Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

Abstract

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.

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

  • American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists (1998) Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents

  • Cain WS (1974) Perception of odor intensity and the time-course of olfactory adaptation. ASHRAE Transactions 80:53–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherrick CE, Cholewak RW (1986) Cutaneous sensitivity. In: Boff KF, Kaufman L, Thomas JP (eds) Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Vol. I: Sensory Processes and Perception. Wiley Interscience, New York, pp. 12-11–12-13

  • Clark CC, Lawless HT (1994) Limiting response alternatives in time-intensity scaling: an examination of the halo-dumping effect. Chem Senses 19:583–594

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muňiz JE, Cain WS (1984). Temporal integration of pungency. Chem Senses 8:315–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muňiz JE, Cain WS (1991). Nasal pungency, odor, and eye irritation thresholds for homologous acetates. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 39:983–989

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muňiz 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  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muňiz JE, Cain WS, Abraham MH, Kumarsingh R (1998a). Sensory properties of selected terpenes. Thresholds for odor, nasal pungency, nasal localization, and eye irritation. Ann NY Acad Sci 855:648–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muňiz JE, Cain WS, Abraham MH, Kumarsingh R (1998b).Trigeminal and olfactory chemosensory impact of selected terpenes. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 60:765–770

    Article  PubMed  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 PH, Dilks DD, Banton MI (2000) Evaluation of odor and sensory irritation thresholds for methyl isobutyl ketone in humans. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 61:340–350

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dember WN, Warm JS (1979) Psychology of Perception, 2 ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Doy RL, Brugger WE, Jurs PC, Orndorff MA, Snyder PJ, Dale Lowry L (1978) Intranasal trigeminal stimulation from odorous volatiles: Psychometric responses from anosmic and normal humans. Physiol & Behav 20:175–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty RL, Cometto-Muňiz JE, Jalowayski AA, Dalton P, Kendal-Reed M, Hodgson M (2004) Assessment of upper respiratory tract and ocular irritative effects of volatile chemicals in humans. Crit Rev Toxicol 34:85–142

    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 

  • Engen T (1971) Psychophysics I Discrimination and detection. In: Kling J, Riggs L (eds) Woodworth’s & Schlosberg’s Experimental Psychology, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Feron VJ (1998) Recommending health-based exposure limits in the national and international arena: a personal view. In: Bal R, Halffman W (eds) The politics of chemical risk: Scenarios for a regulatory future. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 121–129

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Frijters JER (1981) Expanded tables for conversion of a proportion of correct responses (Pc) to the measure of sensory difference (d’) for the triangular method and the 3-alternative forced choice procedure. J Food Sci 47:139–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green BG (1990) Spatial summation of chemical irritation and itch produced by topical application of capsaicin. Percept Psychophys 48:12–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel-Jørgensen A, Kjaergaard SK, Mølhave L, Hudnell HK (1999) Time course of sensory eye irritation in humans exposed to N-butanol and 1-Octene. Arch Environ Health54:86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummel T, Barz S, Lotsch J, Roscher S, Kettenmann B, Kobal G (1996) Loss of olfactory function leads to a decrease of trigeminal sensitivity. Chem Senses 21(1):75–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson G (2001) Basic concepts in toxicological risk assessment. Paper presented at the Occupational exposure limits - approaches and criteria, In: Proceedings from a NIVA course, Uppsala, Sweden

  • Kaplan H, MacMillan N, Creelman C (1978) Tables of d’ for variable-standard discrimination paradigms. Behav Res Meth Instr 10:796–813

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendal-Reed M, Walker J, Morgan WT, LaMacchio M, Lutz RW (1998) Human responses to proprionic acid. I . Quantification of within- and between-participant variation in perception by normosmics and anosmics. Chem Senses 23:71–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kieswetter E, Von Thriel C, Schäper M, Blaskwewicz M, Seeber A (2005) Eye blinks as indicator for sensory irritation during constant and peak exposures to 2-ethylhexanol. Environ Tox Pharm 19:531–541

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klein SA (2001) Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: A commentary. Percept & Psychophys 63:1421–1455

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klenø J, Wolkoff P (2004) Changes in eye blink frequency as a measure of trigeminal stimulation by exposure to limonene oxidation products, isoprene oxidation products and nitrate radicals. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 77:235–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knasko SC, Gilbert AN (1990) Emotional state, physical well-being, and performance in the presence of feigned ambient odor. J Appl Social Psychol 20:1345–1357

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Marks LE (1974) Sensory processes: The new psychophysics. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire WJ (1969) Suspiciousness of experimenter’s intent. In: Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL (eds) Artifact in Behavioral Research, Academic Press, New York, pp 13–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT (1987) Sensory Evaluation Techniques. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Opiekun RE, McDermott R, Dalton PH (2003) Gender differences and nasal integration studies using an ocular exposure device for detection or irritation thresholds: The T.I.D.E. System. Poster presented at Achems Conference, Sarasota, Fl

  • Orne MT (1969) Demand Characteristics and the Concept of Quasi-Controls. In: Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL (eds) Artifact in Behavioral Research. Academic Press, New York, pp 143–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Paustenbach D (2001) Approaches and considerations for setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants: report of recent symposia. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 62:697–704

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poulton EC (1989) Bias in quantifying judgments. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hove, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter J, Anand T, Johnson B, Khan RM, Sobel N (2005) Brain mechanisms for extracting spatial information from smell. Neuron:581–592

  • Sherrick CE, Cholewak RW (1986) Cuteanous sensitivity. In: KR Boff, L Kaufman, and Thomans, JP (eds) Handbook of perception and human performance. Vol I: Sensory processes and perception. New York: Wiley Interscience, pp 12–11 – 12–13

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  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 

  • Triebig G (2002) Chemosensory irritation and the setting of occupational exposure limits. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 75:281–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vassilev A, Mihaylova MS, Racheva K, Zlatkova M, Anderson RS (2003) Spatial summation of S-cone ON and OFF signals: effects of retinal eccentricity. Vision Res 43:2875–2884

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Thriel C, Kieswetter E, Schäper M, Blaskewicz M, Golka K, Seeber A (2005) An integrative approach considering acute symptoms and intensity ratings of chemosensory sensations during experimental exposures. Environ Tox Pharm 19:589–598

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherill GB, Levitt H (1965) Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. Br J Math Stat Psychol 18:1–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wise PM, Radil T, Wysocki CJ (2004) Temporal integration in nasal lateralization and nasal detection of carbon dioxide. Chem Senses 29:137–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wise PM, Canty TM, Wysocki CJ (2005) Temporal integration of nasal irritation from ammonia at threshold and supra-threshold levels. Toxicol Sci 87:223–31

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Wysocki CJ, Cowart BJ & Radil T (2003) Nasal trigeminal chemosensitivity across the adult lifespan. Percept & Psychophys 65:115–122

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this paper was supported by NWO grant 452–03-334 to MAMS, and by RO1 DC-03704 to PHD.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Department of Clinical Psychology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508, TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Monique A.M. Smeets

  2. Helmholtz Institute, Department of Psychonomics, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80140, 3508, TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Jan H.A. Kroeze

  3. Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Pamela H. Dalton

Authors
  1. Monique A.M. Smeets
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan H.A. Kroeze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pamela H. Dalton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique A.M. Smeets.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smeets, M.A., Kroeze, J.H. & Dalton, P.H. Setting occupational exposure limits in humans: contributions from the field of experimental psychology. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79, 299–307 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-005-0053-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-005-0053-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation