Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From chemosensory thresholds to whole body exposures—experimental approaches evaluating chemosensory effects of chemicals

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives: To ensure safety and health the avoidance of adverse chemosensory effects is essential at workplaces where volatile chemicals are used. The present study describes psychophysical approaches that provide information for the evaluation of such effects. Methods: By means of a modified staircase procedure the odor (OT) and irritation thresholds (IT) of 15 irritants were determined. These basic chemosensory properties, confining the chemosensory effect range, were investigated in a random sample of 144 persons stratified for gender and age. Those irritants exhibiting high chemosensory potency were selected for the second psychophysical part of the study. Forty-eight persons, again stratified for gender and age, rated the intensity of 13 trigeminal and olfactory perceptions elicited by nine ascending concentrations of the irritants, ranging from the odor to the irritation threshold of the respective substances. Results: Across the investigated chemicals the transition from concentrations eliciting pure olfactory stimulation (OT) to trigeminal stimulation (IT) differed markedly. The carboxylic acids yielded narrow ranges from odor to irritation thresholds, while for the amines (cyclohexylamine, dimethylamine, and trimethylamine) and the esters (ethyl formate and ethyl acetate) these ranges were somewhat wider. The two chemosensory thresholds of ethyl acrylate and ammonia were farthest from each other. Gender and age had only weak impact on the chemosensory thresholds. At present, the results of the intensity ratings could be given for six substances. Among them, the rated pungency for cyclohexylamine, formic acid, and ethyl acetate increased strongest across the nine applied concentrations. Conclusions: By means of these psychophysical approaches a diverse class of chemicals can be described and compared with respect to their chemosensory potency. This information can be used twofold (a) for the evaluation of existing studies reporting sensory irritations and (b) for the design of experimental exposure studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amoore JE, Hautala E (1983) Odor as an aid to chemical safety: odor thresholds compared with threshold limit values and volatilities for 214 industrial chemicals in air and water dilution. J Appl Toxicol 3:272–290

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS (1990) Thresholds for odor and nasal pungency. Physiol Behav 48:719–725

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS (1994) Perception of odor and nasal pungency from homologous series of volatile organic compounds. Indoor Air 4:140–145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS (1995) Relative sensitivity of the ocular trigeminal, nasal trigeminal and olfactory systems to airborne chemicals. Chem Senses 20:191–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS (1998) Trigeminal and olfactory sensitivity: comparison of modalities and methods of measurement. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 71:105–110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS, Abraham MH (1998) Nasal pungency and odor of homologous aldehydes and carboxylic acids. Exp Brain Res 118:180–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS, Hiraishi T, Abraham MH, Gola JM (2000) Comparison of two stimulus-delivery systems for measurement of nasal pungency thresholds. Chem Senses 25:285–291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muniz JE (2001) Physicochemical basis for odor and irritation potency of VOCs. In: Spengler JD, Samet JM, McCarthy JF (eds) Indoor air quality handbook. McGraw-Hill, NY, pp 20.1–20.21

    Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS, Abraham MH, Gola JM (2002) Psychometric functions for the olfactory and trigeminal detectability of butyl acetate and toluene. J Appl Toxicol 22:25–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton P, Wysocki CJ, Brody MJ, Lawley HJ (1997) The influence of cognitive bias on the perceived odor, irritation and health symptoms from chemical exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 69:407–417

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton P (1999) Cognitive influences on health symptoms from acute chemical exposure. Health Psychol 18:579–590

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton P (2003) Upper airway irritation, odor perception and health risk due to airborne chemicals. Toxicol Lett 140–141:239–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton PH, Dilks DD, Banton MI (2000) Evaluation of odor and sensory irritation thresholds for methyl isobutyl ketone in humans. Aihaj 61:340–350

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Devos M, Patte F, Rouault J, Laffort P, Van Gemert LJ (1990) Standarsized human olfactory thresholds. IRL Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • DFG (2004) List of MAK and BAT values. Wiley-VCH, Verlag, GmbH, Weinheim

  • Dick RB, Ahlers H (1998) Chemicals in the workplace: incorporating human neurobehavioral testing into the regulatory process. Am J Ind Med 33:439–453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doty RL, McKeown DA, Lee WW, Shaman P (1995) A study of the test-retest reliability of ten olfactory tests. Chem Senses 20:645–656

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edling C, Lundberg P (2000) The significance of neurobehavioral tests for occupational exposure limits: an example from Sweden. Neurotoxicology 21:653–658

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Emmen HH, Muijser H, Arts JH, Prinsen MK (2003) Human volunteer study with PGME: eye irritation during vapour exposure. Toxicol Lett 140–141:249–259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ernstgard L, Gullstrand E, Lof A, Johanson G (2002) Are women more sensitive than men to 2-propanol and m-xylene vapours? Occup Environ Med 59:759–767

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ernstgard L, Sjogren B, Warholm M, Johanson G (2003) Sex differences in the toxicokinetics of inhaled solvent vapors in humans 2. 2-propanol. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 193:158–167

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frasnelli J, Hummel T (2005) Intranasal trigeminal thresholds in healthy subjects. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 19:575–580

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Green BG, Dalton P, Cowart B, Shaffer G, Rankin K, Higgins J (1996) Evaluating the ‘Labeled Magnitude Scale’ for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chem Senses 21:323–334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hellman TM, Small FH (1974) Characterization of the odor properties of 101 petrochemicals using sensory methods. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 24:979–982

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel-Jorgensen A, Kjaergaard SK, Molhave L, Hudnell KH (1999) Sensory eye irritation in humans exposed to mixtures of volatile organic compounds. Arch Environ Health 54:416–424

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hudnell HK, Otto DA, House DE, Molhave L (1992) Exposure of humans to a volatile organic mixture. II. Sensory. Arch Environ Health 47:31–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E, Kobal G (1997) ‘Sniffin’ sticks’: olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses 22:39–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesswetter E, Blaszkewicz M, Vangala RR, Seeber A (1994) Acute exposure to acetone in a factory and ratings of well-being. Neurotoxicology 15:597–601

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kobal G, Van Toller S, Hummel T (1989) Is there directional smelling? Experientia 45:130–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laing DG (1983) Natural sniffing gives optimum odour perception for humans. Perception 12:99–117

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laska M, Distel H, Hudson R (1997) Trigeminal perception of odorant quality in congenitally anosmic subjects. Chem Senses 22:447–456

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Radil T, Wysocki CJ (1998) Spatiotemporal masking in pure olfaction. Ann NY Acad Sci 855:641–644

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ruth JH (1986) Odor thresholds and irritation levels of several chemical substances: a review. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47:A142–A151

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schaper M (1993) Development of a database for sensory irritants and its use in establishing occupational exposure limits. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 54:488–544

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shusterman D (2001) Odor-associated health complaints: competing explanatory models. Chem Senses 26:339–343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shusterman D (2002) Review of the upper airway, including olfaction, as mediator of symptoms. Environ Health Perspect 110(Suppl 4):649–653

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shusterman D, Murphy MA, Balmes J (2003) Differences in nasal irritant sensitivity by age, gender, and allergic rhinitis status. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76:577–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets M, Dalton P (2002) Perceived odor and irritation of isopropanol: a comparison between naive controls and occupationally exposed workers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 75:541–548

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets MA, Maute C, Dalton PH (2002) Acute sensory irritation from exposure to isopropanol (2-propanol) at TLV in workers and controls: objective versus subjective effects. Ann Occup Hyg 46:359–373

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sundblad BM, Larsson BM, Acevedo F, Ernstgard L, Johanson G, Larsson K, Palmberg L (2004) Acute respiratory effects of exposure to ammonia on healthy persons. Scand J Work Environ Health 30:313–321

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van Thriel C, Seeber A, Kiesswetter E, Blaszkewicz M, Golka K, Wiesmuller GA (2003a) Physiological and psychological approaches to chemosensory effects of solvents. Toxicol Lett 140–141:261–271

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Thriel C, Wiesmuller GA, Blaszkewicz M, Golka K, Kiesswetter E, Seeber A, Bachert C (2003b) Intranasal effects in chemically sensitive volunteers: an experimental exposure study. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 14:129–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van Thriel C, Kiesswetter E, Schaper M, Blaszkewicz M, Golka K, Seeber A (2005) An integrative approach considering acute symptoms and intensity ratings of chemosensory sensations during experimental exposures. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 19:589–598

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wysocki CJ, Dalton P, Brody MJ, Lawley HJ (1997) Acetone odor and irritation thresholds obtained from acetone-exposed factory workers and from control (occupationally unexposed) subjects. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 58:704–712

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants as well as the staff of the involved working groups for conducting the threshold assessments and the extensive chemical analyses. The study was funded by the Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften (HVBG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Arbeitsphysiologie an der Universität Dortmund, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany

    Christoph van Thriel, Michael Schäper, Ernst Kiesswetter, Stefan Kleinbeck, Stephanie Juran & Meinolf Blaszkewicz

  2. Institut für Gefahrstoff-Forschung der Bergbau-Berufsgenossenschaft an der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Waldring 97, 44789, Bochum, Germany

    Hajo-Hennig Fricke

  3. Berufsgenossenschaftliches Forschungsinstitut für Arbeitsmedizin an der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bürkle-de-la-Camp Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany

    Lilo Altmann, Hans Berresheim & Thomas Brüning

Authors
  1. Christoph van Thriel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Schäper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ernst Kiesswetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Kleinbeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephanie Juran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Meinolf Blaszkewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hajo-Hennig Fricke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lilo Altmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hans Berresheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Thomas Brüning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph van Thriel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Thriel, C., Schäper, M., Kiesswetter, E. et al. From chemosensory thresholds to whole body exposures—experimental approaches evaluating chemosensory effects of chemicals. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79, 308–321 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-005-0057-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-005-0057-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation