Fate of fluorocarbons in the dog and rabbit after inhalation

Paulet, G; Lanoë, J.; Thos, A.; Toulouse, P.; Dassonville, J.

doi:10.1016/0041-008x(75)90025-3

Cited by 12 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pulmonary uptake by rabbits and dogs was rapid. Peak circulating blood levels reached a maximum within 15 s whereas steady state was reached in 15 min (Paulet et al 1975). McClure (1972) found that for the dog, the initiation elimination half-life was 0.6 ± 0.25 min.…”

Section: Pharmacokinetics Metabolism and Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This effect was not seen when dogs, exercising on a treadmill, received concurrent exposure to levels up to 10,000 ppm (Mullin 1969). Paulet et al (1975) showed only minor changes in cellular oxidation when rats and rabbits were exposed at 50,000 ppm to CFC 11 for 1 h. Scholz (1962) reported that no adverse effects were seen when five rats were exposed to 25,000 ppm, 3.5 h/day, 5 days/week for 4 weeks or when two dogs were exposed to 125,000 ppm for the same time periods. Clayton (1966) reported in one study, that exposure of four rats to 12,000 ppm 4 h/day for 10 days caused pathological changes in the liver.…”

Section: Cardiac Sensitizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The development of environmentally acceptable fluorocarbons

Rusch¹

2018

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were introduced in the 1930s as the safe replacements for the toxic and flammable refrigerants being used at that time. Subsequently, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) were also developed. In addition to refrigerant applications, they were used as foam blowing agents, as solvents and as propellants for many aerosols. In the 1970s and 1980s, concern developed about their environmental impact, specifically on stratospheric ozone depletion. Industry began to consider acceptable replacements. In 1987, many of the governments of the world came together and drafted the Montreal Protocol, calling upon Industry to initially phase out production of the CFCs and later HCFCs. Within 4 months of the signing of the Montreal Protocol, the 15 global major producers joined together to form the Alternative Fluorocarbons Environmental Acceptability Study (AFEAS), which sponsored research into environmental effects and the Program for Alternative Fluorocarbons toxicity Testing, PAFT), which examined the toxicology of potential replacements for the CFCs and HCFCs. Nine replacements were identified by companies and, through this international cooperation; toxicology programs were designed, conducted, and evaluated without duplication of effort and testing; consequently these new products were introduced within less than 10 years. Indeed the Montreal Protocol has been recognized as the most appropriate international treaty to phase-down HFCs. In 2016 the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol set out a phase-down schedule for the consumption and production of HFCs. In order to reduce the consumption and emissions of high GWP HFCs. Recently lower GWP HFCs and very low GWP HFOs (hydrofluoroolefins and HCFOs (hydrochlorofluoroolefins) have been introduced into a range of applications. Summaries of the toxicology profiles of some of the original CFCs and HCFCs, the replacements and the new post-PAFT replacements are described.

show abstract

Section: Pharmacokinetics Metabolism and Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cardiac Sensitizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of environmentally acceptable fluorocarbons

Rusch¹

2018

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Organic Chlorofluoro Hydrocarbons

Gadagbui,

Onyema

2023

Patty's Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter is about organic chlorofluoro hydrocarbons, which are fully or partly halogenated hydrocarbons that contain carbon (C), hydrogen (H), chlorine (Cl), and fluorine (F). In the early 1930s, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were introduced in the 1930s as “safe” replacements for refrigerants such as sulfur dioxide, ammonia, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform. The list was later expanded during World War II to include their use to produce insecticide aerosols to protect the troops in tropical areas against malaria and other insect‐borne diseases. Current usages include foam blowing, precision cleaning, and propellants for medicinal, cosmetic, and general‐purpose aerosols, air conditioning, and refrigeration. The expanded use of these CFCs has resulted in their emissions into the atmosphere. The CFCs have low chemical reactivity, long atmospheric lifetime, and are globally distributed. However, since they are ozone‐depleting and are also powerful greenhouse gases (GHGs), development was initiated to replace them with comparatively less ozone‐depleting and less greenhouse‐warming hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). Subsequently, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were developed that were both less ozone‐depleting and less GHGs accumulating. Both CFCs and HCFCs are controlled under the Montreal Protocol. The widespread use concerns about their environmental and human health effects of these substances have been extensively reviewed. This chapter updates information on the health effects of some of the major and minor CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs, their global emissions estimates, the discrepancies, if any, between the major reporting regions and the global atmospheric emissions values, and the likely sources of the gap between the atmospheric measurements and the reported emissions.

