Asbestos-related disease in employees of a steel mill and a glass bottle-manufacturing plant

Our plain-English summary of Asbestos-related disease in employees of a steel mill and a glass bottle-manufacturing plant, by R.S. Kronenberg, J.L. Levin, R.F. Dodson, et al (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1991).

The study

• Authors: R.S. Kronenberg, J.L. Levin, R.F. Dodson, J.G. Garcia, D.E. Griffith
• Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
• Published: 1991;643:397-403
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This preliminary report described asbestos-related disease among workers at a glass bottle plant and a steel mill in northeast Texas. Workers were referred to a clinic after being identified through attorneys, public meetings and fellow workers, so not all were surveyed. At both plants, asbestos was used as insulation and fire retardant around furnaces. The types were not known precisely, and no worker was assigned to work directly with asbestos as a usual duty, though workers reported occasionally repairing, cutting and shaping it. Of 334 glass plant workers, 91 (27%) had asbestos-related disease, most often pleural disease (38). Lung washings (bronchoalveolar lavage) found asbestos fibers in 78 of 305 glass workers. All fibers seen were chrysotile or amosite, mostly chrysotile. Of 898 steel workers, 157 (17.5%) had asbestos-related disease, most often restrictive lung function. There were 34 cancers and one pleural mesothelioma among them. The authors concluded that asbestos in place at industrial sites is a potential risk. They noted that true prevalence could not be determined and most diagnoses rested on clinical evidence, not lung tissue.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Preliminary report of clinical screening of referred workers (the authors state it is not a true cross-sectional study)
• Who was studied: Workers referred to the University of Texas Health Center at Tyler occupational medicine clinic, 1989-1990: 334 workers from a glass bottle plant and 898 from a steel mill (those screened as of April 1990), both in northeast Texas. They were identified through attorneys, public meetings and fellow workers.
• Exposure: Asbestos was used extensively as insulation and fire retardant around furnaces and on lines carrying molten glass and steel. The types of asbestos were not known precisely. No worker was assigned to work directly with asbestos as part of usual duties. Workers reported they would occasionally repair, cut and shape the deteriorating asbestos material, though this was not a significant part of their jobs. The workers also had exposure to silica, mixed dusts and other toxins.
• Main results:
  • Glass plant: 91 of 334 workers (27%) had one or more categories of asbestos-related disease
  • Glass plant: pleural disease was the most common category, in 38 workers (42% of the 91 with disease)
  • Glass plant: 22 cases of asbestosis (ILO profusion 1/0 or greater) and 12 cancers (10 lung, 2 gastrointestinal); restrictive pulmonary function in 19 workers
  • Glass plant: bronchoalveolar lavage was done in 305 of 334 workers. By the table, asbestos fibers were found in 78 (26%), ferruginous bodies in 39 (13%), more than 10% polymorphonuclear leukocytes in 66 (22%), and no asbestos findings in 122 (40%).
  • All asbestos fibers seen in lavage fluid were chrysotile or amosite, the great majority chrysotile
  • Steel mill: 157 of 898 workers (17.5%) had one of the four categories of asbestos-related disease
  • Steel mill: the most common category was restrictive pulmonary function on spirometry (67 workers), followed by pleural disease (35), cancer (34) and asbestosis (20)
  • Steel mill cancers: 17 gastrointestinal, 10 lung and 7 larynx
  • Steel mill: one case of pleural mesothelioma, diagnosed at autopsy
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the study suggests asbestos in place at industrial sites constitutes a potential risk for asbestos-induced disease
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Referral-based recruitment precluded a comprehensive survey of all workers, so true prevalence could not be determined
  • Fewer than half of the workers employed came for study. The authors suggest selection bias may mean disease was underestimated.
  • Most diagnoses were based on clinical evidence rather than lung tissue
  • The two groups were evaluated differently. Glass workers had full lung function testing and lavage; steel workers had only spirometry and no lavage.

Related studies

• Asbestos-related disease in employees of a steel mill and a glass bottle manufacturing plant — R.S. Kronenberg, J.L. Levin, et al. (1991)
• A case-control study of malignant and non-malignant respiratory disease among employees of a fiberglass manufacturing facility. II. Exposure assessment — L. Chiazze, D.K. Watkins, et al. (1993)
• Chronic inhalation toxicity of size-separated glass fibers in Fischer 344 rats — T.W. Hesterberg, W.C. Miiller, et al. (1993)
• Prevalence of asbestos related lung disease among employees in non-asbestos industries — I. Young, S. West, et al. (1981)
• Cancer incidence among mild steel and stainless steel welders and other metal workers — K.S. Hansen, J.M. Lauritsen, et al. (1996)
• Risk of lung cancer in workers producing stainless steel and metallic alloys — J.J. Moulin, T. Clavel, et al. (2000)

Browse more research in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, or return to medical research.