Inorganic arsenic compounds: are they carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic?

Abstract

This review examines and evaluates the literature on the ability of inorganic arsenic compounds to cause cancer in humans and laboratory animals. The epidemiological data that supports the position that inorganic arsenical derivatives are carcinogenic in humans is convincing and difficult to deny because of their consistency. These data are from studies of different occupational exposures such as smelter and pesticide workers, as well as from studies of drinking water, wines and medicinal tonics that contained or were contaminated with inorganic compounds of arsenic. Indeed, positive dose-response relationships between cancer incidence or mortality with many inorganic arsenical substances have been shown. Despite the presence of data which confuse the interpretation and evaluation of epidemiological data, associated neoplasms of the lungs, skin and gastrointestinal systems have been observed as a result of exposure to inorganic arsenic compounds.The mechanism of carcinogenicity of inorganic arsenical substances in humans is unknown. Inorganic arsenic compounds are not carcinogenic in laboratory animals by most routes of administration. However, further studies (subchronic, chronic, carcinogenic) using intratracheal and other conventional routes in other animal species would appear to be warranted. Moreso, especially since there is no evidence that organic arsenic compounds are carcinogenic in numerous mammalian species. Inorganic derivatives of arsenic are not mutagenic but may be teraiogenic. This latter conclusion is dependent on the method of administration and size of the dose, as well as on the species of animal used for the study.

Effects on enzymes and the genetic apparatus of sheep after administration of samples from industrial emissions

“…However, the levels of zinc observed in this experiment surpassed those determined in sheep that had been fed emissions from a copper or a zinc plant, as reported by Bfreg et al (1991) and Reif et al (1989), respectively. In contrast to the results achieved in this work, several authors reported positive clastogenic effects of some of the metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead, copper and zinc) or their compounds found in emissions (Wong, 1988, Goldman & Dacre 1991, Magos 1991, Coogan et al 1992), on the basis of testing the individual elements under in vitro conditions. As a criterion of mutagenic activity, chromosome break evaluations were also employed by Bockov et al (1975( ), Brogger (1982 and Lojda & Mrfiz (1982).…”

The nature and significance of public exposure to arsenic: a review of its relevance to South West England

“…Contrary to the above disputed data for humans, arsenic has never been proven to be a carcinogenic agent in rodents, either through dietary intake, inhalation, injection or skin painting (Fan, 1990;Goldman and Dacre, 1991). In more than 30 attempts to induce cancer in experimental animals, one study either failed to find cancer or, where cancer was induced, another recognised carcinogenic agent was always found.…”

Current aspects in metal genotoxicity

“…Chronic exposure to arsenic compounds leads to skin and lung cancer in exposed humans, while animal studies failed to detect a carcinogenic potential (for review, see Goldman & Dacre 1991, Bates et al 1992. Regarding the genotoxicity, arsenic is not mutagenic in bacterial test systems nor in mammalian cells.…”