Advertisement

Neurophysiological and psychophysical measurements reveal effects of acute low-level organic solvent exposure in humans

  • Lilo Altmann
  • Axel Böttger
  • Herbert Wiegand
Article

Summary

The organic solvent tetrachloroethylene (Per) is proposed to be a human neurotoxicant. In order to evaluate whether the sensory system is affected by Per at low concentrations, two groups of male volunteers were exposed in an inhalation chamber to 10 and 50 ppm Per, respectively. During the inhalation exposure, which lasted for 4 h per day on four consecutive days, visually evoked potentials (VEPs) and brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs) were measured. In addition, in some of these volunteers, the visual contrast sensitivity was determined psychophysically. In the group exposed to 50 ppm Per, the VEP peak latencies N75, P100 and N150 increased in the course of the inhalation period. A comparison of the two groups revealed statistically significant differences of these latency changes during Per exposure. In contrast, the BAEPs of the two groups did not differ significantly during the whole exposure period. The contrast sensitivity functions showed a tendency of increased threshold contrasts at low and intermediate spatial frequencies during exposure to 50 ppm Per. The results indicate visual system dysfunctions in terms of delayed neuronal processing time and altered contrast perception due to acute Per exposure.

Key words

VEP BAEP Contrast sensitivity Tetrachloroethylene Neurotoxicity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann L, Wiegand H (1990) Effects of acute low level Perchloroethylene exposure on the visual system in men. In: Elsner, Roth (eds) Brain — Perception — Cognition. Proc 18th Göttingen Neurobiol Conf. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart New York, p 272Google Scholar
  2. Antti-Poika M, Ojala M, Matikainen E, Vaheri E, Juntunen J (1989) Occupational exposure to solvents and cerebellar, brainstem and vestibular functions. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 61:397–401Google Scholar
  3. Bodis-Wollner I, Camisa JM (1990) Contrast sensitivity measurement in clinical diagnosis. In: Lessell, Van Dalen (eds) Neuro-Ophthalmology, vol 1. Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam Oxford, pp 373–401Google Scholar
  4. Bulens C, Meerwaldt JD, Van der Wildt GJ (1988) Effect of stimulus orientation on contrast sensitivity in Parkinson's disease. Neurology 38:76–81Google Scholar
  5. Bulens C, Meerwaldt JD, Van der Wildt JG, Keemink CJ (1989) Spatial contrast sensitivity in unilateral cerebral ischaemic lesions involving the posterior visual pathway. Brain 112:507–520Google Scholar
  6. Chiappa KH (1983) Evoked potentials in clinical medicine. Raven Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Cracco RQ, Bodis-Wollner I (eds) (1986) Evoked potentials. A.R. Liss Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Elofsson SA, Gamberale F, Hindmarsch T, Iregren A, Isaaksson A, Johnsson I, Knave B, Lydahl E, Mindus P, Persson HE, Philipson B, Steby M, Strume G, Söderman E, Wennberg A, Widen A (1980) Exposure to organic solvents: a cross-sectional epidemiologic investigation on occupationally exposed car and industrial spray painters with special reference to the nervous system. Scand J Work Environ Health 6:239–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacobson GP, Newman CW (1989) Absence of rate-dependent BAEP P5 latency changes in patients with definite multiple sclerosis: possible physiological mechanisms. Eletroencephal Clin Neurophys 74:19–23Google Scholar
  10. Livingstone MS, Hubel DH (1987) Psychophysical evidence for separate channels for the perception of form, color, movement, and depth. J Neurosci 7:3416–3468Google Scholar
  11. Lorance RW, Kaufman D, Wray S, Mao C (1987) Contrast visual testing in neurovisual diagnosis. Neurology 37:923–929Google Scholar
  12. Marron JA, Bailey IL (1982) Visual factors and orientation-mobility performance. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 59:413–426Google Scholar
  13. Merigan W, Weiss B (eds) (1974) Neurotoxicity of the visual system. Raven Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Moller AR, Jannetta PJ (1982a) Evoked potentials from the inferior colliculus in man. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 53:612–620Google Scholar
  15. Moller AR, Jannetta PJ (1982b) Auditory evoked potentials recorded intracranially from the brain stem in man. Exp Neurol 78:144–157Google Scholar
  16. Moller AR, Jannetta PJ, Sekhar LN (1988) Contributions from the auditory nerve to the brain-stem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs): results of intracranial recording in man. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 71:198–211Google Scholar
  17. Otto D, Hudnell K, Boyes W, Janssen R, Dyer R (1988) Electrophysiological measures of visual and auditory function as indices of neurotoxicity. Toxicology 49:205–218Google Scholar
  18. Raitta C, Karhunen U, Seppäläinen AM, Naukkarinen M (1979) Changes in the electroretinogram and visual evoked potentials during general anesthesia. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 211:139–144Google Scholar
  19. Salmon JF, Carmichael TR, Welsh NH (1987) Use of contrast sensitivity measurements in the detection of subclinical ethambutol toxic optic neuropathy. Br J Ophthalmol 71:192–196Google Scholar
  20. Seppäläinen AM (1985) Neurophysiological aspects of the toxicity of organic solvents. Scand J Work Environ Health 11:61–64Google Scholar
  21. Seppäläinen AM, Raitta C, Huuskonen MS (1979) N-hexane induced changes in visual evoked potentials and electroretinograms of industrial workers. Electroencephal Clin Neurophysiol 47:492–498Google Scholar
  22. Spencer PS, Schaumburg HH (1985) Organic solvent neurotoxicity. Facts and research needs. Scand J Work Environ Health 11:53–60Google Scholar
  23. Stewart RD, Baretta ED, Dodd HC, Torkelson TR (1970) Experimental human exposure to tetrachloroethylene. Arch Environ Health 20:224–229Google Scholar
  24. Stewart RD, Hake CL, Peterson JE, Forster HV, Newton PE, Soto RJ, Lebrun AJ (1974) Development of biological standards for trichlorethylene. In: Xintaras, Johnson, IDO de Groot (eds) Behavioral toxicology. Early detection of occupational hazards. HEW Publishers, Washington, pp 81–91Google Scholar
  25. Stolz G, Aschoff JC, Born J, Aschoff J (1988) VEP, physiological and psychological circadian variations in humans. J Neurol 235:308–313Google Scholar
  26. Takeuchi Y, Hisanaga N, Kioke Y, Mabuchi C (1978) Two cases presumably poisoned by perchloroethylene in japanese-style silk clothes cleaning. Jap J Ind Health 20:146–155Google Scholar
  27. Ward RC, Travis CC, Hetrick DM, Andersen ME, Gargas ML (1988) Pharmacokinetics of tetrachloroethylene. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 93:108–117Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lilo Altmann
    • 1
  • Axel Böttger
    • 2
  • Herbert Wiegand
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurotoxicologyMedical Institute of Environmental Hygiene at the Heinrich-Heine-University DüsseldorfDüsseldorf 1Germany
  2. 2.Institute of HygieneHeinrich-Heine-University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations