Advertisement

Chemical sensitivity, asthma, and effects from fragranced consumer products: national population study in Sweden

  • Anne SteinemannEmail author
Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Common chemical products and pollutants—such as pesticides, solvents, new building materials, and fragranced consumer products—have been associated with adverse health and societal effects. For some, the effects can be severe and disabling. This national population study in Sweden examined the prevalence and effects of chemical sensitivity, a condition characterized by health problems from chemical pollutant exposures. In addition, it examined the prevalence of medically diagnosed multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), and the co-occurrence of chemical sensitivity with asthma and asthma-like conditions, and with fragrance sensitivity (health problems from fragranced consumer products). Using a nationally representative sample, an online survey was conducted in July 2017 of adults in Sweden (n = 1100). This study found that, across the population, 18.5% report chemical sensitivity; 3.6% report medically diagnosed MCS; 23.2% are asthmatic, with diagnosed asthma (14.9%), an asthma-like condition (9.1%), or both; and 33.1% have fragrance sensitivity. Among the chemically sensitive, 49.0% are asthmatic and 86.8% are fragrance sensitive. Among asthmatics, 39.2% are chemically sensitive and 57.3% are fragrance sensitive. Health problems from fragranced products can be potentially disabling for 40.1% of the chemically sensitive and 36.3% of asthmatics. In addition, among the chemically sensitive, 24.0% have lost workdays or lost a job in the past year due to fragranced products in the workplace. Results indicate that chemical sensitivity is a widespread condition, affecting more than 1 million adults in Sweden, with fragrance sensitivity affecting nearly 2 million. Reducing chemical exposure to problematic sources, such as fragranced consumer products, is critical to reduce adverse health and societal effects.

Keywords

Volatile organic compounds Fragrance Sweden Chemical sensitivity MCS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank the reviewers of this article for their valuable comments and contributions.

Compliance with ethical standards

The research study received ethics approval from the University of Melbourne.

Supplementary material

11869_2018_640_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (51 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 50 kb)
11869_2018_640_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (138 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 138 kb)

References

  1. Andersson L, Johansson A, Millqvist E, Nordin S, Bende M (2008) Prevalence and risk factors for chemical sensitivity and sensory hyperreactivity in teenagers. Int J Hyg Environ Health 211(5–6):690–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashford NA, Miller CS (1998) Chemical exposures: low levels and high stakes, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.YGoogle Scholar
  3. Azuma K, Uchiyama I, Katoh T, Ogata H, Arashidani K, Kunugita N (2015) Prevalence and characteristics of chemical intolerance: a Japanese population-based study. Arch Environ Occup Health 70:341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caress S, Steinemann A (2003) A review of a two-phase population study of multiple chemical sensitivities. Environ Health Perspect 111(12):1490–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caress S, Steinemann A (2005) National prevalence of asthma and chemical hypersensitivity: an examination of potential overlap. J Occup Environ Med 47(5):518–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caress SM, Steinemann AC (2009a) Prevalence of fragrance sensitivity in the American population. J Environ Health 71(7):46–50Google Scholar
  7. Caress SM, Steinemann AC (2009b) Asthma and chemical hypersensitivity: prevalence, etiology, and age of onset. Toxicol Ind Health 25(1):71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlsson F, Karlson B, Ørbæk P, Österberg K, Östergren P-O (2005) Prevalence of annoyance attributed to electrical equipment and smells in a Swedish population, and relationship with subjective health and daily functioning. Public Health 119:568–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6(3):e34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Johansson Å, Brämerson A, Millqvist E, Nordin S, Bende M (2005) Prevalence and risk factors for self-reported odour intolerance: the Skövde population-based study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 78:559–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kreutzer R, Neutra RR, Lashuay N (1999) Prevalence of people reporting sensitivities to chemicals in a population-based survey. Am J Epidemiol 150(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McDonald BC, de Gouw JA, Gilman JB, Jathar SH, Akherati A, Cappa CD et al (2018) Volatile chemical products emerging as largest petrochemical source of urban organic emissions. Science 359(6377):760–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller CS, Prihoda TJ (1999) The Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (EESI): a standardized approach for measuring chemical intolerances for research and clinical applications. Toxicol Ind Health 15(3–4):370–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2011) Existing Surveillance Data Sources and Systems. Institute of Medicine, Committee on a National Surveillance System for Cardiovascular and Select Chronic Diseases. National Academies Press, Washington DC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83157/ Google Scholar
  15. Nordin S, Millqvist E, Löwhagen O, Bende B (2004) A short chemical sensitivity scale for assessment of airway sensory hyperreactivity. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 77:249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ott W, Steinemann A, Wallace L (eds) (2007) Exposure analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  17. Palmquist E, Claeson AS, Neely G, Stenberg B, Nordin S (2014) Overlap in prevalence between various types of environmental intolerance. Int J Hyg Environ Health 217(4–5):427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Skovbjerg S, Berg ND, Elberling J, Christensen KB 2012. Evaluation of the quick environmental exposure and sensitivity inventory in a Danish population, 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. SSI (Survey Sampling International) 2016. Dynamic sampling approach. Available from: https://www.surveysampling.com/technology/ssi-dynamix/
  20. Steinemann A (2015) Volatile emissions from common consumer products. Air Qual Atmos Health 8(3):273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Steinemann A (2016) Fragranced consumer products: exposures and effects from emissions. Air Qual Atmos Health 9(8):861–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinemann A (2017) Health and societal effects from fragranced consumer products. Prev Med Rep 5:45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steinemann A (2018a) National prevalence and effects of multiple chemical sensitivities. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 60(3):e152–e156Google Scholar
  24. Steinemann A (2018b) Prevalence and effects of multiple chemical sensitivities in Australia. Prev Med Rep 10:191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Steinemann A (2018c) Exposures and effects from fragranced consumer products in Sweden. Air Qual Atmos Health 11(5):485–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steinemann A (2018d) Fragranced consumer products: effects on asthmatics. Air Qual Atmos Health 11(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steinemann A, Wheeler AJ, Larcombe A (2018) Fragranced consumer products: effects on asthmatic Australians. Air Qual Atmos Health 11(4):365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ziem G, McTamney J (1997) Profile of patients with chemical injury and sensitivity. Environ Health Perspect 105(Suppl 2):417–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Sustainable Cities, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Melbourne School of EngineeringThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.College of Science and EngineeringJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations