Premium
Tissue burden of asbestos in nonoccupationally exposed individuals from east Texas
Author(s) -
Dodson Ronald F.,
Williams Marion G.,
Huang Ju,
Bruce James R.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
american journal of industrial medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.7
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1097-0274
pISSN - 0271-3586
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1097-0274(199903)35:3<281::aid-ajim8>3.0.co;2-o
Subject(s) - asbestos , chrysotile , medicine , population , asbestosis , asbestos fibers , pathology , toxicology , environmental health , lung , biology , metallurgy , materials science
Background The potential for asbestos exposure among members of the general population is appreciable, considering its widespread use in many products. This study examined tissue burden of asbestos in such a population. Methods A group of 33 individuals who had no work history of occupational exposure to asbestos were included in the study. Tissue sections from areas adjacent to those sites sampled for digestion were found to be without ferruginous bodies (FB) or histopathology consistent with asbestos‐induced changes. All individuals had 20 or less FBs per gram of digested wet lung, a number considered to reflect general population levels. Tissue analysis of uncoated fiber burden was carried out by analytical electron microscopy. There was a trend of a higher likelihood of FB and asbestos fiber content correlated with age. Results The data are not consistent with the findings that chrysotile is readily found in lung tissue from the general population, in that none was found in 19 of the cases. It was almost as likely that one would find anthophyllite (12 of 33 cases) in this study. The commercial amphiboles (amosite and crocidolite) were occasionally found in the tissue from the general population and, when observed, were few in numbers. Twenty‐six of the patients had no FBs and ten had no uncoated asbestos fibers within the limits of detectability in this study. Conclusions The total tissue burden of asbestos in this study is much less than earlier reported observations from other general populations. Am. J. Ind. Med. 35:281–286, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.