show abstract

Organic Chlorofluoro Hydrocarbons

Rusch¹

2001

Patty's Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were introduced in the 1930s as “safe” replacements for refrigerants such as sulfur dioxide, ammonia, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform. In World War II, they were used to produce insecticide aerosols to protect the troops in tropical areas against malaria and other insectborne diseases. During the next 40–50 years, the number and type of applications expanded to include foam blowing, precision cleaning, and propellants for medicinal, cosmetic, and general‐purpose aerosols, air conditioning, and refrigeration. These uses eventually resulted in emission of the CFCs into the atmosphere. Because of their low chemical reactivity, they typically have long atmospheric residence times, and as a consequence, they are distributed globally. In 1974 Molina and Rowland hypothesized that, once the CFCs reach the stratosphere, they will undergo breakdown to release chlorine atoms. The chlorine atoms could then react with the stratospheric ozone breaking it down into oxygen. Since the stratospheric ozone absorbed much of the sun's ultraviolet β radiation (UVB), decreased ozone levels would lead to increases in ground‐level UVB. This could affect crop growth and lead to increases in cataracts and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Following reports of a marked drop in column ozone over Antarctica (the “ozone hole”) during the Antarctic winter, in 1987 most of the nations of the world drafted and signed an agreement calling for the phaseout of CFCs. This agreement is known as the Montreal Protocol . Development was initiated on two types of “in‐kind” replacements. The first were the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and the second were the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Both contain hydrogen and are susceptible to attack by hydroxyl radicals present in the atmosphere. Therefore, they have a shorter atmospheric lifetime and either are not transported to the stratosphere or are transported there only in small amounts. The HCFCs contain chlorine and are still capable of causing ozone depletion, although, since their atmospheric lifetimes are short, their ozone‐depleting potential (ODP) is lower than those associated with the CFCs. The HFCs do not contain chlorine (or bromine, also associated with ozone depletion). They, therefore, do not cause ozone depletion. A ranking scale has been developed using CFC11 as the reference compound, with an assigned value of 1. These values are also presented. A second concern, regarding both CFCs and their replacements, is that they are greenhouse warming gases. They, along with other substances such as carbon dioxide, trap the sun's infrared radiation and convert it to heat. However, they are also good insulating materials, and frequently their use as foam blowing agents in refrigeration equipment can lead to considerable energy savings, reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The greenhouse warming potentials (GWPs) for many of the CFCs, HCFCs, and HFCs are given. Many methods have been developed for atmospheric monitoring of these substances. Because of their widespread use and concerns about their environmental effects and health effects, several reviews have been written on these materials. From the reviews as well as the data presented later in this chapter, it can be seen that many of these chemicals are not highly toxic. Some, in fact, do not show significant signs of toxicity at air exposure levels up to a few percent or even over 5 or 10%. The most typical response seen following overexposure is CNS depression related to the anesthetic properties of many of these chemicals. Also, some have caused hepatotoxicity and occasionally reproductive effects. Each compound is discussed individually. They have been divided into three general areas: chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and hydrofluorocarbons.

show abstract

Fate of fluorocarbons in the dog and rabbit after inhalation

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

The development of environmentally acceptable fluorocarbons

The development of environmentally acceptable fluorocarbons

Organic Chlorofluoro Hydrocarbons

Organic Chlorofluoro Hydrocarbons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About