The Pulmonary Response to Fiberglass Dust

Our plain-English summary of The Pulmonary Response to Fiberglass Dust, by P. Gross, P. A. Theodos, R. L. Murphy, et al (1976).

The study

• Authors: P. Gross, P. A. Theodos, R. L. Murphy, W. C. Gonper, W. K. C. Morgan
• Published: Chest, 69(2):216-219, February 1976 (Report of the Committee on Environmental Health, American College of Chest Physicians)
• Type of article: Journal article
• Our copy: from Johns-Manville's own medical library. The article is still under copyright, so we describe it here rather than post it.

In plain English

This was a report by the Committee on Environmental Health of the American College of Chest Physicians. It reviewed published research on how the lungs respond to fiberglass dust and presented no new data. The committee described an animal study in which rats and hamsters inhaled fiberglass dust for two years and showed only small accumulations of macrophages, with no lung or pleural tumors. Other rat studies that placed glass fibers directly into body cavities produced tumors classified as mesotheliomas, but the committee argued that this route and these doses were highly artificial. Among the human studies, a 1964 paper found no detectable lung-function impairment in six glass-wool and rock-wool workers, while eight asbestos-exposed workers had marked restriction. Epidemiologic studies, one of them on 1418 fiberglass workers, found no excess mortality or cancer risk. An autopsy study found no significant difference in lung dust content between 28 fiberglass workers and 26 urban dwellers. The authors concluded that fiberglass should be classified as a nuisance dust, and that a final verdict on cancer must await long-term mortality studies.

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: Committee report reviewing published animal, human, and autopsy studies of fiberglass dust; no new data of its own
• Who was studied: Studies reviewed covered rats, hamsters and guinea pigs, groups of fiberglass workers (including British workers and one US group of 1418), and autopsy series such as 28 fiberglass workers compared with 26 urban dwellers
• Exposure: Fiberglass (fibrous glass) dust, including glass-wool and rock-wool dust; asbestos dust appeared only as a comparison in one reviewed study
• Main results:
  • In a reviewed study, rats and hamsters inhaled fiberglass dust at a high concentration for two years. Their lungs showed only relatively small accumulations of macrophages without significant stromal changes.
  • The animals in that inhalation study, allowed to live out their lives, did not develop pulmonary or pleural tumors.
  • Reviewed rat studies that placed thin glass fibers into mesothelium-lined body cavities produced tumors classified as mesotheliomas. The committee argued these experiments used a highly artificial route and doses far above likely human exposure.
  • A 1964 paper examined six workers exposed to glass-wool and rock-wool dust and eight workers exposed to asbestos dust. It found no detectable cardiopulmonary impairment in the glass-wool and rock-wool group, while the asbestos group had marked restriction and reduced diffusion capacity.
  • Reviewed US epidemiologic studies, one of them on 1418 fiberglass workers, found no excess in mortality or increased risk of cancer from occupational fiberglass exposure.
  • In a reviewed autopsy study, total dust content and mineral-fiber content of the lungs did not differ significantly between 28 fiberglass workers (exposed 16 to 32 years) and 26 urban dwellers.
  • In a reviewed study of lungs and lymph nodes from 16 long-term fiberglass workers and 14 people from Charleston and Pittsburgh, about 6 percent of fibers were identified as chrysotile and 94 percent remained unidentified.
  • A reviewed NIOSH report measured fibers in the breathing zone of workers at four glass wool insulation plants, with counts ranging from 0.04 to 0.69 fibers per ml (40,000 to 690,000 per cubic meter).
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the lung reaction to fiberglass meets the criteria for a nuisance dust and that there is no evidence that inhaling fiberglass is associated with permanent respiratory impairment or cancer. They added that a final verdict on cancer must await long-term mortality studies.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The authors stated that, although the weight of evidence is against fiberglass being carcinogenic, the question must remain undecided until data from long-term human exposures are available.
  • The authors noted that a reviewed 1969 paper of physician reports did not define the dust clouds or exposure durations, making it impossible to evaluate the disease-causing potential of fiberglass from that paper.

Topics

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

Browse return to medical research.