Chemosensory Perception

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 146–157 | Cite as

A Bisensory Method for Odor and Irritation Detection of Formaldehyde and Pyridine

  • Birgitta Berglund
  • Anders Höglund
  • Hassan Shams Esfandabad


A bisensory method was developed for determining the psychometric functions and absolute thresholds for odor and sensory irritation of two odorous irritants. Individual and group thresholds for formaldehyde or pyridine were measured for 31 age-matched subjects (18–35 years old). P50 absolute thresholds were for formaldehyde odor 110 ppb (range 23–505), for pyridine odor 77 ppb (range 20–613), and for pyridine irritation 620 ppb (range 90–3,656); too few subjects’ formaldehyde irritation thresholds were possible to determine (human exposures limited to 1 ppm). In spite of large interindividual differences, all thresholds for irritation were higher than for odor. The average slopes of the 62 psychometric functions for odor and the 32 possible for sensory irritation were highest for formaldehyde odor (83% per log ppb) and equal for pyridine odor and irritation (68% per log ppb). The bisensory method for measuring odor and sensory irritation jointly produced detection functions and absolute thresholds compatible with those earlier published; however, a steeper slope for sensory irritation than odor was expected for pyridine. The bisensory method is intended for measuring odor and sensory irritation to broadband mixtures and dynamic exposures, like indoor air.


Bisensory method Odor thresholds Sensory irritation thresholds Psychometric functions Formaldehyde Pyridine 


  1. Abraham MH, Andonian-Haftan J, Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS (1996) An analysis of nasal irritation thresholds using a new solvation equation. Fundam Appl Toxicol 31(1):71–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham MH, Kumarsingh R, Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS (1998) An algorithm for nasal pungency thresholds in man. Arch Toxicol 72(4):227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abraham MH, Hassanisade M, Jalai-Heravi M, Ghafourian T, Cain WS, Cometto-Muñiz E (2003) Draize rabit eye test compatibility with eye irritation thresholds in humans: a quantitative structure–activity relationship analysis. Toxicol Sci 76(2):384–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abraham MH, Sánchez-Moreno R, Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS (2007) A quantitative structure–activity analysis on the relative sensitivity of the olfactory and the nasal trigeminal chemosensory systems. Chem Senses 32(7):711–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahlström R, Berglund B, Berglund U, Lindvall T (1986) Formaldehyde odor and its interaction with the air of a sick building. Environ Int 12(1–4):289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahlström R, Berglund B, Berglund U, Engen T, Lindvall T (1987) A comparison of odor perception in smokers, non-smokers and passive smokers. Am J Otolaryngol 8(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amoore JE (1991) Specific anosmia. In: Getchell TV, Bartoshuk LM, Doty RL, Snow JB Jr (eds) Smell and taste in health and disease. Raven, New York, p 655Google Scholar
  8. Andersen I, Lundqvist GR, Mølhave L (1975) Indoor-air pollution due to chipboard used as a construction material. Atmos Environ 9(12):1121–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baird JC, Berglund B, Berglund U, Lindvall T (1990) Symptom patterns as an early warning signal of community health. Environ Int 16(1):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baird JC, Berglund B, Shams Esfandabad H (1994) Longitudinal assessment of sensory reactions in eyes and upper airways of staff in a sick building. Environ Int 20(2):141–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berglund B (1991) Quality assurance in environmental psychophysics. In: Bolanowski SJ, Gescheider GA (eds) Ratio scaling of psychological magnitudes—in honor of the memory of S.S. Stevens. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 140–162Google Scholar
  12. Berglund B (2011) Measurement in psychology. In: Berglund B, Rossi RB, Townsend JT, Pendrill LR (eds) Measurement with persons. Theory, methods and implementation areas. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 27–50Google Scholar
  13. Berglund B, Nordin S (1992) Detectability and perceived intensity for formaldehyde odor in smokers and non-smokers. Chem Senses 17(3):291–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Berglund B, Berglund U, Lindvall T (1974) Measurement of rapid changes of odor concentration by a signal detection approach. J Air Poll Contr Ass 24:162–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berglund B, Berglund U, Lindvall T, Nicander-Bredberg H (1982) Olfactory and chemical characterization of indoor air. Towards a psychophysical model for air quality. Environ Int 8(1–6):327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berglund B, Berglund U, Johansson I, Lindvall T (1986) Research equipment for sensory air quality studies of nonindustrial environments. Environ Int 12(1–4):189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Berglund B, Berglund U, Lindvall T (1988a) Quality assurance in olfactometry. In: Nielsen VC, Voorburg JH, Hermite PL (eds) Volatile emissions from livestock farming and sewage operations. Elsevier, London, pp 12–25Google Scholar
  18. Berglund B, Högman L, Johansson I (1988b) Reliability of odor measurements near threshold. Reports from the Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm, No. 682Google Scholar
  19. Cain WS (1976) Olfaction and the common chemical sense: some psychophysical contrasts. Sensory Proc 1(1):57–67Google Scholar
  20. Cain WS, Gent JF (1991) Olfactory sensitivity: reliability, generality, and association with aging. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17(2):382–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cain WS, Murphy CL (1980) Interaction between chemoreceptive modalities of odor and irritation. Nature 284(5753):255–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cain WS, Schmidt R (2009) Can we trust odor databases? Example of t- and n-butyl acetate. Atmos Environ 43(91):2591–2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cain WS, See L-C, Tosun T (1986) Irritation and odor from formaldehyde: chamber studies. In: IAQ ’86: managing indoor air for health and energy conservation (pp. 126–137). American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  24. Cain WS, Leaderer BP, Cannon L, Tosun T, Ismail H (1987) Odorization of inert gas for occupational safety: psychophysical considerations. Am Ind Hyg Ass J 48(1):47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cain WS, de Wijk RA, Jalowayski AA, Pilla Caminha G, Schmidt R (2005) Odor and chemesthesis from brief exposures to TXIB. Indoor Air 15(6):445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cain WS, Schmidt R, Jalowayski AA (2007) Odor and chemesthesis from exposures to glutaraldehyde vapor. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 80(8):721–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cain WS, Dourson ML, Kohrmann-Vincent MJ, Allen BC (2010) Human chemosensory perception of methyl isothiocyanate: chemesthesis and odor. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 58(2):173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS (1990) Thresholds for odor and nasal pungency. Physiol Behav 48(5):719–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS (1991) Influence of airborne contaminants on olfaction and the common chemical sense. In: Getchell TV, Bartoshuk LM, Doty RL, Snow JB Jr (eds) Smell and taste in health and disease. Raven, New York, p 287Google Scholar
  30. Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS (1998) Trigeminal and olfactory sensitivity: comparison of modalities and methods of measurement. Int Ach Occup Environ Health 71(2):105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cullen MR (1987) The worker with multiple chemical sensitivities: an overview. Occup Med 2(4):655–661Google Scholar
  32. Dalton PH, Wysocki CJ, Brody MJ, Lawley HJ (1997) Perceived odor, irritation, and health symptoms following short-term exposure to acetone. Am J Ind Med 31(5):558–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dalton PH, Dilks DD, Banton MI (2000) Evaluation of odor and sensory irritation thresholds for methyl isobutyl ketone in humans. Am Ind Hyg Ass J 61(3):340–350Google Scholar
  34. Dunn JD, Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS (1982) Nasal reflexes: reduced sensitivity to CO2 irritation in cigarette smokers. J Appl Toxicol 2(3):176–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Engen T (1971) Psychophysics I. Discrimination and detection. In: Kling GW, Riggs LA (eds) Woodworth and Schlossberg’s experimental psychology. Holt, New York, p 11Google Scholar
  36. Engen T (1986) Perception of odor and irritation. Environ Int 12(1–4):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Engen T (1987) Remembering odors and their names. Am Scient 75(5):497–503Google Scholar
  38. Grundvig JL, Dustman RE, Beck EC (1967) The relationship of olfactory receptor stimulation to stimulus–environmental temperature. Exp Neurol 18(4):416–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kobal G, Hummel T (1991) Olfactory evoked potentials in humans. In: Getchell TV, Bartoshuk LM, Doty RL, Snow JB Jr (eds) Smell and taste in health and disease. Raven, New York, p 255Google Scholar
  40. Kobal G, van Toller S, Hummel T (1989) Is there directional smelling? Experientia 45(2):130–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kunkler PE, Ballard CJ, Oxford GS, Hurley JH (2011) TRPA1 receptors mediate environmental irritation-induced meningeal vasodilatation. Pain 152(1):38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lang I, Bruckner T, Triebig G (2008) Formaldehyde and chemosensory irritation in humans: a controlled human exposure study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 50(1):23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nagata Y (2003) Odor intensity and odor threshold value. J Japan Air Clean Assoc 41(2):17–25Google Scholar
  44. Noma E, Berglund B, Berglund U, Johansson I, Baird JC (1988) Joint spatial representation of chemicals and locations in a healthy and sick preschool. Atmos Environ 22(3):451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nordin S, Almqvist O, Berglund B (2011) Odor detectability is not impaired in successfully-aged elderly. Chemosens Percept (This issue)Google Scholar
  46. Schemper T, Voss S, Cain WS (1981) Odor identification in young and elderly persons: sensory and cognitive limitations. J Gerontol 36(4):446–452Google Scholar
  47. Schneider RA, Schmidt CE (1967) Dependency of olfactory localization on non-olfactory cues. Physiol Behav 2(3):305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shams Esfandabad H (1993) Perceptual analysis of odorous irritants in indoor air. Doctoral dissertation. Stockholm University, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  49. Stevens JC, Plantinga A, Cain WS (1982) Reduction of odor and nasal pungency associated with aging. Neurobiol Aging 3(2):125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stevens JC, Cain WS, Burke R (1988) Variability of olfactory thresholds. Chem Senses 13(4):643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stevens JC, Cain WS, Schiet FT, Oatley MW (1989) Olfactory adaptation and recovery in old age. Perception 18(2):265–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. WHO (1989) Formaldehyde. Environmental health criteria 89. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  53. Wolkoff P, Nielsen GD (2010) Non-cancer effects of formaldehyde and relevance for setting an indoor air guideline. Environ Int 36(7):788–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wolkoff P, Wilkins CK, Clausen PA, Nielsen GD (2006) Organic compounds in office environments—sensory irritation, odor, measurements and the role of reactive chemistry. Indoor Air 16(1):7–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wysocki CJ, Green BG, Malia TP (1992) Monorhinal stimulation as a method for differentiating between thresholds for odor and irritation. Chem Senses 17(5):722–723Google Scholar
  56. Wysocki CJ, Dalton P, Brody MJ, Lawley HJ (1997) Acetone odor and irritation thresholds obtained from acetone-exposed factory workers and from control (occupationally non-exposed) subjects. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 58(10):704–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zheng L (2010) Intensity of odor and sensory irritation as a function of hexanal concentration and interpresentation intervals: an exploratory study. Percept Mot Skills 111(1):210–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birgitta Berglund
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anders Höglund
    • 1
    • 3
  • Hassan Shams Esfandabad
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental MedicineKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Fibre and Polymer Technology, Teknikringen 56KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social SciencesImam Khomeini International UniversityQazvinIran

Personalised recommendations