When did we start calling it silicosis? A historical perspective on the naming of an occupational disease.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Silicosis is one of the most severe occupational diseases in industrial history, yet the term itself has a surprisingly recent origin. OBJECTIVE: To trace the historical emergence of the term “silicosis” and examine the scientific and cultural context in which it was coined. METHODS: A review of ancient, early modern, and 19th-century medical literature, with particular focus on Italian medical practice during the post-Unification industrial period. Primary sources include autopsy records, early pathological reports, and contemporary scientific publications. RESULTS: While symptoms consistent with pneumoconiosis were described by authors such as Hippocrates, Pliny, and Ramazzini, it remains uncertain whether these early reports accurately reflected silicosis or other dust-induced pathologies, a clear nosological distinction between tuberculosis and silica-induced pneumoconiosis only emerged in the 19th century. In 1870, Italian pathologist Achille Visconti identified a case of severe lung fibrosis due to silica dust exposure and explicitly labeled it “silicosis.” A year later, Carlo Luigi Rovida formally published the case, marking the scientific debut of the term. Visconti’s naming not only addressed a terminological gap, but also laid the groundwork for the recognition of silicosis as a distinct occupational disease. CONCLUSIONS: The coining of “silicosis” was a pivotal moment not only in terminology but in the nosological recognition of the disease as distinct from tuberculosis and other wasting conditions. It reflected the growing awareness of industrial health hazards and enabled a clearer categorization of dust-related lung pathologies, separating them from tuberculosis. Today, more than 150 years later, the term remains universally adopted in clinical and legal contexts.