Erratum: Mesothelioma Associated With the Use of Cosmetic Talc (J Occup EnvironMed (2020) 62 (11-17) DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001723)

I have reviewed the cases included in the paper and reviewedmedical expert reports by physicians hired by the talc manufacturers in the same cases to identify whether they found additional asbestos exposure. In doing so, I identified one individual with an alternate exposure. This single case (out of the 33) should not have been included in the manuscript because the individual was exposed to asbestos both from talcum powder and from asbestos contaminated cigarette filters. Interestingly, not one of the five physicians who consulted on this single case for the talc manufacturers stated that this asbestos exposure was a contributing factor. I disagree with these physicians. This single case should be considered as having two sources of asbestos exposure: talcum powder and crocidolite asbestos-laden cigarette filters. Thus, the sample size should be 32 individuals, rather than 33. This error does not negate the other 32 cases, in which no other source of asbestos was present apart from cosmetic talcum powder.