Cited by 89Olfactory and Sensory Function StudiesChemical Safety and Risk ManagementOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

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

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00420-005-0057-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mean odor thresholds in younger adults (18-35 years) were 0.37, 0.21 and 0.21 ppm for acetic, propionic and acrylic acids, respectively; in older adults (≥45) they were 0.67, 0.42 and 0.55, respectively.

    “Mean odor thresholds in younger adults (18-35 years) were 0.37, 0.21 and 0.21 ppm for acetic, propionic and acrylic acids, respectively; in older adults (≥45) they were 0.67, 0.42 and 0.55, respectively.”

    From Design Principles to Accommodate Older Adults (2012) · cites this paper as van Thriel et al., 2006

  • An occupational health study found large logarithmic differences in odor perception thresholds and irritation thresholds among various chemical classes.

    “An occupational health study of the chemosensory thresholds of various chemical classes (carboxylic acids; amines; esters; ketones and alcohol; and inorganics such as ammonia and hydrochloric acid) found large logarithmic differences in their odor perception thresholds and irritation thresholds.”

    From Design Principles to Accommodate Older Adults (2012) · cites this paper as van Thriel et al., 2006

  • Both speech recognition and discriminating speech from background noise become difficult for older adults.

    “As a result of these changes, both speech recognition and discriminating speech from background noise become difficult (van Thriel et al., 2006).”

    From Design Principles to Accommodate Older Adults (2012) · cites this paper as van Thriel et al., 2006

  • The smell of ethyl acrylate is first perceived at 6 × 10-6 ppm, compared to acetic acid at 0.59 ppm, and ethyl formate at 30 ppm.

    “For example, the smell of an acrid substance like ethyl acrylate is first perceived at 6 × 10-6 ppm, compared to acetic acid (vinegar) at 0.59 ppm, and ethyl formate at 30 ppm (van Thriel et al., 2006).”

    From Design Principles to Accommodate Older Adults (2012) · cites this paper as van Thriel et al., 2006

  • In the occupational setting, chemosensory thresholds vary dramatically among different types of industrial chemicals.

    “In the occupational setting, it is known that chemosensory thresholds vary dramatically among different types of industrial chemicals.”

    From Design Principles to Accommodate Older Adults (2012) · cites this paper as van Thriel et al., 2006

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. 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 · DOI
  2. Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS (1990) Thresholds for odor and nasal pungency. Physiol Behav 48:719–725 · DOI
  3. Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS (1994) Perception of odor and nasal pungency from homologous series of volatile organic compounds. Indoor Air 4:140–145 · DOI
  4. 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 · DOI
  5. 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 · DOI
  6. Cometto-Muniz JE, Cain WS, Abraham MH (1998) Nasal pungency and odor of homologous aldehydes and carboxylic acids. Exp Brain Res 118:180–188 · DOI
  7. 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 · DOI
  8. 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
  9. 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 · DOI
  10. 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 · DOI
  11. Dalton P (1999) Cognitive influences on health symptoms from acute chemical exposure. Health Psychol 18:579–590 · DOI
  12. Dalton P (2003) Upper airway irritation, odor perception and health risk due to airborne chemicals. Toxicol Lett 140–141:239–48 · DOI
  13. Dalton PH, Dilks DD, Banton MI (2000) Evaluation of odor and sensory irritation thresholds for methyl isobutyl ketone in humans. Aihaj 61:340–350
  14. Devos M, Patte F, Rouault J, Laffort P, Van Gemert LJ (1990) Standarsized human olfactory thresholds. IRL Press, Oxford · DOI
  15. DFG (2004) List of MAK and BAT values. Wiley-VCH, Verlag, GmbH, Weinheim
  16. Dick RB, Ahlers H (1998) Chemicals in the workplace: incorporating human neurobehavioral testing into the regulatory process. Am J Ind Med 33:439–453 · DOI
  17. 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 · DOI
  18. Edling C, Lundberg P (2000) The significance of neurobehavioral tests for occupational exposure limits: an example from Sweden. Neurotoxicology 21:653–658
  19. 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 · DOI
  20. 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 · DOI
  21. 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 · DOI
  22. Frasnelli J, Hummel T (2005) Intranasal trigeminal thresholds in healthy subjects. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 19:575–580 · DOI
  23. 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 · DOI
  24. Hellman TM, Small FH (1974) Characterization of the odor properties of 101 petrochemicals using sensory methods. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 24:979–982 · DOI
  25. 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 · DOI
  26. 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 · DOI
  27. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 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
  29. Kobal G, Van Toller S, Hummel T (1989) Is there directional smelling? Experientia 45:130–132 · DOI
  30. Laing DG (1983) Natural sniffing gives optimum odour perception for humans. Perception 12:99–117 · DOI
  31. Laska M, Distel H, Hudson R (1997) Trigeminal perception of odorant quality in congenitally anosmic subjects. Chem Senses 22:447–456 · DOI
  32. Radil T, Wysocki CJ (1998) Spatiotemporal masking in pure olfaction. Ann NY Acad Sci 855:641–644 · DOI
  33. Ruth JH (1986) Odor thresholds and irritation levels of several chemical substances: a review. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47:A142–A151 · DOI
  34. 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 · DOI
  35. Shusterman D (2001) Odor-associated health complaints: competing explanatory models. Chem Senses 26:339–343 · DOI
  36. Shusterman D (2002) Review of the upper airway, including olfaction, as mediator of symptoms. Environ Health Perspect 110(Suppl 4):649–653 · DOI
  37. 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 · DOI
  38. 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 · DOI
  39. 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
  40. 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 · DOI
  41. 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 · DOI
  42. 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 · DOI
  43. 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 · DOI
  44. 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 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
van Thriel, C., Schäper, M., Kiesswetter, E., Kleinbeck, S., Juran, S., Blaszkewicz, M., Fricke, H.-H., Altmann, L., Berresheim, H., & Brüning, T.
Affiliations
  • TU Dortmund University (DE)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author
van Thriel, Christoph
Venue
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
Published
2006-01-06
Volume
79
Issue
4
Pages
308-321
ISSN
  • 0340-0131 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1246
OpenAlex
W2056269557
Cited by
89
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemical Engineering › Chemical Health and Safety › Chemical Safety and Risk Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
sensory irritation, odor threshold, psychophysical testing, trigeminal nerve stimulation, olfactory perception, pungency, carboxylic acids, amines, esters, ethyl acrylate, ammonia, cyclohexylamine, dimethylamine, trimethylamine, ethyl acetate, ethyl formate, formic acid, gender and age differences, occupational exposure
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Air Pollutants, Occupational, Differential Threshold, Female, Humans, Irritants, Male, Maximum Allowable Concentration, Middle Aged, Odorants, Sensory Thresholds, Smell, Trigeminal Nerve, Signal Detection, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review