Search
Advanced Search
Share this Article info
  • Bookmark: StumbleUpon Facebook Connotea CiteULike Bibliography

Open Access

Research Article

Evaluation and Application of the RD50 for Determining Acceptable Exposure Levels of Airborne Sensory Irritants for the General Public

Yu Kuwabara, George V. Alexeeff, Rachel Broadwin, Andrew G. Salmon

Abstract Top

Background

The RD50 (exposure concentration producing a 50% respiratory rate decrease) test evaluates airborne chemicals for sensory irritation and has become an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard method. Past studies reported good correlations (R2) between RD50s and the occupational exposure limits, particularly threshold limit values (TLVs).

Objective

The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between RD50s and human sensory irritation responses in a quantitative manner, particularly for chemicals that produce burning sensation of the eyes, nose, or throat, based on lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) reported for human subjects.

Methods

We compared RD50s with LOAELs and acute reference exposure levels (RELs). RELs, developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, represent a level at which no adverse effects are anticipated after exposure. We collected RD50s from the published literature and evaluated them for consistency with ASTM procedures. We identified LOAELs for human irritation and found 25 chemicals with a corresponding RD50 in mice.

Discussion

We found the relationship between RD50s and LOAELs as log RD50 = 1.16 (log LOAEL) + 0.77 with an R2 value of 0.80. This strong correlation supports the use of the RD50 in establishing exposure limits for the public. We further identified 16 chemical irritants with both RD50s and corresponding acute RELs, and calculated the relationship as log RD50 = 0.71 (log REL) + 2.55 with an R2 value of 0.71. This relationship could be used to identify health protective values for the public to prevent respiratory or sensory irritation.

Conclusion

Consequently, we believe that the RD50 has benefits for use in setting protective levels for the health of both workers and the general population.

Keywords: Alarie test, exposure levels, LOAEL, RD50, REL, sensory irritation, TLV.

Citation: Kuwabara Y, Alexeeff GV, Broadwin R, Salmon AG 2007. Evaluation and Application of the RD50 for Determining Acceptable Exposure Levels of Airborne Sensory Irritants for the General Public. Environ Health Perspect 115:1609-1616. doi:10.1289/ehp.9848

Received: 20 October 2006; Accepted: 3 August 2007; Online: 7 August 2007

Address correspondence to G.V. Alexeeff, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, 1515 Clay St., 16th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 USA. Telephone: (510) 622-3202. Fax: (510) 622-3210. E-mail: galexeef@oehha.ca.gov

We thank K. Deng, M. Masuda, and S. Ackerman for their technical assistance in preparing the manuscript; and R. Howd, G. Krowech, and M. Schaper for their critical reading of the document and helpful comments.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the California Environmental Protection Agency, or the State of California.

The authors declare they have no competing financial interests.

Although airborne chemicals can cause a number of harmful effects, the most common effect is sensory irritation (De Ceaurriz et al. 1981). Exposure to a sensory irritant may stimulate the trigeminal nerve endings and laryngeal receptors, eliciting any one or a combination of the following symptoms: burning sensation of the eyes, nose, or throat, as well as coughing sensations (Alarie et al. 2000). Sensory irritation is also the most common end point for occupational exposure levels (OELs). For one specific OEL measure, threshold limit values (TLVs) [developed by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH 2006)] are calculated based on sensory or pulmonary irritation for > 50% of the compounds. Kane et al. (1979) reported that approximately two-thirds of the compounds for which they found a TLV acted as sensory irritants. A qualitative evaluation of sensory irritants indicated that sensory irritation responses in the mouse are predictive of responses in humans (Alarie 1973a).

In 1966, Alarie initially proposed the use of an animal test to evaluate the potency of airborne sensory irritants. The bioassay uses male Swiss-Webster mice to measure decreases in respiratory frequency resulting from exposure to a geometric series of concentrations of airborne irritants (Alarie 1966). The concentration inducing a 50% decrease in respiratory frequency is termed the RD50. From these measured RD50s, Alarie (1981b) ranked irritant potencies and found a good correlation (R2) between RD50s and TLVs. The Alarie test evolved over the years and was adopted in 1984 as a standard test by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM 2004). The “RD50 test” or the “Standard Test Method for Estimating Sensory Irritancy of Airborne Chemicals” (ASTM 2004) quantitatively measures irritancy as indicated by the reflex inhibition of respiration in mice exposed to sensory irritants. For the test, four mice are first acclimatized to the chamber and are then simultaneously exposed to the airborne chemical. A sufficient number of groups are exposed to a geometric series of concentrations so that a concentration–response curve can be constructed from the analysis. The mice are placed in a body plethysmograph attached to an exposure chamber so that only the head is exposed to the test material. The plethysmographs are connected to pressure transducers, which sense changes created by inspiration and expiration. The amplified signals are transmitted to a polygraph recorder. The concentration of airborne irritant that produces an RD50 is determined from the concentration–response curve constructed from the various data points obtained with a series of concentrations.

Sensory irritation is a reflex reaction from stimulation of the trigeminal or laryngeal nerve endings (Boylstein et al. 1996). The sensory irritant response is mediated through binding to the trigeminal nerve receptors and appears to follow Michaelis-Menten receptor kinetics. Although the RD50 concentration has been described as “intolerable” to humans, as indicated in the ASTM standard, “the test method will detect irritation effects at concentrations far below those at which pathological changes are observed” (Alarie 2000; ASTM 2004). Further, as demonstrated by Barrow et al. (1986), pathologically detectable responses are expected only after prolonged repeated exposure.

