Health hazards of thermal insulation products

Our plain-English summary of Health hazards of thermal insulation products, by D.C. Muir (The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 1976).

The study

• Author: D.C. Muir
• Journal: The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
• Published: 1976;19(2):139-45
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher
• In J-M's library: Johns-Manville's company medical library held a copy.

In plain English

This 1976 paper was a review, not a new study. It summarized published research on asbestos alternatives in thermal insulation, such as glass, rock and slag wool, ceramic fibres, vermiculite and perlite. It reported that handling rock, slag and glass wool may cause dermatitis. Surveys of the glass fibre industry that it cited had found no evidence of a specific hazard to date. However, one survey's authors said further work was needed, as their results on excess lung carcinoma in some plants were doubtful. In cited rat experiments, vermiculite injected into the chest cavity did not produce mesotheliomata, while a synthetic aluminium silicate ceramic fibre produced them in about 10% of groups. The author noted that most insulation products used coarse glass or rock wool fibres that cannot penetrate into the lung. The author concluded that there was as yet no evidence of unexpected hazards from thermal insulation materials, but that any durable fibre of the relevant dimensions should be treated as a potential hazard until proven otherwise. The author stressed that insulation workers' exposure data were often lacking.

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: Review of published research, with a recorded conference discussion appended
• Who was studied: Published human (epidemiological) and animal studies of thermal insulation materials other than asbestos, and of workers who make or handle them. The paper does not describe a study group of its own.
• Exposure: Alternatives to asbestos in thermal insulation. These were chiefly glass wool and rock wool, whose main use in Great Britain at the time was building insulation. The review also covered slag wool, ceramic fibres (aluminium silicate, aluminium and zirconium oxide), ceramic foam, vermiculite, perlite and PVC.
• Main results:
  • Recognized hazards of handling insulation materials included dermatitis and paronychia from rock, slag and glass wool
  • In the epidemiological surveys of the glass fibre industry that the author reviewed, no evidence of a specific hazard had been found to date
  • The authors of the last-cited glass fibre survey (Bayliss et al.) said further work was needed to confirm that excess lung carcinoma did not occur in some glass fibre plants, because their results were doubtful on this question
  • In a cited rat study (Hunter and Thomson, 1973), vermiculite did not produce mesotheliomata after intrapleural injections
  • In a cited rat study (Wagner et al., 1973), a synthetic aluminium silicate ceramic fibre produced mesotheliomata in about 10% of groups of rats after intrapleural inoculation
  • In a cited study (Styles and Wilson, 1976), fibres of aluminium and zirconium oxide were less toxic and less fibrogenic than chrysotile asbestos
  • Most insulation products were made of coarse glass or rock wool. The author stated that these fibres cannot penetrate into the lung.
  • In a cited study, Stanton and Wrench (1972) produced mesotheliomata in rats by implanting fibres of asbestos, glass, silica or nickel in the chest cavity. They found that tumour potential did not depend on the material's chemical nature.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that there was as yet no evidence that thermal insulation materials present unexpected health hazards. The author also concluded that any durable fibre less than 0.5 micrometres in diameter and longer than 10 micrometres should be regarded as a possible cause of mesothelioma until proved otherwise. Alternative materials, in the author's view, should be thoroughly investigated.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author stated that the exposure data needed to interpret surveys are often totally lacking, especially in the insulation industry because its materials are so complex
  • The author stated that interpreting animal experiments may not be straightforward because the fibres are given by an artificial method
  • The author stated that the relative toxicity of the various types of asbestos was still uncertain

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Thermal System Insulation (TSI).

Related studies

• Recycling of the product of thermal inertization of cement-asbestos for various industrial applications — A.F. Gualtieri, C. Giacobbe, et al. (2011)
• Long-term health effects in hamsters and rats exposed chronically to man-made vitreous fibres — D.M. Smith, L.W. Ortiz, et al. (1987)
• Potential health hazards associated with exposures to asbestos-containing drywall accessory products: A state-of-the-science assessment — A.D. Phelka, B.L. Finley (2012)
• The Production of Corporate Research to Manufacture Doubt About the Health Hazards of Products: An Overview of the Exponent Bakelite® Simulation Study — D. Egilman (2018)
• Minimising health hazards associated with derogated products and in-situ materials containing chrysotile contaminated with amphibole asbestos fibres — R.M. Howie (1999)
• Synthetic vitreous fibers: a review of toxicology research and its impact on hazard classification — T.W. Hesterberg, G.A. Hart (2001)

Browse more research in The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, or return to medical research.