Commentary on 'evaluation of take home (para-occupational) exposure to asbestos and disease: a review of the literature', Donovan et al.1

Our plain-English summary of Commentary on 'evaluation of take home (para-occupational) exposure to asbestos and disease: a review of the literature', Donovan et al.1, by D.S. Egilman, N.M. Druar (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2013).

The study

• Authors: D.S. Egilman, N.M. Druar
• Journal: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health
• Published: 2013;19(3):163-8
• Type of article: Editorial, Comment
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This editorial commentary by Egilman and Druar criticized a 2012 literature review by Donovan et al. on take-home (para-occupational) asbestos exposure. The commentary described that review as concluding that take-home exposure to chrysotile asbestos does not cause asbestos disease. The authors argued that the review left out relevant studies. These included a 2009 report by Egilman of 37 women with mesothelioma whose asbestos exposure was brought home by relatives who worked in Virginia shipyards, and a 1998 study of residents of a Canadian chrysotile-mining town. They argued that leaving out neighborhood (environmental) exposure cases led to an underestimate of asbestos risk and potency. They stated that the risk of take-home exposure was understood by the early 1930s. They disputed the review's estimate of 0.56 f/cc-year for exposure from laundering and shaking out clothes. They cited national and state agencies that agree there is no known level below which asbestos does not cause mesothelioma. They also cited lung-tissue work by Gibbs that found chrysotile was the main fiber in a para-occupational exposure group. The authors concluded that financial and ideological biases led the review to omit key literature and misrepresent data.

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: Editorial commentary critiquing a published literature review
• Who was studied: No study population; the commentary examined Donovan et al.'s 2012 review of the literature on take-home (para-occupational) asbestos exposure and disease (Critical Reviews in Toxicology)
• Exposure: Take-home (para-occupational) asbestos exposure, particularly to chrysotile; the authors also discussed neighborhood (environmental) exposure
• Main results:
  • The authors argued that the review omitted at least two articles on para-occupational exposure. One was a 2009 report by Egilman of 37 women with mesothelioma and non-occupational exposure brought home by relatives who worked in Virginia shipyards.
  • The authors stated that the review also omitted a 1998 study (Camus et al.) of residents of a Canadian chrysotile-mining town.
  • The authors argued that the review's exclusion of environmental (neighborhood) exposure literature resulted in an underestimate of asbestos risk and potency.
  • The authors stated that the risk of para-occupational asbestos exposure was understood in the early 1930s, earlier than the 1960s date given in the review.
  • The authors disputed the review's calculated home exposure of 0.56 f/cc-year from laundering and shaking out clothes, citing 1975 Johns-Manville testimony to OSHA.
  • The authors cited national organizations and state agencies that they said all agree there is no known level below which asbestos does not cause mesothelioma.
  • The authors cited a prior Gibbs paper reporting that chrysotile was the main fiber in a para-occupational exposure group (218.9 chrysotile, 31.8 crocidolite, 1.5 amosite). That paper also reported two cases in which chrysotile was the only fiber type present.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that Donovan et al.'s financial and ideological biases resulted in the omission of key literature and misrepresentation of the data the review did include.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Asbestosis.

Related studies

• Evaluation of take home (para-occupational) exposure to asbestos and disease: a review of the literature — E.P. Donovan, B.L. Donovan, et al. (2012)
• Evaluation of take-home exposure to asbestos from handling asbestos-contaminated worker clothing following the abrasive sawing of cement pipe — A. Abelmann, J.R. Maskrey, et al. (2017)
• Evaluation of take-home exposure and risk associated with the handling of clothing contaminated with chrysotile asbestos — J. Sahmel, C.A. Barlow, et al. (2014)
• Evaluation of bystander exposures to asbestos in occupational settings: a review of the literature and application of a simple eddy diffusion model — E.P. Donovan, B.L. Donovan, et al. (2011)
• The importance of scientific debate — D.S. Egilman (2013)
• Evaluation of asbestos-containing products and released fibers in home appliances — S.H. Hwang, W.M. Park (2016)

Browse more research in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, or return to medical research.