Literature DB >> 14602673

Cellulosic building insulation versus mineral wool, fiberglass or perlite: installer's exposure by inhalation of fibers, dust, endotoxin and fire-retardant additives.

N O Breum1, T Schneider, O Jørgensen, T Valdbjørn Rasmussen, S Skibstrup Eriksen.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14602673     DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/meg090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg        ISSN: 0003-4878


  5 in total

1.  Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of the Venturi Dustiness Tester.

Authors:  Prahit Dubey; Urmila Ghia; Leonid A Turkevich
Journal:  Powder Technol       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 5.134

2.  A novel device for measuring respirable dustiness using low-mass powder samples.

Authors:  Patrick T O'Shaughnessy; Mitchell Kang; Daniel Ellickson
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 3.  Perlite toxicology and epidemiology--a review.

Authors:  L Daniel Maxim; Ron Niebo; Ernest E McConnell
Journal:  Inhal Toxicol       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 2.724

4.  Dustiness of fine and nanoscale powders.

Authors:  Douglas E Evans; Leonid A Turkevich; Cynthia T Roettgers; Gregory J Deye; Paul A Baron
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2012-10-12

5.  Powder Intrinsic Properties as Dustiness Predictor for an Efficient Exposure Assessment?

Authors:  Neeraj Shandilya; Eelco Kuijpers; Ilse Tuinman; Wouter Fransman
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 2.179

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.