title: A comparison of the results from intra-pleural and intra-peritoneal studies with those from inhalation and intratracheal tests for the assessment of pulmonary responses to inhalable dusts and fibres.
abstract: The aim of this paper is to compare results from inhalation studies with those from intraperitoneal and intrapleural tests, where available, for a number of fibrous and particulate test materials. The objective is to determine how well intraperitoneal/intrapleural studies predict the pathological responses observed in more standard in vivo studies of pulmonary toxicity, with a particular focus on carcinogenicity. Published toxicity data was obtained for a number of materials including asbestos, wollastonite, MMVFs (including glass fibres, stone wools and RCF), silicon carbide whiskers, potassium octatitanate, quartz, kevlar, polypropylene and titanium dioxide. For some of the fibrous material reviewed, there is conformity between the results of intraperitoneal and inhalation tests such that they are either consistently positive or consistently negative. For the remaining fibrous materials reviewed, intraperitoneal and inhalation tests give different results, with positive results in the intraperitoneal test not being reflected by positive inhalation results. It is suggested that the intraperitoneal test can be used to exonerate a dust or fibre (because if negative in the intraperitoneal test it is extremely unlikely to be positive in either inhalation or intratracheal tests) but should not be used to positively determine that a dust or fibre is carcinogenic by inhalation. We would argue against the use of intraperitoneal tests for human health risk assessment except perhaps for the purpose of exoneration of a material from classification as a carcinogen.
authors.affiliation: University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK. Electronic address: g.drummond@herts.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Gail
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Drummond
authors.affiliation: IEH Consulting, No.4 The Lodge Business Centre, Rectory Farm, Marston Trussell, Market Harborough, Leicestershire, LE16 9TU, UK. Electronic address: ruth@iehconsulting.co.uk.
authors.forename: Ruth
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Bevan
authors.affiliation: IEH Consulting, No.4 The Lodge Business Centre, Rectory Farm, Marston Trussell, Market Harborough, Leicestershire, LE16 9TU, UK. Electronic address: paul@iehconsulting.co.uk.
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Harrison
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D015197:Carcinogenicity Tests; D002273:Carcinogens / Q000145:classification / Q000633:toxicity*; D004391:Dust; D006801:Humans; D019570:Inhalation Exposure / Q000009:adverse effects*; D007274:Injections, Intraperitoneal; D008168:Lung / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000473:pathology; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000139:chemically induced* / Q000473:pathology; D052638:Particulate Matter / Q000145:classification / Q000633:toxicity*; D010537:Peritoneum / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000473:pathology; D010994:Pleura / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000473:pathology; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D018570:Risk Assessment; D018675:Toxicity Tests / Q000379:methods*
chemical_list: D002273:Carcinogens; D004391:Dust; D052638:Particulate Matter
keywords: Carcinogenic response; Dusts; Fibres; Inhalation; Intra-peritoneal; Intra-pleural; Intra-tracheal; In vivo; Pathological response; Pulmonary toxicity