title: Cellulosic building insulation versus mineral wool, fiberglass or perlite: installer's exposure by inhalation of fibers, dust, endotoxin and fire-retardant additives.
abstract: A task-specific exposure matrix was designed for workers installing building insulation materials. A priori, a matrix element was defined by type of task (installer or helper), type of work area (attic spaces or wall cavities) and type of insulation material (slabs from mineral wool, fiberglass or flax; loose-fill cellulosic material or perlite). In the laboratory a mock-up (full scale) of a one-family house was used for simulated installation of insulation materials (four replicates per matrix element). Personal exposure to dust and fibers was measured. The dust was analyzed for content of endotoxin and some trace elements (boron and aluminum) from fire-retardant or mold-resistant additives. Fibers were characterized as WHO fibers or non-WHO fibers. In support of the exposure matrix, the dustiness of all the materials was measured in a rotating drum tester. For installers in attic spaces, risk of exposure was low for inhalation of dust and WHO fibers from slab materials of mineral wool or fiberglass. Slab materials from flax may cause high risk of exposure to endotoxin. The risk of exposure by inhalation of dust from loose-fill materials was high for installers in attic spaces and for some of the materials risk of exposure was high for boron and aluminum. Exposure by inhalation of cellulosic WHO fibers was high but little is known about the health effects and a risk assessment is not possible. For the insulation of walls, the risk of installers' exposure by inhalation of dust and fibers was low for the slab materials, while a high risk was observed for loose-fill materials. The exposure to WHO fibers was positively correlated to the dust exposure. A dust level of 6.1 mg/m3 was shown to be useful as a proxy for screening exposure to WHO fibers in excess of 10(6) fibers/m3. In the rotating drum, slabs of insulation material from mineral wool or fiberglass were tested as not dusty. Cellulosic loose-fill materials were tested as very dusty, and perlite proved to be extremely dusty.
authors: National Institute of Occupational Health, Lersoe Parkalle 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. nob@arbejdstilsynet.dk
authors: N O
authors: NO
authors: Breum
authors: T
authors: T
authors: Schneider
authors: O
authors: O
authors: Jørgensen
authors: T
authors: T
authors: Valdbjørn Rasmussen
authors: S
authors: S
authors: Skibstrup Eriksen
mesh_terms: D000537:Aluminum Oxide; D002482:Cellulose; D003252:Construction Materials; D004391:Dust / Q000032:analysis; D005898:Glass / Q000032:analysis; D006801:Humans; D019570:Inhalation Exposure / Q000032:analysis; D016273:Occupational Exposure / Q000032:analysis*; D012822:Silicon Dioxide
chemical_list: D004391:Dust; C009753:fiberglass; C003076:Perlite; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; D002482:Cellulose; D000537:Aluminum Oxide