Mesothelioma in a connecticut friction plant: the need for transparency and exposure information in attribution of risk

Our plain-English summary of Mesothelioma in a connecticut friction plant: the need for transparency and exposure information in attribution of risk, by M.J. Teta (The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 2011).

The study

• Author: M.J. Teta
• Journal: The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
• Published: 2011;55(7):817-9; author reply 820-2
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a new study. It commented on a case series by Finkelstein and Meisenkothen (2010) that reported six workers from a Connecticut friction products plant who died of mesothelioma. The plant mainly used chrysotile. Anthophyllite was used from 1957, and a small volume of crocidolite between 1964 and 1972. The author's earlier study had found three cases: two female clerical workers at the plant and one man from a parent textile plant. The author reported that one woman had a 'definite' peritoneal mesothelioma with asbestosis, which the author said suggests heavy amphibole exposure, and had moved from Pennsylvania. The other was a 'probable' case with 5 years at the plant. No cases were found through 1977 among 3,641 men who worked there between 1938 and 1958. For the litigation cases, the author raised possible amosite exposure and earlier textile plant work. The author concluded that more complete information was needed, ideally an epidemiology study rather than litigation case reports.

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: letter to the editor commenting on a published case series (Finkelstein and Meisenkothen, 2010)
• Who was studied: Six workers from the Raybestos Manhattan friction products plant in Connecticut who died of mesothelioma, as reported in the Finkelstein and Meisenkothen (2010) case series; the letter discusses each case
• Exposure: Work at a friction products plant that, according to McDonald et al. (1984), mainly used chrysotile; anthophyllite was used from 1957 and a small volume of crocidolite between 1964 and 1972
• Main results:
  • The author's earlier case-control study (Teta et al., 1983) identified three mesothelioma cases: two female clerical workers in the friction plant and one man who worked in a parent asbestos textile plant
  • One of the two female cases was judged on pathologic review to be 'definite' peritoneal mesothelioma with asbestosis, which the author said suggests prior heavy amphibole exposure
  • A City Directory search, not noted in earlier publications, found that this woman moved to Connecticut from Pennsylvania; the author said this raises the issue of possible employment at the Raybestos plant in Pennsylvania
  • The other female case was a 'probable', not 'definite', mesothelioma, with only 5 years of employment at the Connecticut plant
  • No mesothelioma cases were identified through 1977 among the 3,641 men who worked at the plant between 1938 and 1958
  • For Case 2 in the case series, it was put to Dr Finkelstein in a deposition that this worker was exposed to products that might have included amosite
  • For Case 6, a machine operator, it was put to Dr Finkelstein in the deposition that he also worked around insulation containing amosite
  • Case 1, a woman, worked at the old Raybestos Connecticut textile plant from 1926 to 1937
  • The author stated that all the four male cases were employed at the plant during the period when two amphiboles, anthophyllite and crocidolite, were in use
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that, before cases among former employees of the Connecticut plant are used to attribute risk or in quantitative risk assessment, more complete information and greater transparency about other possible explanations are needed, ideally from an epidemiology study rather than case reports from litigation
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The author noted that the earlier study could not rule out other jobs or domestic exposure as explanations for the two female clerical workers

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Chrysotile, Mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma, Attribution.

Related studies

• Malignant mesothelioma among employees of a Connecticut factory that manufactured friction materials using chrysotile asbestos — M.M. Finkelstein, C. Meisenkothen (2010)
• Malignant mesothelioma, airborne asbestos, and the need for accuracy in chrysotile risk assessments — C. Meisenkothen (2013)
• Airborne asbestos exposures associated with work on asbestos fire sleeve materials — C.L. Blake, S.C. Harbison, et al. (2011)
• Cancer mortality and asbestosis among workers in an asbestos plant in Chongqing, China — F. Zhong, E. Yano, et al. (2008)
• History and evolution of warning labels for automotive friction products — L.M. Kopelovich, K.A. Thuett, et al. (2014)
• Exposure to airborne asbestos during removal and installation of gaskets and packings: a review of published and unpublished studies — A.K. Madl, K. Clark, et al. (2007)

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