Login / Register
 
The Comparative Safety of Rockwool, Fiberglass, and Organic Fibers (a review)
New Reply
Subscribe
audiovisceral
Thread Starter
#1
3rd December 2008
Old 3rd December 2008
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,546

Thread Starter
audiovisceral is offline
The Comparative Safety of Rockwool, Fiberglass, and Organic Fibers (a review)

After several threads here on the relative safety of rockwool, fiberglass, and organic fibers, I did a few days of digging through the medical literature to satisfy my curiosity. I thought I'd share a summary of what I found, as it may be surprising, particularly regarding organic fibers.

My personal conclusion is that, from everything I read, Roxul HT rockwool appears to be the safest material available. Although traditional forms of rockwool may be harsh, Roxul HT dissolves with incredible ease in the lung and is completely noncarcinogenic in even the most intense animal tests. It's relatively gentle and has great absorption characteristics.

The types of fiberglass we use also seem quite safe and, like with rockwool and organics, have absolutely no history of causing lung cancer in people or animals from even long term exposure. Typical fiberglass like OC703 is, however, much more abrasive than Roxul HT, and thus at least more theoretically capable of inducing lung irritation issues, particularly with high-level, unprotected exposure.

Organic fibers (like cellulose, cotton, and hemp), unlike rockwool/fiberglass, do not break down in the lungs or body at all. As a result, inhaled organic fibers too big for lung defense cells to ingest but too small to cough up can be more easily permanently trapped as irritants.

Whatever you choose, always wear a mask, gloves, and protective clothing when handling any of these materials raw and you should be fine. All the materials we use should be safe for normal studio applications. Studios/manufacturers that are still concerned about using any of these materials may wish to opt for a tighter weave fabric or a layer of polyester batting or other wrap glued to the insulation underneath. In fact, that might be good advice for anyone, but that's each person's call to make.

Research below includes animal breathing and injection studies, health reviews of factory workers, and rare and unusual case studies. It isn't meant to be exhaustive or definitive. I am also not a doctor or expert and this isn't medical advice. I do have a biomed background though, so if you have any questions/comments, I can do my best to clarify.



ROCKWOOL STUDIES

Biopersistences of Man-Made Vitreous Fibers and Crocidolite Fibers in Rat Lungs Following Short-Term Exposures,
Rats were exposed 6 h/day for 5 days to massive amounts of long fiber rock/slagwool (including one fiber by Roxul), and their lungs were studied over time. After 90 days, the residual fibers found in the rat lungs were broken down to 1/3 the maximum length macrophages (defense cells) can engulf and remove. At 9 months, retention of fibers was 1-6% compared to day 1. At 18 months, rockwool fibers were statistically undetectable. Asbestos was tested as well for comparative purposes. By contrast, it was not at all similarly digested, and at 18 months 29-47% of the original long fibers persisted.

Carcinogenicity Studies after Intraperitoneal Injection of Two Types of Stone Wool Fibres in Rats -- KAMSTRUP et al. 46 (2): 135 -- Annals of Occupational Hygiene
Rats were abdominally injected with two types of rockwool. One was a Roxul HT fiber. The other ‘typical’ traditional fiber induced cancerous growths, but the Roxul fiber had no adverse effect. These types of injection tests are important because they have higher sensitivity than breathing tests.

Chronic inhalation studies of two types of stone w...[Inhal Toxicol. 2001] - PubMed Result
Rats were hooked up to breathe the same two rockwools listed above. Exposure was 6 h/day, 5 days/wk for 2 years. Neither group developed any cancers. However, the ‘typical’ rockwool did induce some lung fibrosis/scarring. The Roxul HT did not.

Subchronic Inhalation Study of Stone Wool Fibres in Rats -- KAMSTRUP et al. 48 (2): 91 -- Annals of Occupational Hygiene
Again, a breathing test of the above two rockwools at the same dose but for 3 months only. In this case, no cancers or fibrosis were observed. Any inflammation was reversible, even with the heavy duty fiber.

The Biopersistence and Pathogenicity of Man-made Vitreous Fibres after Short- and Long-term Inhaltion -- KAMSTRUP et al. 42 (3): 191 -- Annals of Occupational Hygiene
Another two-year rockwool rat breathing test. No cancers observed. Risks with HT rockwool are deemed negligible to nonexistent.

Behavior of new type of rock wool (HT Wool) in lungs after exposure by nasal inhalation in rats
Roxul HT rockwool rat breathing study. The half-life of fibers was 34 days for all fibers and only 11 days for the longest (and thus normally most persistant and dangerous) fibers.



FIBERGLASS STUDIES

Cookie Absent
Researchers injected rats with highly dissolvable fiberglass to assay whether or not byproducts of fiber dissolution were likely carcinogenic. No tumors were generated. They concluded that the degree of carcinogenic potency of a fiber depends primarily on the extent to which it retains its fibrous structure over time, not its chemical composition.

Pulmonary response of mice to fiberglass : cytokinetic and biochemical studies
Comparison of fibrogenic effects of fiberglass and asbestos in rats. Demonstrates that fiberglass requires doses 10x that of asbestos to induce similar levels of fibrosis (scarring) to the lung. Unknown what type/durability of fiberglass was used.

Biopersistence of synthetic vitreous fibers and am...[Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1998] - PubMed Result
Comparative look at fiberglass, rockwool and asbestos in hamster inhalation. The very biopersistent fibers like asbestos and specialty high durability ceramics/fiberglass were carcinogenic, while the more rapidly clearing fibers, like normal commercial fiberglass equivalent to oc703, were not at all.

Cookie Absent
A one year fiberglass vs. asbestos breathing study in hamsters. Animals exposed to typical commercial fiberglass experienced only nonspecific pulmonary inflammation. However, exposures to a special, high durability fiberglass and asbestos were associated with lung fibrosis and possible mesotheliomas (lung cancer).

Science of the Health Effects of Fibers
OC's research paper references.


Fiberglass Case Studies

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies
Case study of carpenter who inhaled fiberglass unprotected for 41 years. Fibrosis, cystic lesions, and fiber deposition was noted. The authors conclude that this patient's heavy smoking history and long term exposure to fiberglass have contributed to pulmonary fibrosis. Fibers found had all broken down to short lengths, indicating the lung fluid was effective in breaking them down, but macrophages were not able to digest them. Cigarette smoking has an interactive relationship with fibers like asbestos-the asbestos worker who smokes has a much higher chance of developing lung cancer than does the non-smoker.

Clinical Pulmonary Medicine - Abstract: Volume 14(5) September 2007 p 296-301 Respiratory Disease and Fiberglass Exposure: Report of a Case and Review of the Literature.
Describes a 23 year old with an unusual adverse reaction to fiberglass. It is noted that rare cases of pulmonary fibrosis, acute eosinophilic pneumonia, and sarcoidosis-like pulmonary disease have been described after exposure to fiberglass.

Elsevier Article Locator
Studying 50 cases of sarcoidosis, an immune system disorder, 28% of patients recalled exposure to fiberglass/rockwool. Findings suggest that in susceptible people, mineral deposition from MMVF exposure may contribute to immune issues.



OCCUPATIONAL FIBERGLASS/ROCKWOOL STUDIES

ATSDR - Toxicological Profile: Synthetic Vitreous Fibers
The full version of the 2004 US Government review on synthetic vitreous fibers aka manmade vitreous fibers (MMVFs), the group to which rockwool and fiberglass belong. It summarizes all available knowledge on how the body react to these fibers and any associated risks in relatively layman friendly terms.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp161.pdf
One subsection of the above containing a referenced overview of all animal studies to date.
http://www.erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/r.../8/12/2149.pdf
A good review article of epidemiological studies following MMVF workers long term. No ill effects have been noted except minor fibrosis among ceramic fiber works. Ceramic fibers are a specialty product that is far more durable and dangerous than any form of fiberglass/rockwool. Neither rockwool nor fiberglass workers were noted to develop the same effect.

Historical cohort study of U.S. man-made vitreous ...[J Occup Environ Med. 2004] - PubMed Result
Cohort sudy of 4008 women who were MMVF factory workers between 1945 and 1978. No elevated mortality or lung cancer has been observed.



ORGANIC FIBER STUDIES

http://www.jniosh.go.jp/en/indu_hel/pdf/IH39_17.pdf
Review article regarding manmade organic fibers (MMOFs). Indicates that cellulose fibers can be more biodurable in the lung than even asbestos, which in turn is many times more biodurable than fiberglass or rockwool. Cellulose is less carcinogenic than asbestos despite this, likely because it triggers far less lung inflammation.

Tumorigenicity of cellulose fibers injected into t...[Inhal Toxicol. 2002] - PubMed Result
Researchers injected high doses of wood pulp derived cellulose fibers into the abdominal cavity of rats. Tumors were produced. They state that cellulose fibers, along with many other organic fibers, are durable. Therefore, if inhaled, they have the potential to persist within the lung, and may cause disease.


Organic Case Studies

Diffuse lung disease caused by cotton fibre inhalation but distinct from byssinosis -- Kobayashi et al. 59 (12): 1095 -- Thorax
Case study describing a 66 year old man who had inhaled cotton fiber for 50 years at his workplace. His lungs demonstrated callusing of their lining and diffuse fibrosis. Strings of cellulose fibers were found in his lungs. According to the researchers, this was the first study to show directly that cotton fiber inhalation can directly cause diffuse lung disease unrelated to byssinosis.
MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Byssinosis
Byssinosis is an occupational lung disease in textile mill workers exposed to the respirable dusts of cotton, hemp, and flax. It is characterized by a chronic, asthma-like narrowing of the airways and caused by the bacteria which grow on the fibers.

Quote
1
#2
3rd December 2008
Old 3rd December 2008
  #2
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: New Milford, CT, USA
Posts: 13,663

Ethan Winer is offline
Lightbulb

Wow, awesome.
#3
3rd December 2008
Old 3rd December 2008
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 16,617

Glenn Kuras is offline
STICKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#4
15th December 2008
Old 15th December 2008
  #4
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Northeast Corridor
Posts: 467

morebutter is offline
great work!

thank you!
#5
15th December 2008
Old 15th December 2008
  #5
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,827

avare is offline
Stick it up... uh what I mean is this should be a sticky up at the top of the forum.

Stuck up,
Andre
Quote
1
MsM
#6
5th April 2009
Old 5th April 2009
  #6
MsM
Gear nut
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: No(r)way
Posts: 98

MsM is offline
Interesting food for thought (and lungs?).

Still not a sticky?
#7
29th May 2009
Old 29th May 2009
  #7
Gear nut
 
macakinho's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 91

macakinho is offline
Really useful info here!
Thank you!

+1 for sticky!
#8
29th May 2009
Old 29th May 2009
  #8
Gear Guru
 
Glenn Kuras's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 16,617

Glenn Kuras is offline
Just keeping it at the top.

BUMP!!
#9
29th May 2009
Old 29th May 2009
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,122

Smithcok is offline
Spilled Kool-aid?
#10
29th November 2009
Old 29th November 2009
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Cotswolds, UK
Posts: 1,878

Arksun is online now
Thought this deserved another bump!, even if it does make the choice more difficult rather than easier.

Just when I thought cotton/hemp/wool etc would be the far safer alternative, now I'm not sure. They all seem to have similar handling risks, as long as a mask gloves and goggles are worn it should be ok i guess.

I still get the feeling though that, organic matter being larger in size, would be far less likely to escape through the fabric of a trap, plus the added benefit of less itchyness during cutting and placing is more attractive for DIY trap making purposes.
#11
30th November 2009
Old 30th November 2009
  #11
Gear nut
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
Posts: 116

Millo 3.1 is offline
Nice info, thanks
#12
30th November 2009
Old 30th November 2009
  #12
Lives for gear
 
takman's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: UK, essex
Posts: 1,088

takman is offline
Before i had started construction of my rockwool panels, i had done research into the saftey of it.....and i was certain it was going to be fine..

I have all the rockwool panels installed in my room ( my bedroom)..i have some halogen lights i installed...

i noticed the lights were illuninating A LOT of dust particles...and i became a bit paranoid... so i starting doing more research..

all the research says its safe. So you start reading through forums, and everyone is in agreeance its safe..then some guy posts something like....of course they will say its safe, they dont want to hurt their profits..or dont trust the govt agencies....or its safe until you start pumping low freqeuncies through and releasing the fibers...

i know i have told people its safe...but now that i think about about pumping bass through it....

it was the damn lighting in my room that got me all paranoid again.....Deep down i know i shouldnt worry...and i believe its safe....but i still cant let go

Glenn? Ethan? make me feel better!

edit:

so i took a shirt from my closet, brought it close to the light, and whacked it a few times...and you wouldnt believe the dust and fibers that came from it...

No matter where you are, you are breathing in dust...i cant imagine the abuse your lungs take. so why am i starting to get paranoid again?
__________________

#13
30th November 2009
Old 30th November 2009
  #13
Lives for gear
 
PaulP's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,196

PaulP is offline
I have trouble accepting that an organic fibre, from a plant for Pete's sake,
will remain in the lungs forever but fibers made out of glass/rock/slag will be
quickly eliminated. I'm not saying the reports are wrong, just that their
findings aren't intuitively obvious.

A while ago, having been amazed at how quickly dust accumulated in my
house, I stuck a pile of it under a microscope. It was almost entirely fibers
from clothing. If someone is worried about dust from already installed
acoustic treatment a microscope should be able to tell where the dust is
coming from.

I like the idea of wrapping insulation in plastic film when possible, and
polyester batting when you want it to breathe.

Paul P
#14
1st December 2009
Old 1st December 2009
  #14
Lives for gear
 
takman's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: UK, essex
Posts: 1,088

takman is offline
hey paul,

when you were talking about ceiling clouds being problematic..releasing fibers when low frequencies were introduced...was this from experience or something you read?

and if not absorption...then what? dont think you can do it all with just diffusion...
#15
1st December 2009
Old 1st December 2009
  #15
Lives for gear
 
PaulP's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,196

PaulP is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by takman View Post
when you were talking about ceiling clouds being problematic..releasing fibers when low frequencies were introduced...was this from experience or something you read?
Mainly from my imagination . I'm planning on making a cloud very similar to
yours and I'm not thrilled at the idea of having fibers rain down on me (though
I don't play music loud, and don't have a sub). I'll be interested in hearing how
yours behaves. Panels on walls and in corners don't worry me much.

Quote:
and if not absorption...then what? dont think you can do it all with just diffusion...
We're stuck with absorption. I'm resigned to having to try it out and see what
happens. But then the same can be said about everything to do with acoustic
treatment...

Paul P
#16
1st December 2009
Old 1st December 2009
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulP View Post
I have trouble accepting that an organic fibre, from a plant for Pete's sake, will remain in the lungs forever but fibers made out of glass/rock/slag will be quickly eliminated. I'm not saying the reports are wrong, just that their findings aren't intuitively obvious.
The major component in cell walls of plants (like cotton, or hemp, or other organic insulation) is cellulose. Our bodies lack the ability to digest cellulose in any capacity.

One perhaps useful way to think about it is in terms of dietary fiber (which is also cellulose). Even with all the acids and elements of our digestive system we cannot break down the cellulose fiber in our food. The only reason animals like cows and horses can do so (and thus digest food like grass) is they have special bacteria colonizing their digestive tracts to do it for them. Since we don't have such bacteria in our lungs, our lungs cannot break down organic insulation fibers that may get trapped.

On the other hand, rockwool and fiberglass of the grades used for bass traps is chemically designed to be soluble in lung fluid, so in theory (and seemingly lab experiments) it should decompose naturally with ease. The only potential risk there would be that if you inspire too much, it might still cause damage before it breaks down, and also, particularly in the case of rockwool, might leave behind potentially harmful depositions like metallic compounds.

As a follow up, it has been about a year since I wrote the original post in this thread (old user name, same user). While I believe it is still accurate to say there is no remotely probable cancer risk from any of the types of insulation we would employ, I have come to believe there are other factors to consider.

The first of these would be the gaseous emissions of the insulation. None of the articles I could find provided any analysis of the gases or organic compounds released by the fiberglass and rockwool products. I therefore have no definitive proof, but I believe from my experiences described here:

Fiberglass with fabric is a nightmare

That those gaseous emissions of fiberglasses and rockwools can be a significant irritant under the right conditions.

Additionally, it should be noted that while fiberglass and rockwool factory workers have shown no ill effects from the long hours they put in (due to fibers or gasses), the air in such factories is usually heavily filtered with good airflow and mandatory respiratory precautions like masks. None of those would likely apply in a recording studio.

It is worth mentioning again that as per the articles above, both unprotected individuals working with fiberglass/rockwool (contractors) and organics (cotton workers, farmers) have demonstrated a significant capacity for fiber exposure-related fibrosis over the years. Eventually, if severe, such fibrosis can theoretically lead to COPD.

Quote:
A while ago, having been amazed at how quickly dust accumulated in my
house, I stuck a pile of it under a microscope. It was almost entirely fibers
from clothing. If someone is worried about dust from already installed
acoustic treatment a microscope should be able to tell where the dust is
coming from.
Yes and that would be one good reason not to necessarily worry about organic fiber-relate lung damage. Most of us breathe in cotton fibers from our sheets, clothes, and dust around the house day in and day out with no ill effects. However, most of those particles are quite large and would not be in the size range that could theoretically get trapped in our lungs forever (ie. too big for macrophages to ingest, too small to cough up). Without any scientific data, it is difficult to say what size of fibers and thus what health effects one could expect from a product like UltraTouch.
Quote:
I like the idea of wrapping insulation in plastic film when possible.
As per my comments in the other thread (and elsewhere on this forum), I now believe the safest, easiest, and cheapest method for building effective bass traps is as follows:

1) Buy 24"x96" batts of Ultratouch R21. It is 5.5" thick but easily compresses to 4", giving a final density of around 2 pcf. The absorption characteristics of Ultratouch are quite good as has been published all over. It is much cheaper than fiberglass/rockwool.

2) Cut the bats to 24"x48" panels, and wrap with Husky 0.31 or 0.35 mil Painter's Plastic (eg. Castle Wholesalers-Hardware and Wholesale Supply). In my experience, this plastic is thin and light enough to be almost perfectly acoustically transparent, at least certainly at low frequencies. If you are unsure what effects it will have and whether they will be personally acceptable, just try talking through it and judge for yourself. Such a layer of plastic should block all fibers absolutely, but not necessarily any gases that might be released by fiberglass/rockwool. Seal with packing tape or any other method.

3) Wrap the plastic-sealed panels in any finish of choice. Ready Acoustics DIY bags are nice and fit perfectly, but since Ultratouch is floppier than rockwool or fiberglass, a wood frame-based design might be nice.

That's it.

I have no vested interest in any of the above products or companies. I have just found them useful in my own use.

As with the above none of this represents medical advice or any condemnation of the products and services others offer. People are welcome to use whatever they enjoy or feel comfortable with.

(Note also that I have used the word "organic" in two senses in this post not to be confused. In biochemistry, organic simply refers to anything with a carbon based structure. So we can have "organic" gasses utilized in chemical processing (like benzene) and we can also have "organic" fibers like cotton and hemp. The only thing they share in common is a carbon structure.)

I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote this. Hope it makes sense.
#17
1st December 2009
Old 1st December 2009
  #17
Lives for gear
 
PaulP's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,196

PaulP is offline
Thanks mobius.media for your in depth treatment of the subject. I had found
your original post previously while searching on the subject. I'll probably
never be completely at ease on the subject but will be going ahead with my
treatment plans.

Paul P
#18
1st December 2009
Old 1st December 2009
  #18
Lives for gear
 
takman's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: UK, essex
Posts: 1,088

takman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulP View Post
Mainly from my imagination . I'm planning on making a cloud very similar to
yours and I'm not thrilled at the idea of having fibers rain down on me (though
I don't play music loud, and don't have a sub). I'll be interested in hearing how
yours behaves. Panels on walls and in corners don't worry me much.

We're stuck with absorption. I'm resigned to having to try it out and see what
happens. But then the same can be said about everything to do with acoustic
treatment...

Paul P
ya...i'm looking up at the cloud and im starting to wonder...

I think i may take it down, and add one more layer of fabric...although that will be damn pain...

like you i am not worried about ceiling panels, but still i think i am going to wrap them one more time..i used a fairly transparent gauze like material.

I sleep in my studio/bedroom (which is going to change soon i hope)...i dont even have everything installed yet, and this morning my throat was a little dry.
#19
3rd December 2009
Old 3rd December 2009
  #19
Lives for gear
 
takman's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: UK, essex
Posts: 1,088

takman is offline
i just sent an e-mail to rockwool customer suppport asking various questions...when i get a reply ( if i do get a reply) i will post it here...

Also, i am strongly considering doing some testing of my own...if im satisfied that it doesnt pose any risks, then i wll feel a hell of a lot better.

I was thinking to test the "Low Frequency waves shaking the fibers loose" theory, by putting a loudspeaker directly in front of a piece of rockwool, and playing sustained LF's together with halogen lights focused on the rockwool since halogen lights illuminate dust/particles in the air very well...

If i cant see anything, then i would assume that if fibers are breaking loose, they are small enough to only be seen by a microsope..

I have a set of loudspeakers with 15" woofers...so ill be able to give the rockwool a real good pounding....
#20
3rd December 2009
Old 3rd December 2009
  #20
Lives for gear
 
PaulP's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,196

PaulP is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by takman View Post
I have a set of loudspeakers with 15" woofers...so ill be able
to give the rockwool a real good pounding....
Wear a mask .

Paul P
#21
3rd December 2009
Old 3rd December 2009
  #21
Gear nut
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
Posts: 116

Millo 3.1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by takman View Post
i just sent an e-mail to rockwool customer suppport asking various questions...when i get a reply ( if i do get a reply) i will post it here...

Also, i am strongly considering doing some testing of my own...if im satisfied that it doesnt pose any risks, then i wll feel a hell of a lot better.

I was thinking to test the "Low Frequency waves shaking the fibers loose" theory, by putting a loudspeaker directly in front of a piece of rockwool, and playing sustained LF's together with halogen lights focused on the rockwool since halogen lights illuminate dust/particles in the air very well...

If i cant see anything, then i would assume that if fibers are breaking loose, they are small enough to only be seen by a microsope..

I have a set of loudspeakers with 15" woofers...so ill be able to give the rockwool a real good pounding....
Please, post your impressions/findings...
#22
4th December 2009
Old 4th December 2009
  #22
Lives for gear
 
takman's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: UK, essex
Posts: 1,088

takman is offline
#23
4th December 2009
Old 4th December 2009
  #23
Lives for gear
 
takman's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
Location: UK, essex
Posts: 1,088

takman is offline
i'm going to give this air purifier a try

Alive Air Purifier-The 9-stage Air Purifier with HEPA, UV, Ionic and more...

the website comes off as one of those gimmicky websites that i usually dont trust...but every review i read is positive..theres a number of them on cosumer reports and amazon...

I also received a reply from rockwool customer support...

heres the email i sent...


Quote:
To whom it may concern,

I recently built acoustic panels using semi-rigid rockwool for my home music studio. I know its not really its intended purpose, but many people that build studios use Rockwool, as you may know.

If the Rockwool is undisturbed, and covered with a fabric, do you think any fibers could escape and be inhaled?

There is also those that believe low frequency or bass waves eminating from a speaker/woofer could "shake" the fibers loose. Thoughts on this?

How well is Rockwool bonded to together? if small amounts of fibers are inhaled, how safe is it? Does the body absorb/breakdown the fibers? Can it cause cancer over the long/short term?

Are there extra steps that can be done in terms of wrapping Rockwool in some sort of beathable plastic, or certain fabrics to keep the fibers from escaping, if they do in fact escape?

Thank you
reply...

Quote:
Dear Sir,

I have attached the Rockwool Health Booklet for your viewing.

Rockwool is a fantastic acoustic product and it is used frequently in music studios, you say your acoustic panels are covered with fabric so I can’t really see that the fibres would be able to be dispersed into the air.

If the fibres were to be breathed in then they would simply pass through your system as they are non – carcinogenic and not harmful to us in any way.

Rockwool is naturally fibrous and yes high levels of vibration could work fibres free but as you have your panels covered with fabric I don’t really see this being an issue.

Best Regards
and this is the health booklet he sent me...

http://www.rockwool-firepro.co.uk/gr...gle_sheets.pdf
#24
4th December 2009
Old 4th December 2009
  #24
Gear nut
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
Posts: 116

Millo 3.1 is offline
good to know... should we extrapolate and think of the same for products like Fibrex, etc.? I guess each company uses different chemical mixes, huh?
#25
16th January 2010
Old 16th January 2010
  #25
Gear addict
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 413

Dove is offline
You also have to consider chemical binders, etc. Actually I personally know a respiratory MD and his experience vs industry (tobacco style) science propaganda is that fiberglass is very harmful to lung tissue.

Keep in mind that industry reports and their governmental counterparts are more in favor of industry than personal health. The onus is on the population to prove negative health problems than it is on industry. Environmental illnesses are increasing at a high rate because of so many new chemicals being introduced into our environment.

I personally have had ill effects due to being in studios with fiberglass behind material. This was verified by both ENT specialists and respiratory specialists. We had to wrap acoustic paneling in plastic and recover with cloth. This helped immensely. In other studio designs I have gone with hemp long fibres behind high poiont material (the kind used in alleviating dust mite situations) with excellent results.

I find it interesting that industry standards recommend these panels be covered in a barrier yet somehow the recording industry is ignoring these recommendations.

As far as using hepa filters, etc. it is always best to minimize fiber release and then use such mechanical filters to clean the air. Keep in mind that hepa filters can introduce lots of noise into a studio.
__________________
Dove
"master tweaker in the e-zoo band"
#26
10th February 2010
Old 10th February 2010
  #26
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 15

lanmonkey is offline
Just an idea guys, but….

Before you install your rockwool, why not spray it over with any of the following:

>Spray glue
>Watered down PVA glue
>Hairspray
>Thinned down varnish
>Clear paint lacquer (the stuff they spray on cars)
>Craft sealant (the stuff artists spray on watercolours to stop paint running)
>Wood sealer

Point being that the surfaces would be covered with some sort of adhesive that will prevent fibres becoming airborn.

If it was me I would probably try watered down PVA first, hairspray would work well but I don’t know how long it would last.

I haven’t tried this but it was the first solution that came to mind.
#27
12th February 2010
Old 12th February 2010
  #27
Gear Head
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 46

mukiw is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanmonkey View Post
Just an idea guys, but….

Before you install your rockwool, why not spray it over with any of the following:

>Spray glue
>Watered down PVA glue
>Hairspray
>Thinned down varnish
>Clear paint lacquer (the stuff they spray on cars)
>Craft sealant (the stuff artists spray on watercolours to stop paint running)
>Wood sealer

Point being that the surfaces would be covered with some sort of adhesive that will prevent fibres becoming airborn.

If it was me I would probably try watered down PVA first, hairspray would work well but I don’t know how long it would last.

I haven’t tried this but it was the first solution that came to mind.
could someone please confirm that this solution wouldn't add an extra acoustic problem?
#28
17th February 2010
Old 17th February 2010
  #28
Gear Guru
 
tINY's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Orygun
Posts: 12,082

tINY is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mukiw View Post
could someone please confirm that this solution wouldn't add an extra acoustic problem?


It'll be fine at sufficiently low frequencies



-tINY

#29
18th February 2010
Old 18th February 2010
  #29
Gear interested
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 12

singer recording is offline
I will be using real wool. read the tec specs
Attached Files
File Type: pdf real wool.pdf (212.1 KB, 1011 views)
#30
9th June 2010
Old 9th June 2010
  #30
Gear interested
 
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 20

mlfworkman is offline
Following on from the comments here about using real wool for bass traps and/or broadband absorbers, has anyone successfully used it for this?

Having read this thread I am concerned about the potential health hazards of mineral wool and fiberglass. Having looked at Bob Gold's list I see that Thermafleece is somewhat comparable to Owens Corning 703 above 500 hz, but much less absorbent in the lower frequencies. So perhaps it would work OK for cloud absorbers...
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
The_Cartel / So much gear, so little time!
0
fabiano83 / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
10
max cooper / Music Computers
36

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.