Indoor and Built Environment

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register and gain free access

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ilgren, E. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 13, No. 5, 343-356 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X04047563
© 2004 International Society of the Built Environment

Reviews

The Biology of Cleavage Fragments: A Brief Synthesis and Analysis of Current Knowledge

E. B. Ilgren

Bryn Mawr, Penna, dredilgren{at}aol.com

Asbestos is a commercial term referring to 6 fibrous minerals from 2 mineralogical classes: serpentine and amphibole. Chrysotile, or white asbestos, is the only serpentine mineral. The asbestiform habit of amphibole asbestos is far more toxic than chrysotile. However, most amphibole minerals are found in the "non-asbestiform" state that pose few, if any, health risks. Comminution, whether deliberate during crushing or grinding, or incidental in usage may produce structures known as "cleavage fragments" from a wide variety of sources. A considerable body of evidence, gathered over the last 30 years, demonstrates that amphibole cleavage fragments do not show the same toxicity as their asbestiform analogues. Since there still continues to be confusion and controversy on this point, this review is aimed at resolving a major portion of this controversy. It has done so by bringing together the supporting mineralogical, animal and human evidence from many sources. These observations demonstrate that cleavage fragments and amphibole asbestos fibres have fundamentally different properties and these differences are biologically relevant. Indeed, the toxicity of respirable cleavage fragments is so much less than that of the fibrous amphiboles that by any reasonable measure they are not biologically harmful.

Key Words: Amphibole • Chrysotile • Cleavage fragment • Biopersistence • Animal studies • In vitro studies


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?