Document nkENqp8pyp9bBreBRJpa9OmJa

OCT 1 1 2005 15:48 FR CISTI ICIST 613 952 9303 TO 12145201181 360 CHRYSOTJLE ASBESTOS--LANGER ET AL P. 1 area is greatly increased, augmenting the leaching process (air-milling of the fibers increases the surface area from 4 sq m/gm to almost 60 sq m/gm) ,32 There are other good reasons why the large fibers which we inevitably choose by optical microscopy will tend not to be unal tered (or even, in many instances, altered) chrysotile. The optical microscope delivers a select, biased population. First, we can only study what the microscope sees--and it only sees large fibers, those thicker than 0.5yi in diameter. Chrysotile, it has been noted, tends to split into finer fibrils in biological environments, and degradation to smaller particles occurs. Amphlboles (anthophyllite, tremolite, amosite, croddolite) resist such physical and chemical attack. Therefore, selection of large asbestos bodies by means of light microscopy, resulting in a biased population of larger particles which 'were not altered in biological residence, stacks the analytical deck. These considerations indicate that study of asbestos bodies need tell us little about the chrysotile content of human lungs. Rath er, if we want to know whether chrysotile is present in lungs, we should look for chryso tile. In a sense, the wrong question has perhaps been asked; instead of "What is the nature of the core of the asbestos body?", it seems more profitable and more direct to ask the question, "Is chrysotile asbestos present in the lungs of urban dwellers?" The answer to the latter question is une quivocally "yes." Data presented here dem onstrate that tiiis is so in New York citv. Similar EM observations have been recorded in London, where Pooley et al88 have not only found chrysotile asbestos in almost 80% of their cases, but noted it to be the most common and most abundant of all fibers detected. We anticipate that what is now known for New York and London will be found in other cities as welL Conclusions In 28 consecutive cases of urban dwellers who died in New York city, electron microsoopy showed chrysotile asbestos to be pres ent in all examined (28 of 28). Of these, possibly four of 28 may have been made "positive" by the occurrence of background fibril contamination. It is noteworthy that asbestos bodies were found in three of four of these "negative" cases. Chrysotile asbestos often occurred in asso ciation with other substances, including pla- ty particles (clay or talc), fibrous glass, and, occasionally, diatoms. The question has been put forward: Is chrysotile asbestos present in the lungs of urban dwellers at this time? Our data dem onstrate that the answer is unequivocally "yes" in New York city. Similar observations have been made in London. We anticipate that what is now known in these two cities will be found in other urban areas as well. This study was supported in part by Public Health Service grant EC-00160. One of us (A.M.L.) received support by career award ES448-12 from the National Institute of Environmental Sciences. References 1. Stewart M3, quoted by Cooke WE: Asbestos dust and curious bodies found in pulmonary asbestosis. Brit Med J 2:678-580,1929. 2. Stewart MJ, Haddow AC: Demonstration of the peculiar bodies of pulmonary asbestosis ("asbestosis bodies") in material obtained by lung puncture nd in the sputum. J Path Bact 32:172, 1929. 3. Gloyne SR: The presence of the asbestos fiber in the lesions of the asbestos workers. Tubercle 10:404-407,1929. 4. Haddow, cited in Report of annual meeting of British Medical Association, Manchester. Lancet 2*230 1929. 5. Thomson JG, Kaschula ROC, MacDonald RR: Asbestos as a modem urban hazard. 5 Afr Med J 27:77,1963. 6. Baden V, Schwartz J: Demonstration of asbes tos bodies: Comparison of available techniques, in Anspach M (ed): Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Biological Effects of Asbes tos (Dresden, East Germany, 1968), to be pub lished. 7. Utidjian MD, Gross P, deTreville RTP: Ferru ginous bodies in human lungs: Prevalence at ran dom autopsies. Arch Environ Health 17:327-333, 1968. 8. Bignon J: Incidence of pulmonary ferruginous bodies in France. Environ Res, to be published. 9. SelikoS U, Hammond EC: Environmental epi demiology: HL Community effects of nonoccupetional environmental asbestos exposure. Amer J Public Health 68:1668-1666,1968. 10. Langer AM, Rubin I, SelikoS IJ: Electron microprobe analysis of asbestos bodies, in Webster I (ed): International Conference on Pneumoconiosis, (Johannesburg, South Africa, 1969), to be published. 11. Williams E: "Curious bodies" found in the lungs of coal-workers. Lancet 2:541-542,1933. 12. von Rattner JR: t)ber Asbestose- und PseudoasbestosekSiperchen. Schweiz Z Allg Path 15:628-631, 1962. 13. Schiller F: Adsorptionserscheinungea an Stauben in vivo: Pseudoesbestose- und ScbaumankSr- Arch Environ Healthr-Vol 22. March 1971 RECEIVED TIME OCT. II. 2:43PM