substances such as silica, cotton and paper fibers did not produce an eosinophilia. Further studies are being made in order to determine the specific chemical producing the eosinophilia. 3. Asbestos fibers must stand with talc as potentially harmful irritants when introduced within a patient or animal. Immunologists and allergists as well as other biologists and physicians using asbestos type filters should take precautions to avoid introducing asbestos fibers along with their injections. It was further noted that a study of the local cellular responses to intraperitoneal injections, can lead to a better understanding of the effects of a solution upon the organism.

PubMed has no abstract for this study. This is the authors' abstract, copied from the article.

In plain English

This was a laboratory experiment in male mice at the Roscoe B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine. The authors noticed that heparin and salt-water (saline) solutions sterilized by passing them through Seitz E.K. asbestos filter discs caused unusual reactions when injected into the abdominal (peritoneal) cavity. Twenty-four hours later the total cell count in the abdominal fluid had not risen significantly, but eosinophils, a type of white blood cell, had. In saline-injected mice they rose from 1,844 per cubic millimeter (1.5% of cells) with unfiltered saline to 18,597 (12.9%) with Seitz-filtered saline. The effect came from filter fibers in the liquid, not from anything dissolved in it. Commercial asbestos and talc caused similar strong responses. Glass wool and mica caused slight ones. Silica, cotton and paper fibers had no marked effect. One earlier injection of filter fibers also raised the eosinophil response to ragweed pollen injections. The authors concluded that asbestos fibers must stand with talc as potentially harmful irritants. They urged precautions when using asbestos filters. The article does not name an asbestos fiber type.

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: Animal experiment: intraperitoneal (abdominal cavity) injections in mice, with cell counts of peritoneal fluid
• Who was studied: Normal male BBF1 mice aged between about 2 and 4 months (the lower age is printed as '2%'), at the Roscoe B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory, Bar Harbor, Maine. Groups ranged from 3 to 16 mice; no overall total is given.
• Exposure: Heparin and saline solutions filtered through Seitz E.K. asbestos filter discs; filter fibers added directly or after ashing; commercial asbestos (fiber type not stated); and comparison materials (talc, silica, cotton, paper fibers, glass wool, mica)
• Main results:
  • 24 hours after injection of heparin or saline, the rise in total cells was not significant, but eosinophils were significantly changed after Seitz-filtered solutions
  • Saline groups: unfiltered, 1,844 eosinophils per cubic millimeter (1.5%, 9 mice); Seitz filtered, 18,597 (12.9%, 8 mice); filter fibers added, 46,495 (32.3%, 9 mice)
  • Heparin groups: Seitz-filtered heparin, 64,983 eosinophils per cubic millimeter (37.0%, 9 mice); unsterilized heparin, 2,581 (1.7%); heparin sterilized with a fritted glass filter, 2,983 (1.7%)
  • In other experiments, the eosinophil accumulation began within 4 hours of heparin injection and persisted for at least 7 days
  • The filtrate with the fibers removed did not produce eosinophilia; the active material was insoluble in water and survived ashing
  • Ashed filter fibers at 0.1 mg to 0.8 mg produced local eosinophilia; 0.01 mg and 6.4 mg produced little or none
  • Commercial asbestos produced essentially the same response as the filter fibers
  • Talc produced a very high eosinophilia similar to asbestos; glass wool and mica a slight response; cotton and paper fibers, silica and other irritants no marked effect
  • In mice given repeated pollen injections, a single prior injection of 0.4 mg ashed filter fibers significantly increased local eosinophils
  • Pollen experiment numbers: pollen only, 21,370 eosinophils per cubic millimeter (9.7%, 16 mice); pollen plus filter fibers, 52,093 (20.3%, 16 mice)
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the eosinophilia was due to asbestos fibers in the filtrate. They stated that asbestos fibers must stand with talc as potentially harmful irritants when introduced into a patient or animal, and that users of asbestos filters should take precautions.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors stated it is not known what effect the local eosinophilia has on the host's reaction to the antigen
  • The specific chemical producing the eosinophilia had not yet been determined

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Talc, Mica.

Related studies

• Factors influencing the activity of sterile filtered and heat-sterilized trypsin solutions — R.A. Cook, G.M. Poole (1974)
• Effects of the Storage Solution Type and Prolonged Storage on the Immunoreactivity of Cells — K. Ikeda, S. Sato, et al. (2020)
• Certification of probability of sterilization of liquid by filtration — D.M. Portner, C.R. Phillips, et al. (1967)
• Effects of sustained stimulation with multi-wall carbon nanotubes on immune and inflammatory responses in mice — A. Yamaguchi, T. Fujitani, et al. (2012)
• Macrophage stimulation and the inflammatory response to asbestos — J.A. Hamilton (1980)
• Tumour suppressor Fus1 provides a molecular link between inflammatory response and mitochondrial homeostasis — R. Uzhachenko, N. Issaeva, et al. (2012)

Browse return to medical research.