RD50s are a basis, at least partially, for a number of OELs by ACGIH (ACGIH 2006). The calculation methodology is based on Kane et al. (1979), who evaluated data from 11 sensory irritants and concluded that a level one-hundredth of the RD50 would produce “minimal or no sensory irritation” in humans. The current suggestion of setting OELs at 0.03 RD50 comes from Alarie (1981a, 1981b), because 0.03 RD50 is halfway between 0.1 RD50 and 0.01 RD50 on a logarithmic scale. Alarie (1981a) reported a strong correlation (R2 = 0.89) between 0.03 RD50 and OELs for the 26 chemicals tested. Subsequently, both analyses, one using 41 chemicals (Alarie and Luo 1986) and most recently another using 89 chemicals (Schaper 1993), resulted in a lower but still strong correlation (R2 = 0.78). Although most of the applications of the RD50 have focused on OELs, Nielsen et al. (1995) found that protection against indoor sensory irritation effects could be achieved at a level of 0.025–0.25 of the OEL. Multiple studies show strong correlations between RD50s and OELs, supporting the continued use of the Alarie test for establishing OELs (Kane et al. 1979, 1980; Schaper 1993).

In this study we examined the relationship between RD50s and human sensory irritation responses in a quantitative manner, particularly for chemicals that produce burning sensation of the eyes, nose, or throat, based on lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) reported for human subjects. We also analyzed the relationship between RD50s and OELs for identified human sensory irritants. Finally, we evaluated the relationship between RD50s and acute reference exposure levels (RELs) developed to protect the public (Collins et al. 2004). RELs are defined as “[t]he concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration [1 hr for the acute RELs]. … RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported in the medical and toxicological literature.” A strong correlation between RD50s and LOAELs, TLVs, and acute RELs will support the use of RD50s in establishing guidance levels to protect the public from sensory irritants.

Methods Top

LOAELs versus RD50s

Using published toxicologic studies of human subjects exposed to sensory irritants, we identified human LOAELs. Criteria for selecting human LOAELs required that the studies describe mild irritating effects (Alexeeff et al. 2002) resulting from acute inhalation exposure. Published human studies on hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) served as the primary sources of information for these chemicals (Alexeeff et al. 2002). We searched PubMed (National Library of Medicine; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez), Biosis (www.biosis.org/), Current Contents (http://scientific.thomson.com/products/c​cc/ ), Toxline (National Library of Medicine; http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/ht​mlgen?TOXLINE ), SciFinder Scholar (Chemical Abstracts Service; http://www.cas.org/support/scifi/sfsolut​ions/index.html ), Oldmedline (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/databases/databas​es_oldmedline.html ), Web of Science (http://scientific.thomson.com/products/w​os ), and Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management Databases (Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; http://www.csa.com/factsheets/envclust-s​et-c.php ) to identify toxicologic studies published between 1970 and 2005 for all 189 HAPs. Search terms included the chemical name, the type of LOAEL effects (e.g., irritation), route of exposure (inhalation), and exposure duration (acute). We also conducted online searches for additional non-HAP chemicals with an identified RD50. Further, we conducted manual searches from secondary sources through 2005. Five criteria were developed for inclusion of a study in the analysis: a) peer-reviewed and published, well-conducted industry-sponsored studies or doctoral dissertations; b) inhalation exposure; c) discrete acute exposure; d) available LOAEL for a mild adverse health effect; and e) the original research. For each human study analyzed, information about the chemical, exposure time, end-point category (eye and/or respiratory irritation), and LOAELs were recorded. If multiple mild responses were reported at various dose levels for the same chemical and exposure time, then the lowest adverse effect level was considered the LOAEL.

For RD50s, we first reviewed references identified from the database developed by Schaper (1993). We identified additional studies from Alarie et al. (2000). We also searched the scientific literature during the period 1992–2005 to identify newer published studies containing RD50s. For each identified study, we recorded information on the chemical, exposure time, species, and RD50. We reviewed the methodology used to attain each RD50 for consistency with current ASTM methods (ASTM 2004); for this reason, we included studies with mice, but excluded studies with rats in this analysis.

In cases where both RD50s and human LOAELs were available for the same chemical, we log transformed and fit the data with a linear relationship using Microsoft Office Excel 2003 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA) and SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) for Windows. This procedure was similar to previous RD50 comparisons (e.g., Alarie 1981b). When we found multiple LOAELs or RD50s for a single chemical, we considered each reported value in the analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by evaluating the correlation generated from the regression of LOAELs with RD50 value data sets, which varied by exposure time, or strain tested. We also conducted subanalyses using upper and lower respiratory tract effects.

RELs versus RD50s

As reported by Collins et al. (2004), the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed 51 acute inhalation RELs. We evaluateds these RELs to identify those based on eye or respiratory irritation end points in humans, and compared with RD50s. Using Microsoft Office Excel 2003 (Microsoft) and SAS version 9.1 (SAS) for Windows, we log transformed and fit the data with a linear relationship.

TLVs versus RD50s

For all RD50s used in the above analyses, we identified TLVs from ACGIH (2006). The TLVs included time-weighted averages, short-term exposure limits and ceilings. If the documentation reported more than one TLV value, we used the lowest, more protective value. A third comparison between RD50s and TLVs of identified human irritants, based on identification of a human LOAEL for irritation, was conducted using log-transformed data, fit with a linear relationship, and analyzed with Microsoft Office Excel 2003 (Microsoft) and SAS version 9.1 (SAS) for Windows.

Results Top

LOAELs versus RD50s

From our search, we identified 25 chemicals with 72 human acute irritation LOAELs from 49 studies (Table 1). The adverse effects, exposure times, and information reflecting the quality of the study (e.g., placebo-control, blinding, subject selection, subject characteristics, exposure design, and data reporting) are indicated in Table 1. For the 25 chemicals identified, 63 RD50s were found in mice (Table 2). The RD50s were based on seven mouse strains and exposure times ranging from 5 to 180 min.

Figure 1 shows the correlation between RD50s and LOAELs for all RD50s identified in all strains of mice for the 25 chemicals, allowing for 198 comparisons. There is a strong overall correlation (R2 = 0.80) between RD50s and human irritation LOAELs. When we conducted the analysis for Swiss-Webster mice only (Table 3), we were able to include 75 data points for 19 compounds, and the correlation decreased slightly (R2 = 0.74). When we evaluated only the data for non–Swiss-Webster mice (Table 3), there was little change in the correlation (R2 = 0.83). We conducted several sub-analyses to consider the influence of the RD50 study exposure duration. As indicated in Table 3 there was little influence on the R2. Thus, according to this analysis, the strain of mouse tested does not appear to affect this evaluation substantially. The equations do not change significantly, and the correlation is still significant for all analyses, validating the inclusion criteria used. As indicated in Table 3, we also considered several subanalyses to address the influence of the human LOAEL variability. Specifically, we considered the issue of LOAEL sensitivity, the type of irritation end point, study quality, and the duration of exposure for the human LOAEL. The only significant effect on the correlation was observed when considering human irritation end points of the lower respiratory tract; the poor R2 appears to be attributed partly to the few number of data points (29) in the analysis.

RELs versus RD50s

From the 51 California acute RELs, we identified 16 that had irritation as their end point and a corresponding RD50. Figure 2 indicates a good correlation (R2 = 0.71) between RD50s and RELs for 16 chemicals with 37 comparisons.

TLVs versus RD50s

For the compounds identified with RD50s and LOAELs, 24 had a corresponding TLV. Figure 3 shows the correlation of TLVs to RD50s with an R2 value of 0.81. Thus, when focusing specifically on human irritants, the relationship between the TLV and RD50 remains strong.

Conclusions Top

The focus of this paper is on the applicability of RD50s for human health risk assessment. Exposure guidelines to protect workers and the public often focus on mild irritating signs or symptoms. For example, > 50% of the TLVs and > 60% of the California acute RELs based their end points on irritation (Collins et al. 2004). However, human studies from which to develop acute exposure guidance are not available for many of the hundreds of substances of concern, and therefore reliance on animal studies is necessary. The RD50 test method is appealing because it generates data rapidly, requires minimal animal use, is low in cost, and is validated, calibrated, and standardized. The method was computerized, adding to the reproducibility of the results (Alarie 1998, 2000; Vijayaraghavan et al. 1994). The availability of RD50s in male mice for 89 chemicals (Schaper 1993), and their correlation with OELs suggests potential applicability to air exposure guidelines for the public. The result of this analysis quantitatively supports the applicability of RD50s in setting exposure guidelines for the public and workers.

We found a strong correlation between RD50s and human LOAELs, TLVs, and California RELs. Focusing on human studies where the subjects developed eye or respiratory irritation responses, we observed a strong correlation (R2 = 0.80) between RD50s and LOAELs for 25 chemicals with irritating effects. The correlation remained close to 0.8 after conducting various subanalyses, indicating that the strains of mice or the RD50 exposure time does not substantially affect the correlation. Previously, Nielsen et al. (1995) proposed an indoor air guideline for the public between 0.025 and 0.25 times the OEL, similar to 0.0008 and 0.008 times the RD50. In our analysis, the RD50 to REL correlation can be expressed as REL = 0.00026 × RD501.4. Derived as follows:



Exposure times in the human studies varied from 1 to 480 min, and a subanalysis looking specifically at the effect of the duration of exposure made no significant change to the correlation. Further, subanalyses using LOAELs more closely associated with either upper respiratory or lower respiratory effects did not make a significant change to the correlations. Although the variability in the response rate, interindividual sensitivity, and differences in human study design, as described in Table 1, would be expected to have reduced the correlation with the RD50, specific factors were not identified in our subanalyses. Thus, we conclude that the irritating symptoms in humans correlate well with the RD50s of animals irrespective of the specific acute exposure duration. These results not only support the use of the RD50 in setting guidelines for acutely irritating compounds, but also suggest that a concentration–time extrapolation for these effects appears unwarranted. This is consistent with the finding by Shusterman et al. (2006) that the human response to sensory irritants reached a plateau rapidly. Thus, the response appears to be influenced to a greater extent by the exposure concentration rather than the exposure time over the period of observation for most animal and human experiments considered in the present analysis, and over the periods of concern for the TLVs (15 min to 8 hr) and acute RELs (1 hr).

The results of this analysis are subject to several limitations. First, the number of available human studies limits the LOAEL data, and it is unlikely that human data will significantly increase in the future. The number of comparisons could increase as the numbers of RD50s increase for chemicals with human data. However, considering the robustness of the subanalyses, and the historical correlation of the RD50 to the TLV, a significant change in the RD50 to LOAEL correlation is unlikely after adding other sensory irritants in the analysis. Finally, we address issues raised by Bos et al. (1992, 2002, 2003).

First, Bos et al. (2003) claimed that the RD50–OEL correlation is expected because most OELs are based on animal data. Although many OELs are based on animal data, many are based on human data as well. Of the 24 substances we evaluated in our RD50–OEL correlation, the OEL for only one compound, n-pentyl acetate, relied on the RD50 for its derivation, which was based solely on animal data. The strong correlation between RD50s and human LOAELs also addresses this concern.

Second, Bos et al. (2002) reported the RD50s did not correlate well with histopathologic changes in the respiratory tract or with corrosivity, and therefore RD50s were inappropriate to evaluate respiratory tract irritation. However, the stated purpose of the ASTM standard is to evaluate sensory irritation potential, not histopathology or corrosivity. In our comparison of the RD50s with human irritation LOAELs, the correlation was strong with the inclusion of respiratory tract irritation end points in the analysis. Further, the risk assessment framework for occupational and public exposure levels addresses the concerns regarding the potential for other, more severe effects. In cases where other health effects occur at or below levels producing sensory irritation, exposure guidelines use the more sensitive adverse effect.

Third, Bos et al. (1992) raised concerns regarding the inconsistency of RD50s among strains and species. Although RD50s have been generated for various strains and species with varying test procedures, adhering to the ASTM standard method addresses this concern. Limiting the RD50 test to those conducted in mice, or Swiss-Webster mice, and limiting the exposure time keeps the test to a more standardized method, although intrastrain variability was not a cause for concern in our subanalyses. Finally, we addressed the concern regarding time–concentration response curves (Bos et al. 1992), with separate subanalyses based on exposure time. These analyses show that time did not appear to be a factor in our analyses. Our presumption is that if the study adheres adequately to the ASTM standard method, experimental exposure time plays a minor role. It is also worth pointing out that all of the figures comparing RD50s to LOAELs, RELs, and TLVs are plotted on a log–log plot because of the wide range of values. Because of the nature of log–log plots, the correlation is higher compared with the same correlation using a nonlogarithmic scale.

The applicability of the RD50 test to human health protection has been demonstrated in several analyses, but extrapolation of the test results to the general public would be improved with greater focus on the tail of the dose–response curve, to ensure protection of sensitive subpopulations. One solution would be for RD50 studies to report sufficient information to calculate a benchmark dose (BMD) value, and not focus solely on the specific RD50 value. A standardized BMD value could be calculated at the tail of the distribution, taking into account the slope of the dose–response curve. Alternatively, the test procedure could be refined to identify the “just detectable effect level,” which is approximately a 12% decrease in the respiratory rate (Alarie 1998). Although some work has been done in this area (Boylstein et al. 1996), additional information is needed to better understand the tail of the dose–response curve and to address any concerns for spurious results from low exposure concentrations. The reported just detectable effect level of 12% appears to be close to the no observed effect level of the procedure. Use of this response rate in risk assessment is consistent with the recommendation by the U.S. EPA (2007) that the BMD for a continuous response may be set on statistical criteria of distinguishability from the control value, as well as on grounds of anticipated biological significance. A major benefit of focusing on the just detectable effect level would be to reduce potential animal suffering, and possibly animal usage.

In conclusion, the RD50 test is a good starting point for setting exposure standards for acute airborne irritants. As noted by Alarie et al. (2000), the TLV may need to be < 0.03 RD50 to prevent other toxic effects. Consequently, the literature should be adequately evaluated to determine that sensory irritation is likely the most sensitive adverse effect. The application of RD50s appears most useful when qualitative data are available indicating sensory irritation as the most sensitive adverse effect, but quantitative human data are lacking. The RD50 has proven its usefulness with the ability to appropriately rank the potency of airborne chemicals as sensory irritants and help establish exposure limits. A strong correlation between RD50s and LOAELs provides further support for using RD50s in determining guidance levels to protect the general public from sensory irritants.

Figures and Tables Top

thumbnail

Figure 1.

Linear least-squares regression analysis for log RD50 (for all mouse strains) vs. log LOAEL (human irritation end points) for 25 compounds, using 195 data points. Log RD50 = 1.16(log LOAEL) + 0.77; R 2 = 0.80.

thumbnail

Figure 2.

Linear least-squares regression analysis for log RD50 (mice) vs. log REL (set by OEHHA for airborne toxicants) for 16 compounds. Log RD50 = 0.71(log REL) + 2.55; R 2 = 0.71.

thumbnail

Figure 3.

Linear least-squares regression analysis for log RD50 (male mice) vs. log TLV for 24 compounds (no TLV for n-pentanol). Log RD50 = 0.86(log TLV) – 1.13; R2 = 0.86.

thumbnail

Table 1.

LOAELs for human sensory irritation for each study found in the literature.

thumbnail

Table 2.

RD50s of male mice with their corresponding TLVsa and RELsb (ppm), along with the specific strain of mice used in the experiment and reference.

thumbnail

Table 3.

Summary of linear least-squares regression analyses for various comparisons.

References Top

  1. ACGIH 2006. TLVs and BEIs, Based on the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
  2. Akesson B, Bengtsson M, Floren I 1986. Visual disturbances after industrial triethylamine exposure Int Arch Occup Environ Health 57(4): 297–302. Find this article online
  3. Alarie Y 1966. Irritating properties of airborne materials to the upper respiratory tract Arch Environ Health 13(4): 433–449. Find this article online
  4. Alarie Y 1973a. Sensory irritation by airborne chemicals CRC Crit Rev Toxicol 2(3): 299–363. Find this article online
  5. Alarie Y 1973b. Sensory irritation of the upper airways by airborne chemicals Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 24(2): 279–297. Find this article online
  6. Alarie Y 1981a. Bioassay for evaluating the potency of airborne sensory irritants and predicting acceptable levels of exposure in man Food Cosmet Toxicol 19(5): 623–626. Find this article online
  7. Alarie Y 1981b. Dose–response analysis in animal studies: prediction of human responses Environ Health Perspect 42: 9–13. Find this article online
  8. Alarie Y 1981c. Toxicological evaluation of airborne cemical irritants and allergens using respiratory reflex reactions In: Leong BKJ, editor. Proceedings of the Inhalation Toxicology and Technology Symposium. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publications. pp. 207–231.
  9. Alarie Y 1998. Computer-based bioassay for evaluation of sensory irritation of airborne chemicals and its limit of detection Arch Toxicol 72(5): 277–282. Find this article online
  10. Alarie Y 2000. Computerized animal bioassay to evaluate the effects of airborne chemicals on the respiratory tract In: Spengler JD, Samet JM, McCarthy JF, editors. Indoor Air Quality Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 24.1–24.25.
  11. Alarie Y, Luo JE 1986. Sensory irritation by airborne chemicals: a basis to establish acceptable levels of exposure In: Barrow CS, editor. Toxicology of the Nasal Passages. New York: Hemisphere Publishing. pp. 91–100.
  12. Alarie Y, Nielsen GD, Schaper MM 2000. Animal bioassays for evaluation of indoor air quality In: Spengler JD, Samet JM, McCarthy JF, editors. Indoor Air Quality Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 23.1–23.49.
  13. Alexeeff GV, Broadwin R, Liaw J, Dawson SV 2002. Characterization of the LOAEL-to-NOAEL uncertainty factor for mild adverse effects from acute inhalation exposures Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 36(1): 96–105. Find this article online
  14. Andersen I, Molhave L 1983. Controlled human studies with formaldehyde In: Gibson JE, editor. Formaldehyde Toxicity. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. pp. 154–164.
  15. Andersen I, Molhave L, Proctor DF 1981. Human responses to controlled levels of combinations of sulfur dioxide and inert dust Scand J Environ Health 7: 1–7. Find this article online
  16. Anglen DM 1981. Sensory Response of Human Subjects to Chlorine in Air [PhD Thesis]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
  17. Apol A 1981. Health Hazard Evaluation Report. Seattle, WA: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Hazard Evaluation and Technical Assistance Branch.
  18. ASTM 2004. Standard Test Method for Estimating Sensory Irritancy of Airborne Chemicals. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
  19. Baelum J, Lundqvist GR, Molhave L, Andersen NT 1990. Human response to varying concentrations of toluene Int Arch Occup Environ Health 62(1): 65–71. Find this article online
  20. Barrow CS, Alarie Y, Stock MF 1978. Sensory irritation and incapacitation evoked by thermal decomposition products of polymers and comparisons with known sensory irritants Arch Environ Health 33(2): 79–88. Find this article online
  21. Barrow CS, Alarie Y, Warrick JC, Stock MF 1977. Comparison of the sensory irritation response in mice to chlorine and hydrogen chloride Arch Environ Health 32: 68–76. Find this article online
  22. Barrow CS, Buckley LA, James RA, Steinhagen WH, Chang JCF 1986. Sensory irritation: studies on correlation to pathology, structure-activity, tolerance development, and prediction of species differences to nasal injury In: Barrow CS, editor. Toxicology of Nasal Passages. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. pp. 101–122.
  23. Baur X 1985. Isocyanate Hypersensitivity: Final Report to the International Isocyanate Insititute Project E-AB-19, File 10349. Munich, West Germany: University of Munich.
  24. Beil M, Ulmer WT 1976. Effect of NO2 in workroom concentrations on respiratory mechanics and bronchial susceptibility to acetylcholine in normal persons [in German] Int Arch Occup Environ Health 38(1): 31–44. Find this article online
  25. Bender JR, Mullin LS, Graepel GJ, Wilson WE 1983. Eye irritation response of humans to formaldehyde Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 44(6): 463–465. Find this article online
  26. Bos PM, Busschers M, Arts JH 2002. Evaluation of the sensory irritation test (Alarie test) for the assessment of respiratory tract irritation J Occup Environ Med 44(10): 968–976. Find this article online
  27. Bos PM, Busschers M, Arts JH 2003. Reply to: Sensory irritation testing J Occup Environ Med 45(5): 467. Find this article online
  28. Bos PM, Zwart A, Reuzel PG, Bragt PC 1992. Evaluation of the sensory irritation test for the assessment of occupational health risk Crit Rev Toxicol 21(6): 423–450. Find this article online
  29. Boylstein LA, Luo J, Stock MF, Alarie YAn attempt to define a just detectable effect for airborne chemicals on the respiratory tract in mice Arch Toxicol 70(9): 567–578. Find this article online
  30. Carpenter CP, Shaffer B, Weil CS, Smyth JHF 1944. Studies on the inhalation of 1:3-butadiene; with a comparison of its narcotic effect with benzol, toluol, and styrene, and a note on the elimination of styrene by the human J Ind Hyg Toxic 26(3): 69–78. Find this article online
  31. Chang JC, Steinhagen WH, Barrow CS 1981. Effect of single or repeated formaldehyde exposure on minute volume of B6C3F1 mice and F-344 rats Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 61(3): 451–459. Find this article online
  32. Collins JF, Alexeeff GV, Lewis DC, Dodge DE, Marty MA, Parker TR, et al. 2004. Development of acute inhalation reference exposure levels (RELs) to protect the public from predictable excursions of airborne toxicants J Appl Toxicol 24(2): 155–166. Find this article online
  33. D’Alessandro A, Kuschner W, Wong H, Boushey HA, Blanc PD 1996. Exaggerated responses to chlorine inhalation among persons with nonspecific airway hyperreactivity Chest 109(2): 331–337. Find this article online
  34. Dalton P, 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): 558–569. Find this article online
  35. Day JH, Lees RE, Clark RH, Pattee PL 1984. Respiratory response to formaldehyde and off-gas of urea formaldehyde foam insulation Can Med Assoc J 131(9): 1061–1065. Find this article online
  36. de Ceaurriz JC, Micillino JC, Bonnet P, Guenier JP 1981. Sensory irritation caused by various industrial airborne chemicals Toxicol Lett 9(2): 137–143. Find this article online
  37. Dudek B, Gralewicz K, Jakubowski M, Kostrzewski P, Sokal J 1990. Neurobehavioral effects of experimental exposure to toluene, xylene and their mixture Pol J Occup Med 3(1): 109–116. Find this article online
  38. Dunlap MK, Kodama JK, Wellington JS, Anderson HH, Hine CH 1958. The toxicity of allyl alcohol AMA Arch Ind Health 4: 303–311. Find this article online
  39. Ferguson JS, Schaper M, Stock MF, Weyel DA, Alarie Y 1986. Sensory and pulmonary irritation with exposure to methyl isocyanate Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 82(2): 329–335. Find this article online
  40. Frampton MW, Morrow PE, Cox C, Gibb FR, Speers DM, Utell MJ 1991. Effects of nitrogen dioxide exposure on pulmonary function and airway reactivity in normal humans Am Rev Respir Dis 143(3): 522–527. Find this article online
  41. Gagnaire F, Azim S, Bonnet P, Hecht G, Hery M 1994. Comparison of the sensory irritation response in mice to chlorine and nitrogen trichloride J Appl Toxicol 14(6): 405–409. Find this article online
  42. Gagnaire F, Azim S, Bonnet P, Simon P, Guenier JP, de Ceaurriz J 1989. Nasal irritation and pulmonary toxicity of aliphatic amines in mice J Appl Toxicol 9(5): 301–304. Find this article online
  43. Green DJ, Bascom R, Healey EM, Hebel JR, Sauder LR, Kulle TJ 1989. Acute pulmonary response in healthy, nonsmoking adults to inhalation of formaldehyde and carbon J Toxicol Environ Health 28(3): 261–275. Find this article online
  44. Hake CL, Stewart RD, Wu A, Graff SA, Forster HV, Keeler WH, et al. 1981. p-Xylene: Development of a Biologic Standard for the Industrial Worker by Breath Analysis. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
  45. Hansen LF, Knudsen A, Nielsen GD 1992. Sensory irritation effects of methyl ethyl ketone and its receptor activation mechanism Pharmacol Toxicol 71(3 Pt 1): 201–208. Find this article online
  46. Hine CH, Meyers F, Ivanhoe F, Walker S, Takahashi GH 1961. Simple tests of respiratory function and study of sensory response in human subjects exposed to respiratory tract irritants. Proceedings of The Fifth Air Pollution Medical Research Conference: Symposium on Human Exposures to Air Pollutants 1961. Berkeley, CA: California State Department of Health. pp. 20–38.
  47. Horvath EP Jr, Anderson H Jr, Pierce WE, Hanrahan L, Wendlick JD 1988. Effects of formaldehyde on the mucous membranes and lungs. A study of an industrial population JAMA 259(5): 701–707. Find this article online
  48. James JT, Buettner LC, Hsu SS 1987. Sensory irritation of methylisocyanate vapor J Appl Toxicol 7(2): 147–148. Find this article online
  49. Joosting PE, Verberk MMEmergency population exposure: a methodological approach (with a report on a human experiment with chlorine). International Symposium on the Recent Advances in the Assessment of the Health Effects of Environmental Pollution; Paris, France. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities, WHO. 1975. 1974. pp. 2005–2029.
  50. Kane LE, Alarie Y 1977. Sensory irritation to formaldehyde and acrolein during single and repeated exposures in mice Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 38(10): 509–522. Find this article online
