4.6 Article

Toxicity of indium arsenide, gallium arsenide, and aluminium gallium arsenide

Journal

TOXICOLOGY AND APPLIED PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 198, Issue 3, Pages 405-411

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.taap.2003.10.019

Keywords

semiconductor materials; indium arsenide; gallium arsenide; aluminium gallium arsenide; pulmonary toxicity; hamster; intratracheal instillations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gallium arsenide (GaAs), indium arsenide (InAs), and aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) are semiconductor applications. Although the increased use of these materials has raised concerns about occupational exposure to them, there is little information regarding the adverse health effects to workers arising from exposure to these particles. However, available data indicate these semiconductor materials can be toxic in animals. Although acute and chronic toxicity of the lung, reproductive organs, and kidney are associated with exposure to these semiconductor materials, in particular, chronic toxicity should pay much attention owing to low solubility of these materials. Between InAs, GaAs, and AlGaAs, InAs was the most toxic material to the lung followed by GaAs and AlGaAs when given intratracheally. This was probably due to difference in the toxicity of the counter-element of arsenic in semiconductor materials, such as indium, gallium, or aluminium, and not arsenic itself. It appeared that indium, gallium, or aluminium was toxic when released from the particles, though the physical character of the particles also contributes to toxic effect. Although there is no evidence of the carcinogenicity of InAs or AlGaAs, GaAs and InP, which are semiconductor materials, showed the clear evidence of carcinogenic potential. It is necessary to pay much greater attention to the human exposure of semiconductor materials. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available