Biomedical subjects

Pamela H Dalton

Publications and source records attributed to Pamela H Dalton.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Odor and irritation thresholds for ammonia: a comparison between static and dynamic olfactometry.

Odor and lateralization (irritation) thresholds (LTs) for ammonia vapor were measured using static and dynamic olfactometry. The purpose of the study was to explore the test-retest reliability and comparability of dynamic olfactometry methodology, generally used to determine odor thresholds following European Committee for Standardization guidelines in the context of odor regulations to outside emissions, with static olfactometry. Within a 2-week period, odor and LTs for ammonia were obtained twice for each method for 24 females. No significant differences between methods were found: mean odor detection thresholds (ODTs) were 2.6 parts per million (ppm) for either method (P = 0.96), and mean LTs were 31.7 and 60.9 ppm for the static and dynamic method, respectively (P = 0.07). Test-retest reliability was higher for the dynamic than for the static method (r = 0.61 vs. 0.14 for ODTs and r = 0.86 vs. 0.45 for LTs). The choice of optimal method for any application, however, depends not only on psychometric factors but also on practical factors such as physicochemical properties of the compound, availability of equipment and expertise, task efficiency, and costs.

Ammonia↗

PubMed2005

Setting occupational exposure limits in humans: contributions from the field of experimental psychology.

Psychophysical methods from the field of experimental psychology are evaluated for their utility in the derivation of occupational exposure limits (OELs) for volatile chemicals based on acute sensory irritation in humans. The lateralization threshold method, which involves the localization of trigeminal vapor to the stimulated nostril, is evaluated for its underlying assumptions, reliability and validity. Whole body exposures, on the other hand, which involve the controlled, ambient exposure of human subjects to the irritant at one or a series of concentrations for an extended period are also discussed. It is concluded that the single-organ psychophysical method is largely resistant to response bias is practical and economical. However, its reliability and validity need further assessment. Whole body exposures, while having enhanced ecological validity, are more prone to demand characteristics, response bias, and subject beliefs than the traditional psychophysical procedures. An approach that involves the exposure of only the most sensitive organs such as the eyes and nose, via a mask or facebox, could facilitate the administration and alternation of odorant/irritant stimuli over a wide range of concentrations while enhancing ecological validity.

Air Pollutants, Occupational↗

PubMed2002

Acute sensory irritation from exposure to isopropanol (2-propanol) at TLV in workers and controls: objective versus subjective effects.

OBJECTIVES: Phlebotomists occupationally exposed to isopropanol (IPA) (2-propanol) and naïve controls (n = 12 per group) were exposed to the time-weighted average threshold limit value of 400 p.p.m. IPA for 4 h in an environmental chamber to investigate: (i) acute effects of sensory irritation using subjective health symptom reports and objective, physiological end-points; and (ii) differences in measured effects in relation to exposure history. METHODS: Before, during and after exposure subjects gave self-reports of health complaints. During exposure subjects rated the intensity of the odor, sensory irritation and annoyance. Objective end-points of ocular hyperemia, nasal congestion, nasal secretion and respiration were obtained at various times before, during and after exposure. Results were compared with exposure to phenylethyl alcohol (PEA), a negative control for irritation, and to clean air (CA), a negative control for odor and irritation, using a within-subjects design. RESULTS: Significantly higher intensity ratings of odor, irritation and annoyance were reported during the exposure to IPA, when compared with exposure to CA or PEA. Nevertheless, the overall level of reported sensory irritation to IPA was low and perceived as 'weak' on average. Health symptom ratings were not significantly elevated for IPA as compared with PEA or CA exposure. The only physiological end-point that showed a change exclusively in the IPA condition was respiration frequency: relative to baseline, respiration frequency increased in response to IPA in both groups. No differences were encountered between the occupationally exposed and the control groups. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in respiration frequency in response to IPA may reflect either a reflexive change due to sensory irritation (an autonomic event) or a voluntary change in breathing in response to perception of an unpleasant, solvent-like odor (a physiological event caused by cognitive mediation). Our findings on objective end-points, including nasal and ocular sensory irritation, did not confirm subjective irritation reports. Irritation reports and odor intensity decreased, rather than increased, over time, lending credence to the cognitive argument and suggesting that the elevated subjective responses to IPA may be mediated by responses to its odor.

2-Propanol↗