  51. Kane LE, Barrow CS, Alarie Y 1979. A short-term test to predict acceptable levels of exposure to airborne sensory irritants Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 40: 207–229. Find this article online
  52. Kane LE, Dombroske R, Alarie Y 1980. Evaluation of sensory irritation from some common industrial solvents Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 41(6): 451–455. Find this article online
  53. Kimmerle G, Eben A 1964. On the toxicity of methylisocyanate and its quantitative determination in the air [in German] Arch Toxicol 20: 235–241. Find this article online
  54. Krakowiak A, Gorski P, Pazdrak K, Ruta U 1998. Airway response to formaldehyde inhalation in asthmatic subjects with suspected respiratory formaldehyde sensitization Am J Ind Med 33(3): 274–281. Find this article online
  55. Kristiansen U, Vinggaard AM, Nielsen GD 1988. The effects of n-butanol vapour on respiratory rate and tidal volume Arch Toxicol 61(3): 229–236. Find this article online
  56. Kulle TJ, Sauder LR, Hebel JR, Green DJ, Chatham MD 1987. Formaldehyde dose-response in healthy nonsmokers JAPCA 37(8): 919–924. Find this article online
  57. MacEwen J, Vernot E 1972. Annual Technical Report. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Toxic Hazards Research Unit.
  58. Mohsenin V 1988. Airway responses to 2.0 ppm nitrogen dioxide in normal subjects Arch Environ Health 43(3): 242–246. Find this article online
  59. Moscato G, Biscaldi G, Cottica D, Pugliese F, Candura S, Candura F 1987. Occupational asthma due to styrene: two case reports J Occup Med 29(12): 957–960. Find this article online
  60. Muller J, Greff G 1984. Relation between the toxicity of molecules of industrial value and their physico-chemical properties: test of upper airway irritation applied to 4 chemical groups [in French] Food Chem Toxicol 22(8): 661–664. Find this article online
  61. Muttray A, Jung D, Klimek L, Kreiner C 2002. Effects of an external exposure to 200 ppm methyl ethyl ketone on nasal mucosa in healthy volunteers Int Arch Occup Environ Health 75(3): 197–200. Find this article online
  62. Myou S, Fujimura M, Nishi K, Matsuda M, Ohka T, Matsuda T 1994. Potentiating effect of inhaled acetaldehyde on bronchial responsiveness to methacholine in asthmatic subjects Thorax 49(7): 644–648. Find this article online
  63. Nelson KW, Ege JJF, Morwick R, Woodman LE, Silverman L 1943. Sensory response to certain industrial solvent vapors J Ind Hyg Toxic 25(7): 282–285. Find this article online
  64. Nielsen GD, Alarie Y 1982. Sensory irritation, pulmonary irritation, and respiratory stimulation by airborne benzene and alkylbenzenes: prediction of safe industrial exposure levels and correlation with their thermodynamic properties Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 65(3): 459–477. Find this article online
  65. Nielsen GD, Alarie Y, Poulsen OM, Nexo BA 1995. Possible mechanisms for the respiratory tract effects of noncarcinogenic indoor-climate pollutants and bases for their risk assessment Scand J Work Environ Health 21: 165–178. Find this article online
  66. Nielsen GD, Bakbo JC, Holst E 1984. Sensory irritation and pulmonary irritation by airborne allyl acetate, allyl alcohol, and allyl ether compared to acrolein Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 54(4): 292–298. Find this article online
  67. Nielsen GD, Hougaard KS, Larsen ST, Hammer M, Wolkoff P, Clausen PA, et al. 1999. Acute airway effects of formaldehyde and ozone in BALB/c mice Hum Exp Toxicol 18: 400–409. Find this article online
  68. Nielsen GD, Yamagiwa M 1989. Structure-activity relationships of airway irritating aliphatic amines. Receptor activation mechanisms and predicted industrial exposure limits Chem Biol Interact 71(2–3): 223–244. Find this article online
  69. Pazdrak K, Gorski P, Krakowiak A, Ruta U 1993. Changes in nasal lavage fluid due to formaldehyde inhalation Int Arch Occup Environ Health 64(7): 515–519. Find this article online
  70. Plotnikova MM 1960. Basic Investigations for the Determination of the Limit of Allowable Acrolein Concentration in Atmospheric Air. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
  71. Pozzani UC, Carpenter CP 1963. Methyl Isocyanate, Special Report 26-23. Pittsburgh, PA: Mellon Institute.
  72. Rotman HH, Fliegelman MJ, Moore T, Smith RG, Anglen DM, Kowalski CJ, et al. 1983. Effects of low concentrations of chlorine on pulmonary function in humans J Appl Physiol 54(4): 1120–1124. Find this article online
  73. Sangha GK, Alarie Y 1979. Sensory irritation by toluene diisocyanate in single and repeated exposures Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 50(3): 533–547. Find this article online
  74. Sauder LR, Chatham MD, Green DJ, Kulle TJ 1986. Acute pulmonary response to formaldehyde exposure in healthy nonsmokers J Occup Med 28(6): 420–424. Find this article online
  75. Sauder LR, Green DJ, Chatham MD, Kulle TJ 1987. Acute pulmonary response of asthmatics to 3.0 ppm formaldehyde Toxicol Ind Health 3(4): 569–578. Find this article online
  76. Schachter EN, Witek TJ Jr, Brody DJ, Tosun T, Beck GJ, Leaderer BP 1987. A study of respiratory effects from exposure to 2.0 ppm formaldehyde in occupationally exposed workers Environ Res 44(2): 188–205. Find this article online
