CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. Discussion

A. Banned insulation materials

B. Fire safety and toxicity

C. Insulation application

D. Other insulation related concerns

IIi. Conclusion

IV. References

V. Image sources

2
2
2
3
4

I. Introduction
As a result of the energy crisis and climate change
nowadays, the building industry is focused in reducing
the energy use from buildings by any available means.
However, it is not certain that the use of any insulation
material is completely safe. This literature review focuses
on the possible health risks that are associated with
the use of insulation materials in buildings, organised
according to their different ways of affecting health.
The literature review begins with the hypothesis that
not all insulation materials are safe, but there are health
risks associated with some of them.

II. Discussion
A. Banned insulation materials

B. Fire safety and toxicity

The issue of insulation materials and associated health risks

is not new, since there are already some banned materials,
with the most common one being asbestos, which is
considered nowadays as carcinogen (Hawes,1995), and
was related with respiratory symptoms (Ernst et al,1987).

According to two studies (Stec and Hull,2011)(Liang and

Ho,2007), the main reason of death during fire accidents
occurs from inhalation of toxic smoke. Current insulation
materials are lightweight with high thermal inertia, which
means higher flammability than traditional materials,
leading in being more combustible and releasing toxic
gases when burnt (Stec and Hull,2011). However, there is
not currently much available research on the fire hazards
of insulation materials (Stec and Hull,2011)

Another controversial material (L'Abbe and Hoey,1984)

which was used extensively during 70's was Urea
Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI), causing irritation of
mucous membranes (Lowry,1989). UFFI was mainly used
during the energy crisis of the 70's (Meyer,1986), placing
it to a similar context with today's energy situation. UFFI
released formaldehyde gas for long periods after being
applied to the building (Garmon,1982), which explains
the caused irritations (L'Abbe and Hoey,1984). However,
epidemiologic studies did not show any impact of UFFI
and formaldehyde alone on human health (L'Abbe and
Hoey,1984), but another research showed that the
released gas was toxic and a possible carcinogen (Morin
and Kubinski,1978). The various studies, combined with
users' complaints about various symptoms, led in its ban
in 1982 (Garmon,1982).

Figure 1 - Asbestos

Figure 2 - UFFI application

By organising the materials in two categories, namely

inorganic fibers and organic foam products, a study
showed (Stec and Hull,2011) that the former category
did not prove to be combustible, neither with high levels
of toxicity. The tested materials in this category were
fiberglass and stone wool. The same results applied
for another research (Liang and Ho,2007) in which the
examined inorganic fibrous materials were fiberglass and
rock wool, and they met the requirements of low fire
hazard materials.
On the other hand, organic foam materials were found
to be both inflammable and fire toxic, releasing CO2, CO
and NO2, varying based on the ventilation condition of
a space (Stec and Hull,2011). The same research showed
that combustion in well-ventilated conditions resulted in
lower toxic emissions than in under-ventilated conditions.
The materials that were examined in this study (Stec and
Hull,2011) were polystyrene, phenolic, polyurethane
and polyisocyanurate foam and are written in order of
increasing fire toxicity. The foam materials examined in
another research (Liang and Ho,2007) were polyethylene
and polyurethane, and they were found to be highly
toxic, without meeting the requirements for low fire
hazard materials. Similar results were found in another
research (Singh and Jain,2009), showing the toxicity of
polyurethane foams during combustion. A comparison
of all these materials was done in another study (AlHomoud,2005) and verifies the previous observations.
The existing studies seem to reach a consensus that
there is substantial difference in fire safety between
inorganic fibers and organic foam products. So, it could
be suggested that more inorganic insulation materials
should be used in buildings, reducing the use of the latter
ones. An alternative solution could be the design of wellventilated spaces, in order to reduce the toxic emissions
in case of fire. Moreover, according to Liang and Ho (Liang
and Ho,2007), the placement of insulation materials
outside or in the middle of the wall, and spraying them
with incombustible materials, could add enough time
for people to react and escape the building. However, it
is believed that research should be made on the escape
times in each occasion, in order to ensure fire safety.

C. Insulation application
The previous section shows that inorganic fibers are
better than organic foams in terms of fire safety. However,
much debate has existed on the possible detrimental
health effects of coming in contact with fibers during their
application, with the widespread belief that all fibers may
cause lung cancer if inhaled in large doses (Wilson, Langer
and Nolan,1999), because of their similar characteristics
with asbestos (Hawes,1995).
Direct contact with fiberglass may cause fiberglass
dermatitis, affecting the skin and causing irritation, with
the fibers' diameter and length determining the degree
of the effect (Sertoli, Giorgini and Farli,1992). Also, fiber
concentrations vary based on the application method and
the conditions of the working site (Sertoli, Giorgini and
Farli,1995).
Much controversy exists around the relationship
between fibers and cancer risk, with IARC of World
Health Organisation (WHO) classifying fiberglass as
possible carcinogen in animals in 1987 (Hawes,1995)
and glass wool, slag wool and ceramic fibers as possible
carcinogenics to humans in 1988 (Wilson, Langer
and Nolan,1999). However, the various studies seem
controversial, with a quantitative risk assessment showing
that lifetime risks from exposure to fiberglass are 5 per
million (Fayerweather et al,1997), supported by human
epidemiologic studies (Lee et al,1995), and another risk

assessment showing similar results, with 6 per million

(Wilson, Langer and Nolan,1999), mentioning that any
effect which may exist is small. Another study (Albin et
al,1998) concluded that wool insulation does not affect
the vital capacity of lung volumes, but persistent cough
from exposure was observed.
Fiber insulation materials, and especially fiberglass, can
be found everywhere in the air nowadays, because of
their extensive use in buildings (Hawes,1995), which
renders further research on their possible detrimental
health effects even more urgent. However, it can be
seen that there is much controversy around them, with
WHO classifying them as possible carcinogenics, and the
majority of studies showing that the risk is negligible.
Nevertheless, studies show that any possible health
risks from fibers are associated with people coming in
contact with them during their application, either direct
or through inhalation, so as long as there are appropriate
safety measures and regulations then the risks are
possibly almost eradicated. As a result, it is suggested
that precaution and appropriate safety measures should
be taken before applying insulation on a building.

Figure 3 - Fiberglass

Figure 4 - Stone wool

Figure 5 - Rock wool

Figure 6 - Polyisocyanurate foam

Figure 7 - Polyethylene foam

Figure 8 - Polystyrene foam

Figure 9 - Phenolic foam

Figure 10 - Polyurethane foam

Figure 11 - Aerogel

D. Other insulation related concerns

Another insulation related issue is the creation of airtight
environments, posing the question of whether they are
healthy for their users. According to a study (Gens et
al,2014), airtight buildings lead to reduced air exchange
rate, which in turn causes lower concentrations of
outdoor particles, but increases the concentrations of
pollutants from indoor sources. The study mentions that
the health impact could be either positive or negative,
varying on the indoor sources. However, the same study
supports that the use of mechanical ventilation decreases
the concentration of indoor pollutants, which seems
to coincide with the findings from another research
(Strusbole et al,2012).
Finally, a range of new insulation materials are being
used nowadays, such as aerogel (Baetens, Jelle and
Gustavsen,2011), which seem to lack any research about
their possible health impacts, since they are still new. Due
to this, it is suggested that sufficient research should be
done in these materials before using them extensively in
the built environment.

III. Conculsion
The presented data shows that in many cases there is
correlation between insulation materials and health risks,
so it can be supported that the initial hypothesis is true.
The literature review showed that the examined issue is
not new, with asbestos and UFFI banned since 80's. The
possible health risks from current insulation materials can
occur mainly during fire or installation.
Inorganic fibers were found to be better from organic
foams in terms of fire safety, so it is suggested that they
should be preffered in places where fire safety is of
highest priority, such as hospitals. Moreover, inflammable
materials can probably be used if combined with an
appropriate fire safety design in a building, like wellventilated spaces and provision of sufficient escape
routes. However, more research should be done on the
fire safety of insulation materials due to lack of sufficient
studies.
It was found that the installation process of fiber
insulation materials may involve health risks, such as
fiberglass dermatitis from direct contact, or even possibly
carcinogenic effects if fibers are inhaled in large doses.
However, there are controversial studies about the latter
one, so more research is required. Safety measures should
be implemented during installation, in order for the
workers to avoid coming in contact with fibers, reducing
any potential risks.
The effect of using high insulation and creating airtight
buildings was mentioned as well, showing that high
insulation alone may increase the concentration of indoor
pollutants, so a study that considers in more depth its
relationship with other parameters could be made.

IV. References
Albin M., Engholm G., Hallin N., Hagmar L. 1998. Impact of exposure to insulation wool on lung function and cough in Swedish construction
workers. Occupational and Environmental medicine, 55 (10): 661-667
Al-Homoud M. 2005. Performance characteristics and practical applications of common building thermal insulation materials. Building and
Environment, 40 (3): 353-366
Baetens R., Jelle B., Gustavsen A. 2011. Aerogel insulation for building applications: A state-of-the-art review. Energy and buildings, 43 (4):
761-769
Ernst P., Shapiro S., Dales R., Becklake M. 1987. Determinants of respiratory symptoms in insulation workers exposed to asbestos and
synthetic mineral fibres. British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 44 (2): 90-95
Fayerweather W., Bender J., Hadley J., Eastes W. 1997. Quantitative risk assessment for a glass fiber insulation product. Regulatory toxicology
and pharmacology, 25 (2): 103-120
Garmon L. 1982. Thumbs down on formaldehyde insulation. Science News, 121 (9): 131
Gens A., Hurley J., Tuomisto J., Friedrich R. 2014. Health impacts due to personal exposure to fine particles caused by insulation of
residential buildings in Europe. Atmospheric Environment, 84: 213-221
Hawes A. 1995. Fiberglass: a carcinogen thats everywhere: the asbestos of the 21st century. Environmental Research Foundation. Available
from: <http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lar27d00/pdf>
Lee I., Hennekens C., Trichopoulos D., Buring J.E. 1995. Man-made vitreous fibers and risks of respiratory system cancer: A review of the
epidemiologic evidence. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 37 (6): 725-738
Liang H., Ho M. 2007. Toxicity characteristics of commercially manufactured insulation materials for building applications in Taiwan.
Construction and Building materials, 21 (6): 1254-1261
Lowry S. 1989. Housing and health: Indoor air quality. British Medical Journal, 299 (6712): 1388-1390
LAbbe K., Hoey J. 1984. Review of the health effects of urea-formaldehyde foam insulation. Environmental Research, 35 (1): 246-263
Meyer B. 1986. Formaldehyde exposure from building products. Environment International, 12 (1-4): 283-288
Morin N., Kubinski H. 1978. Potential toxicity of materials used for home insulation. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2 (2): 133-141
Sertoli A., Giorgini S., Farli M. 1992. Fiberglass dermatitis. Clinics in dermatology, 10 (2): 167-174
Shrubsole C., Ridley I., Biddulph P., Milner J., Vardoulakis S., Ucci M., Wilkinson P., Chalabi Z., Davies M., 2012. Indoor PM2.5 exposure in
Londons domestic stock: modelling current and future exposures following energy efficient refurbishment. Atmospheric Environment, 62: 336343
Singh H., Jain A. 2009. Ignition, combustion, toxicity and fire retardancy of polyurethane foams: a comprehensive review. Journal of Applied
Polymer Science, 111: 1115-1143
Stec A., Hull T. 2011. Assessment of the fire toxicity of building insulation materials. Energy and Buildings, 43 (2-3): 498-506
Wilson R., Langer A.M., Nolan R.P. 1999. A risk assessment for exposure to glass wool. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 30 (2): 96109

V. Image sources
1. http://www.lawandmore.co.uk/legal-news/asbestos-awareness-spurred-by-shocking-levels-in-schools/
2. http://tecnologiadelosplasticos.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/resinas-urea-formaldehido.html
3. http://www.tradeindia.com/fp1124100/Glass-Wool-Insulation.html
4. http://www.dincergroup.com/geolan.htm
5. http://www.encon.co.uk/products/view/577/rockwool-rockroll-rollbatt-18af
6. http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/europerfil/rigid-polyisocyanurate-foam-insulation-panels-pir-50760-457404.html
7. http://www.packworld.com/package-type/protective-packaging/sealed-air-corporation-recycled-content-protective-packaging
8. http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/cel-components-srl/rigid-extruded-polystyrene-insulation-panels-xps-90136-838844.html
9. http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/fd2333/product-detailCqXxSPfjZmWi/China-Pre-Insulated-Phenolic-Foam-Panel.
html
10. http://www.durabondinsulation.com/pictures
11. http://media.designerpages.com/3rings/2010/02/19/aerogel-space-age-insulation/