Skip to main content
PMC home page
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 2001 Aug;109(Suppl 4):507–512. doi: 10.1289/ehp.01109s4507

Human breathing and eye blink rate responses to airborne chemicals.

J C Walker 1, M Kendal-Reed 1, M J Utell 1, W S Cain 1
PMCID: PMC1240573  PMID: 11544155

Abstract

Increased levels of air pollution have been linked with morbidity and mortality, but mechanisms linking physiologic responses to quality of life and productivity issues remain largely unknown. Individuals often report irritation of the nose and/or eyes upon exposures to environmental contaminants. Evaluation of these self-reports would be greatly aided by the development of valid physiological markers. Chamber studies (unencumbered exposures) of nonsmoker responses to environmental tobacco smoke offer two candidate end points: (a) Tidal volume increases and breathing frequency declines with stimuli that elicit only moderate irritation. (b) Eye blink rate increases only with a concentration sufficiently high to cause progressive worsening of eye irritation with prolonged exposure. Experiments with very brief nasal-only presentations also suggest the value of breathing changes as sensitive markers of irritation: (a) Tidal volume is inversely related to perceived nasal irritation (NI) intensity in both normal and anosmic (lacking olfactory input) individuals, although normals exhibit greater NI sensitivity. (b) Inhalation duration, in both groups, declines only with trigeminal activation sufficient to cause readily perceptible NI in anosmics. Changes in eye blink rate and breathing may be useful in the investigation of irritation and other effects of air pollution, and could be quite useful in investigations of mixtures of volatile organic compounds.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (90.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alimohammadi H., Silver W. L. Evidence for nicotinic acetylcholine receptors on nasal trigeminal nerve endings of the rat. Chem Senses. 2000 Feb;25(1):61–66. doi: 10.1093/chemse/25.1.61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cometto-Muñiz J. E., Cain W. S., Abraham M. H., Gola J. M. Chemosensory detectability of 1-butanol and 2-heptanone singly and in binary mixtures. Physiol Behav. 1999 Aug;67(2):269–276. doi: 10.1016/s0031-9384(99)00074-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cometto-Muñiz J. E., Cain W. S. Efficacy of volatile organic compounds in evoking nasal pungency and odor. Arch Environ Health. 1993 Sep-Oct;48(5):309–314. doi: 10.1080/00039896.1993.9936719. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cometto-Muñiz J. E., Cain W. S., Hudnell H. K. Agonistic sensory effects of airborne chemicals in mixtures: odor, nasal pungency, and eye irritation. Percept Psychophys. 1997 Jul;59(5):665–674. doi: 10.3758/bf03206014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cometto-Muñiz J. E., Cain W. S. Nasal pungency, odor, and eye irritation thresholds for homologous acetates. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1991 Aug;39(4):983–989. doi: 10.1016/0091-3057(91)90063-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kendal-Reed M., Walker J. C., Morgan W. T. Investigating sources of response variability and neural mediation in human nasal irritation. Indoor Air. 2001 Sep;11(3):185–191. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0668.2001.011003185.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kendal-Reed M., Walker J. C., Morgan W. T., LaMacchio M., Lutz R. W. Human responses to propionic acid. I. Quantification of within- and between-participant variation in perception by normosmics and anosmics. Chem Senses. 1998 Feb;23(1):71–82. doi: 10.1093/chemse/23.1.71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Muramatsu T., Weber A., Muramatsu S., Akermann F. An experimental study on irritation and annoyance due to passive smoking. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1983;51(4):305–317. doi: 10.1007/BF00378343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Schaper M. Development of a database for sensory irritants and its use in establishing occupational exposure limits. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1993 Sep;54(9):488–544. doi: 10.1080/15298669391355017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Tanelian D. L., MacIver M. B. Simultaneous visualization and electrophysiology of corneal A-delta and C fiber afferents. J Neurosci Methods. 1990 Jun;32(3):213–222. doi: 10.1016/0165-0270(90)90143-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Walker J. C., Kendal-Reed M., Hall S. B., Morgan W. T., Polyakov V. V., Lutz R. W. Human responses to propionic acid. II. Quantification of breathing responses and their relationship to perception. Chem Senses. 2001 May;26(4):351–358. doi: 10.1093/chemse/26.4.351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Warren D. W., Walker J. C., Drake A. F., Lutz R. W. Assessing the effects of odorants on nasal airway size and breathing. Physiol Behav. 1992 Feb;51(2):425–430. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(92)90161-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Warren D. W., Walker J. C., Drake A. F., Lutz R. W. Effects of odorants and irritants on respiratory behavior. Laryngoscope. 1994 May;104(5 Pt 1):623–626. doi: 10.1002/lary.5541040517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Weber A., Fischer T., Grandjean E. Passive smoking in experimental and field conditions. Environ Res. 1979 Oct;20(1):205–216. doi: 10.1016/0013-9351(79)90099-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Weber A., Fischer T., Grandjean E. Passive smoking: irritating effects of the total smoke and the gas phase. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1979 Jun 15;43(3):183–193. doi: 10.1007/BF00381190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES