Background, aim and scope Glass wools are man-made vitreous fibres, which consist principally of sodium, calcium and magnesium silicates, but may contain smaller amounts of other elements, including boron. The boron contents originate from the use of borates in the glass melting process as a glass former and a flux agent. During the production and application of glass wool insulation products, workers may legally be exposed to glass fibre up to the occupational limit value, commonly of 1 fibre/cm³. However, in practice, the fibre exposure will be at least ten times lower. Boron is a non-metallic element widely distributed in nature, where it occurs as boric acid, borates and borosilicates. Humans are mainly exposed to boron via vegetarian food and drinking water, mineral supplements and various consumer products. Boron is an essential element for plant growth, but the essentiality for humans is not proven, although intakes of trace amounts of the element seem to be useful for bone health and proper brain function; higher concentrations of boron, however, may be toxic. In relation to the European Union legislation on dangerous substances, an EU Expert Group has recommended classifying boric acid and borates with risk phrases for reproductive toxicity. The aim of this paper is to assess whether the new EU hazard classification of boron compounds should imply that glass wool products used for building insulation in the future should be labelled, “may impair fertility and cause harm to the unborn child”, because of the low boron content. Materials and methods Boron intakes are estimated in a worst-case occupational situation with human exposure to glass wool fibres at the occupational limit of 1 fibre/cm³ by calculation of the mass of the amount of fibres inhaled during an 8-h work day. Fibres are supposed to be cylinders of glass with a length of 30 μm, an average diameter of 1.5-2 μm and containing either 1.5% or 3.5% boron. As a worst-case scenario, the density of the fibres is set to 2,700 kg/m³. The inhalation rate of the individuals at moderate work load was set to 2 m³/h. A worst-case scenario also corresponds to 100% retention and to 100% solubility of the retained fibres in the lungs. Results With the normal boron content of 1.5% in glass wool fibres for building insulation, the extra daily occupational boron intake/uptake will be 0.03-0.06 mg B for 5 days a week. For more uncommon glass wool with maximum boron content of 3.5%, the worst-case daily boron intake/uptake will be 0.08-0.16 mg B. The main boron exposure in the general population is from vegetarian food, and the average daily dietary intake with food is estimated to 1.2-1.5 mg B/day. In addition, significant intakes may come with drinking water, especially from mineral water. In some instances, exposure from mineral supplements, cosmetics and other consumer products may be significant. For example, individuals taking mineral supplements, e.g. for bodybuilding, may have an additional intake to that of 1-10 mg/day. During the years, various organisations have recommended safe intake values for boron. Recently, the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has established the 'Tolerable Upper Intake Level' (UL) for the intake of boron (boric acid and borates) at 0.16 mg B/kg body weight per day or about 10 mg B/day for an adult. Discussion The calculated, worst-case exposure scenario during an 8-h work day will result in an extra daily boron intake that only corresponds to about 10% of the average daily adult boron intakes through food and drinks of about 1.5 mg. The inter-individual variations in boron intakes from foods, water and supplements will be much greater than an eventual, very worst-case, additional intake of boron from inhalation of glass wool fibres. In addition, the combined intakes are far lower than the 'Tolerable Upper Intake Level' of 10 mg B/day for a person weighing 60 kg, as recommended by the European Food Safety Agency. The potential boron intake from inhalation of glass wool fibres is also much lower than boron intakes by workers in the boron industry, who at the present occupational limit value will be exposed to 50 mg of boron 5 days a week, or 100 times more than the worst case for glass wool fibres. Furthermore, in practice, exposure levels will mostly be ten to 100 times lower than the occupational limit used here as a worst case. Conclusions The estimated boron intake from inhalation of glass wool fibres in occupational settings will be insignificant and without any health risks, even in the case of non-compliance with the occupational limit value. Any proposal requiring hazard labels on commercial glass wool products for building insulation, because of the boron content, is not supported by the present scientific knowledge. Recommendations and perspectives The European Commission should ensure that the new EU hazard classification of boron compounds is not applied to commercial glass wool products for building insulation having a low content of boron.

Background, aim, and scope To enforce the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol targets, a number of governmental/international institutions have launched emission trade schemes as an approach to specify CO₂ caps and to regulate the emission trade in recent years. These schemes have been basically applied for large industrial sectors, including energy producers and energy-intensive users. Among them, cement plants are included among the big greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters. The use of waste as secondary fuel in clinker kilns is currently an intensive practice worldwide. However, people living in the vicinity of cement plants, where alternative fuels are being used, are frequently concerned about the potential increase in health risks. In the present study, a cost-benefit analysis was applied after substituting classical fuel for sewage sludge as an alternative fuel in a clinker kiln in Catalonia, Spain. Materials and methods The economical benefits resulting in the reduction of CO₂ emissions were compared with the changes in human health risks due to exposure to polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) and carcinogenic metals (As, Cd, Co, and Cr) before and after using sewage sludge to generate 20% of the thermal energy needed for pyro-processing. The exposure to PCDD/Fs and metals through air inhalation, soil ingestion and dermal absorption was calculated according to the environmental levels in soil. The carcinogenic risks were assessed, and the associated cost for the population was estimated by considering the DG Environment's recommended value for preventing a statistical fatality (VPF). In turn, the amount of CO₂ emitted was calculated, and the economical saving, according to the market prices, was evaluated. Results The use of sewage sludge as a substitute of conventional energy meant a probability cancer decrease of 4.60 for metals and a cancer risk increase of 0.04 for PCDD/Fs. Overall, a net reduction of 4.56 cancers for one million people can be estimated. The associated economical evaluation due to the decreasing cancer for 60,000 people, the current population living near the cement plant, would be of 0.56 million euros (US$ 0.83 million). In turn, a reduction of 144,000 tons of CO₂ emitted between 2003 and 2006 was estimated. Considering a cost of 20 euros per ton of CO₂, the global saving would be 2.88 million euros (US$ 4.26 million). Discussion After the partial substitution of the fuel, the current environmental exposure to metals and PCDD/Fs would even mean a potential decrease of health risks for the individuals living in the vicinity of the cement plant. The total benefit of using sewage sludge as an alternative fuel was calculated in 3.44 million euros (US$ 5.09 million). Environmental economics is becoming an interesting research field to convert environmental benefits (i.e., reduction of health risks, emission of pollutants, etc.) into economical value. Conclusions The results show, that while the use of sewage sludge as secondary fuel is beneficial for the reduction in GHG emissions, no additional health risks for the population derived from PCDD/F and metal emissions are estimated. Recommendations and perspectives Cost-benefit analysis seems to be a suitable tool to estimate the environmental damage and benefit associated to industrial processes. Therefore, this should become a generalized practice, mainly for those more impacting sectors such as power industries. On the other hand, the extension of the study could vastly be enlarged by taking into account other potentially emitted GHGs, such as CH₄ and N₂O, as well as other carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic micropollutants.