How Healthy Is Healthy? Comparison Between Self-Reported Symptoms and Clinical Outcomes in Connection with the Enrollment of Volunteers for Human Exposure Studies on Sensory Irritation Effects

Exposure limits for indoor volatile substances concerning the general population: The role of population-based differences in sensory irritation of the eyes and airways for assessment factors

Assessment factors (AFs) are essential in the derivation of occupational exposure limits (OELs) and indoor air quality guidelines. The factors shall accommodate differences in sensitivity between subgroups, i.e., workers, healthy and sick people, and occupational exposure versus life-long exposure for the general population. Derivation of AFs itself is based on empirical knowledge from human and animal exposure studies with immanent uncertainty in the empirical evidence due to knowledge gaps and experimental reliability. Sensory irritation in the eyes and airways constitute about 30-40% of OELs and is an abundant symptom in non-industrial buildings characterizing the indoor air quality and general health. Intraspecies differences between subgroups of the general population should be quantified for the proposal of more 'empirical' based AFs. In this review, we focus on sensitivity differences in sensory irritation about gender, age, health status, and vulnerability in people, based solely on human exposure studies. Females are more sensitive to sensory irritation than males for few volatile substances. Older people appear less sensitive than younger ones. However, impaired defense mechanisms may increase vulnerability in the long term. Empirical evidence of sensory irritation in children is rare and limited to children down to the age of six years. Studies of the nervous system in children compared to adults suggest a higher sensitivity in children; however, some defense mechanisms are more efficient in children than in adults. Usually, exposure studies are performed with healthy subjects. Exposure studies with sick people are not representative due to the deselection of subjects with moderate or severe eye or airway diseases, which likely underestimates the sensitivity of the group of people with diseases. Psychological characterization like personality factors shows that concentrations of volatile substances far below their sensory irritation thresholds may influence the sensitivity, in part biased by odor perception. Thus, the protection of people with extreme personality traits is not feasible by an AF and other mitigation strategies are required. The available empirical evidence comprising age, lifestyle, and health supports an AF of not greater than up to 2 for sensory irritation. Further, general AFs are discouraged for derivation, rather substance-specific derivation of AFs is recommended based on the risk assessment of empirical data, deposition in the airways depending on the substance's water solubility and compensating for knowledge and experimental gaps. Modeling of sensory irritation would be a better 'empirical' starting point for derivation of AFs for children, older, and sick people, as human exposure studies are not possible (due to ethical reasons) or not generalizable (due to self-selection). Dedicated AFs may be derived for environments where dry air, high room temperature, and visually demanding tasks aggravate the eyes or airways than for places in which the workload is balanced, while indoor playgrounds might need other AFs due to physical workload and affected groups of the general population.

Physiological responses, self-reported health effects, and cognitive performance during exposure to carbon dioxide at 20 000 ppm

In this study, 24 subjects (20-58 years) were exposed to carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) at 770 ppm and 20 000 ppm in an exposure laboratory for 4-h, including 2 × 15 min of cycling to investigate the effects on acid-base balance, physiological responses, cognitive performance and acute health. Capillary blood analysis, heart rate, respiratory rate, divided attention, flexibility, and sustained attention from the Test Battery for Attentional Performance (TAP), critical flicker fusion frequency (CFF), and self-reported symptoms were measured before, during, and after the 4-h exposure. Blood pH decreased and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO₂ ) increased significantly when exposed to 20 000 ppm CO₂ compared to 770 ppm. However, the values remained within the normal range. In addition, respiratory rate increased slightly but significantly at 20 000 ppm CO₂ . No significant changes in heart rate, CFF, task performance or acute health were found. In sum, the findings suggest that the observed changes in acid-base balance and ventilation can be classified as physiological adaptation responses. Impairment of cognitive performance is not expected from exposure to 20 000 ppm CO₂ , neither as direct effect on central nervous system function nor as a distraction related to perception of health effects.

Discrimination Between Atopic, Allergic, and Asthmatic Volunteers for Human Exposure Studies on Sensory Irritation

Atopic, allergic, and especially asthmatic subjects might be particularly susceptible to sensory irritation induced by airborne chemicals compared to healthy individuals. Therefore, a good characterization of subjects is essential in inhalation exposure studies on sensory irritants. A total of 105 volunteers, 87% of whom reported to be non-allergic, participated in a medical examination that included skin prick test (SPT), measurements of total IgE, specific IgE (sIgE) to an ubiquitous allergen mix (sx1), and fractionated exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), as well as pulmonary function and methacholine test. The median value of sIgE to sx1 was 0.20 kU/L (0.07-91.3 kU/L) and correlated significantly with total IgE (28.8 kU/L (2-756 kU/L)) and FeNO (14 ppb (5-100 ppb)). Forty-three subjects (41%) had sIgE to sx1 ≥ 0.35 kU/L and were classified as atopic. Thirty-five subjects, all also sx1-positive, were positive in SPT. Obstruction, small airway disease, and/or bronchial hyperreactivity were diagnosed in 18 subjects. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were performed to check whether signs of sensitization are useful to discriminate subjects with and without airway diseases. However, sx1, total IgE, FeNO, and SPT reached only low areas under the curve (AUC: 0.57-0.66). Although predominantly young and, according to their own statements, mostly non-allergic subjects participated in the study, almost half of them were atopic, and 10% had airway disease or bronchial hyperreactivity. This indicates that the validity of self-reported data might be inaccurate. In summary, diversified investigations of the allergy-related health status appear necessary for a thorough characterization of subjects for exposure studies on sensory irritants.