Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Indoor and Built Environment
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 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 Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ilgren, E. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

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

Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 13, No. 5, 343-356 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X04047563


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