  77. Schachter EN, Witek TJ Jr, Tosun T, Leaderer BP, Beck GJ 1986. A study of respiratory effects from exposure to 2 ppm formaldehyde in healthy subjects Arch Environ Health 41(4): 229–239. Find this article online
  78. Schaper M 1993. Development of a database for sensory irritants and its use in establishing occupational exposure limits Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 54(9): 488–544. Find this article online
  79. Seeber A, Kiesswetter E, Vangala RR, Blaszkewicz M, Golka K 1992. Combined exposure to organic solvents: an experimental approach using acetone and ethyl acetate Appl Psychol Int Rev 41(3): 281–292. Find this article online
  80. Shusterman D, Matovinovic E, Salmon AG 2006. Does Haber’s Law apply to human sensory irritation? Inhal Toxicol 18: 457–471. Find this article online
  81. Silverman L, Schulte HF, First MW 1946. Further studies on sensory response to certain industrial solvent vapors J Ind Hyg Toxic 28(6): 262–266. Find this article online
  82. Smyth HF, Jr, Kinkead ER, Pozzani UCS 1970. Methyl isocyanate: acute inhalation toxicity humans responses to low concentrations, guinea pig sensitization and cross sensitization to other isocyanates In: Browning JB, editor. Compilation of Toxicology on Methyl Isocyanate. Pittsburgh, PA: Mellon Institute. pp. 21–28.
  83. Steinhagen WH, Barrow CS 1984. Sensory irritation structure-activity study of inhaled aldehydes in B6C3F1 and Swiss-Webster mice Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 72(3): 495–503. Find this article online
  84. Stephens ER, Darley EF, Taylor OC, Scott WE 1961. Photochemical reaction products in air pollution Int J Air and Water Poll 4(1/2): 79–100. Find this article online
  85. Stewart RD, Dodd HC, Baretta ED, Schaffer AW 1968. Human exposure to styrene vapor Arch Environ Health 16(5): 656–662. Find this article online
  86. Stewart RD, Hake CL, Wu A, Graff SA, Forster HV, Keeler WH, et al. 1975. Acetone: Development of a Biologic Standard for the Industrial Worker by Breath Analysis. NTIS PB82172917. Milwaukee, WI: Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Department of Environmental Medicine, U.S. Department of Commerce.
  87. Stone LC, Lawhorne GT, McKinney JC, McCracken MS 1981. Upper respiratory tract sensory responses to volatile chemicals Toxicologist 1: 134. Find this article online
  88. Sundblad BM, Larsson BM, Acevedo F, Ernstgard L, Johanson G, Larsson K, et al. 2004. Acute respiratory effects of exposure to ammonia on healthy persons Scand J Work Environ Health 30(4): 313–321. Find this article online
  89. Tomas T, Oliskiewicz W, Czerczak S, Sokal J 1985. Decrease in the respiration rate in mice as an indicator of the irritating effects of chemical substances on the upper respiratory tract [in Polish] Med Pr 36(5): 295–302. Find this article online
  90. U.S. EPA 2007. Benchmark Dose Software (BMDS): Benchmark Dose Methodology. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/bmds/bmds_traini​ng/methodology/intro.htm [accessed 10 October 2007].
  91. Verberk MM 1977. Effects of ammonia in volunteers Int Arch Occup Environ Health 39(2): 73–81. Find this article online
  92. Vijayaraghavan R, Schaper M, Thompson R, Stock MF, Boylstein LA, Luo JE, et al. 1994. Computer assisted recognition and quantitation of the effects of airborne chemicals acting at differing areas of the respiratory tract Arch Toxicol 68: 490–499. Find this article online
  93. Von Nieding G, Wagner HM 1977. Experimental studies on the short-term effect of air pollutants on man: two hour exposure to NO2, O3 and SO2 alone and in combination In: Kasuga S, Suzuki N, Yamada T, Kimura G, Inagaki K, Onoe K, editors. Proceedings of the Fourth International Clean Air Conference. Tokyo, Japan: Japanese Union of Air Pollution Prevention Associations. pp. 5–8.
  94. Weber-Tschopp A, Fischer T, Grandjean E 1977. Irritating effects of formaldehyde on man [in German] Int Arch Occup Environ Health 39(4): 207–218. Find this article online
  95. Wolf MA, Rowe VK, McCollister DD, Hollingsworth RL, Oyen F 1956. Toxicological studies of certain alkylated benzenes and benzene; experiments on laboratory animals AMA Arch Ind Health 14(4): 387–398. Find this article online
Add Your Note (For Private Viewing)Post Your Note (For Public Viewing)
Compose Your Note
 
Declare any competing interests.
Add a note to this text.
Please follow our Guidelines for Comments and review our Competing Interests Policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
  • Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
  • Unsupported assertions or statements
  • Inflammatory or insulting language
Add a note to this text.
You must be logged in to add a note to an article. You may log in by clicking here or cancel this note.
Add a note to this text.
You cannot annotate this area of the document. Close
Add a note to this text.
You cannot create an annotation that spans different sections of the document; please adjust your selection.
Close
Rate This Article
Please follow our guidelines for rating and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
  1. Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
  2. Unsupported assertions or statements
  3. Inflammatory or insulting language
Compose Your Annotation
 
Declare any competing interests.