Asbestos Substitutes.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNITED NATIONS RC UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.4/INF/16 Distr.: General 9 October 2008 United Nations English only Environment Programme Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade Conference of the Parties Fourth meeting Rome, 27–31 October 2008 Item 5 (e) of the provisional agenda* Implementation of the Convention: consideration of a chemical for inclusion in Annex III of the Convention: chrysotile asbestos Report of the World Health Organization workshop on mechanisms of fibre carcinogenesis and assessment of chrysotile asbestos substitutes Note by the Secretariat The annex to the present note contains the full report of the World Health Organization workshop on mechanisms of fibre carcinogenesis and assessment of chrysotile asbestos substitutes, which was held in Lyon, France, from 8 to 12 November 2005. A summary consensus report was made available at the third meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The full report is presented as received and has not been formally edited by the Secretariat. ∗ UNEP/FAO/RC/COP.4/1. K0842141 101008 For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies. WHO Workshop on Mechanisms of Fibre Carcinogenesis and Assessment of Chrysotile Asbestos Substitutes 8–12 November 2005 Lyon, France Contents Letter from the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention to WHO Report of the contact group on chrysotile List of participants List of acronyms Introduction Part 1: Invited Papers on Mechanisms of Fibre Carcinogenesis 1.1 Uses of chrysotile asbestos and examples of substitutes 1.2 Human exposure to substitute fibres 1.3 General physical and chemical characteristics of fibres relevant for their carcinogenicity 1.4 Deposition pattern, clearance, biopersistence, changes of fibre characteristics in situ; definition of fibre dose 1.5 In vitro toxicity tests, including genotoxicity and oxygen radical generation 1.6 Short-term animal tests 1.7 Dose–response considerations Part 2: Workshop Report 2.1 General principles for the evaluation of chrysotile asbestos substitutes 2.1.1 Key considerations for evaluating epidemiological evidence 2.1.2 Significance of short- and long-term studies in experimental animals in the assessment of the potential hazards of fibres to human health 2.1.3 Use of in vitro short-term tests in assessing fibre carcinogenicity 2.1.4 Physicochemical properties and biopersistence 2.2 Assessment of selected chrysotile asbestos substitutes 2.2.1 Aramid and para-aramid 2.2.2 Attapulgite 2.2.3 Carbon fibres 2.2.4 Cellulose fibres 2.2.5 Graphite whiskers 2.2.6 Magnesium sulfate whiskers 2.2.7 Polyethylene fibres 2.2.8 Polypropylene fibres 2.2.9 Polyvinyl alcohol fibres 2.2.10 Polyvinyl chloride fibres 2.2.11 Potassium octatitanate fibres 2.2.12 Synthetic vitreous fibres 2.2.13 Wollastonite Workshop on Fibre Carcinogenesis and Chrysotile Asbestos Substitutes 2.2.14 Xonotlite 2.3 Summary consensus report 2.3.1 Introduction 2.3.2 Part 1: Methodological aspects 2.3.3 Part 2: Hazard assessment Unedited Advance Copy 3 Secretariatfor the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed ConsentProcedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicalsand Pesticidesin International Trade UNEP Plant Protection Service Chemicals Plant Production and Protection Division United Nations EnvironmentProgramme Food and Agriculture Organization of the United (UNEP) Nations (FAO) Viale delle Temle di Carncalla 11-13, Chemin des Anemones 00100 Rome, Italy CH -1219 ChAtelaine,Geneva, Switzerland Tel: (+3906) 5705 3441 Tel: (+4122)917 8183 Fax: (+3906) 5705 6347 Fax: (+4122) 7973460 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Geneva,25 March 2004 Subject: Chrysotile asbestos-assessment of alternatives. DearDr Meredith I refer to the request of the IntergovernmentalNegotiation Committee at its tenth sessionto the World Health Organisationto conduct an assessmentof alternativesto chrysotile asbestos. At this meeting, the WHO agreed that such an assessmentwould be able to be conducted, however requestedthat the fifth sessionof the Interim Chemical Review Committee for the Rotterdam Convention would consider the alternatives proposed by governments and develop a priority risk.. The Interim Chemicals Review Committee consideredthe alternatives proposedby governments,and developeda priority list for considerationby the WHO. They also developeda list of additional alternativeswhich were prioritised. These alternativesare identified in the attacheddocument, which is an extract from the report of the Interim Chemical Review Committee. I therefore invite the WHO to proceed with the agreedassessment of the proposedalternatives to chrysotile asbestos.If possible, it would be appreciated if an update on the progress of the assessmentcould be provided to the IntergovernmentalNegotiating Committee at its eleventhsession. Pleasedo not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions in regard to this letter. Yourssincerely, Address Dr T. Meredith Coordinator IPCS / World Health Organization CH-1211 Geneva27 -Switzerland cc Ms Carolyn Vickers 1 Annex I Report of the contactgroup on chrysotile 1. The contact group consideredthe list of substitutesfor chrysotile asbestosproposed by Governmentsfor assessmentby the World Health Organization(WHO). WHO indicated that it welcomedthe guidanceprovided by the group on important alternativesused by Governments. 2. The list was prioritized initially on the basis of the number of Governmentswhich had nominatedthe substances.Information on which substanceshad previously beenassessed in environmentalhealth criteria reports by IPCS was also considered. Where possible,the group's knowledge of important useswas also considered. 3. The first group of substancesare listed on a priority basis, in the order in which the contact group would like them to be consideredby WHO. The secondgroup of substances,which were proposedby only one country, had undergoneno previous assessmentby WHO and could be consideredif resourcesallowed. Group 1: Substancesidentified and prioritized for assessmentby WHO Group 2: Substancesidentified as alternatives to chrysotile, to be assessedif resources allow Aluminium silicates, basic magnesiumsulphate whisker, erionite, ductile iron, mica, phosphate, polyacryl nitryl, polytetrafluoroethylene,potassium titanate whisker, semi-metallics, silicon carbide whisker, steel fibres 2 World Health Organization Workshop on Mechanisms of Fibre Carcinogenesis and Assessment of Chrysotile Asbestos Substitutes Lyon, 8-12 November 2005 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 1 Members U674 - IFR 105 – CEPH – IUH Elke Dopp 27, rue Juliette Dodu University Hospital Essen F-75010 Paris Institute of Hygiene and Occupational Medicine France Hufelandstrasse 55 D-45122 Essen Germany Aparna M. Koppikar United States Environmental Protection Agency Bice Fubini National Center for Environmental Assessment University of Torino 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Interdepartmental Center ‘G. Scansetti’ for Washington, D.C. 20460 Studies on Asbestos and other Toxic Particulates USA Via P. Giuria 7 I-10125 Torino Dr Yasuo Morimoto Italy Department of Occupational Pneumology University of Occupational & Environmental Andrea Hartwig Health Technische Universität Berlin 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanishiku Fak. III – Institut für Lebensmitteltechnologie Kitakyushu City 807-8555 und Lebensmittelchemie Japan Sekr.: TIB 4/3-1 Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 D-13355 Berlin Paul A. Schulte Germany National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)/CDC Robert A. Taft Laboratories F. Javier Huertas 4676 Columbia Parkway CSIC, Estacion Experimental del Zaidin Cincinnati OH 45226-1998 Department of Earth Sciences and USA Environmental Chemistry Prof. Albareda 1 Leslie Stayner E-18008 Granada University of Illinois at Chicago Spain School of Public Health (M/C 923) 1603 West Taylor Street, Room 971 Chicago, IL 60612 Marie-Claude Jaurand USA Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) Génomique fonctionelle des tumeurs solides Peter Wardenbach 1 Working Group Members and Invited Specialists serve in their individual capacities as scientists and not as representatives of their government or any organization with which they are affiliated. Affiliations are provided for identification purposes only. Federal Institute for Occupational Safety David Bernstein6 and Health (BAuA) 40, chemin de la Petite-Boissière Friedrich-Henkel-Weg 1-25 CH-1208 Geneva D-44149 Dortmund Switzerland Germany Observer for the European Ceramic Fibres 2 Invited specialists Industry Association (ECFIA) R.C. Brown7 Suresh Moolgavkar3 6, Stocken Hall Mews Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center GB-Stretton LE15 7RL Division of Public Health Sciences United Kingdom Fairview Avenue North, M2-B500 PO Box 19024 Seattle, Washington DC 98109-1024 Observer for Health Canada, Government of USA Canada Michel Camus University of Montreal Hartwig Muhle4 3875, Rue Saint-Urbain Fraunhofer Institute of Toxicology and Montréal, Québec H2W 1V1 Experimental Medicine Canada Nikolai-Fuchs-Strasse 1 D-30625 Hannover Observer for the Institute of Defense of National Germany Property, Brazil Carlos Crespo Jay Turim5 Avenida 18 No 149 Sciences International Inc. Rio Claro, São Paolo King Street Station Brazil 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 USA Observer for NYCO Minerals Inc. Christophe de Bellefroid8 NYCO Minerals Inc. Observers 45, av, de