Odor and chemesthesis from brief exposures to TXIB

Cain, William S.; Wijk, René A. de; Jalowayski, Alfredo A.; Caminha, Guilherme Pilla; Schmidt, Roland

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2005.00390.x

Cited by 44 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The distributions of sensitivity to glutaraldehyde for odor and for feel have similar characteristics to those for other VOCs. For instance, Cain et al (2005) found the distributions for the odors of ethanol and 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol diisobutyrate (TXIB) for the typical subject (as per Fig. 3, top) to vary over two orders of magnitude, when expressed in terms of concentration necessary to go from weak to strong detection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The variation arises from diVerences in the span of the distributions of sensitivity for the two modalities. For olfaction, the more sensitive modality, the span of concentration between infrequent detection, say 5%, and frequent detection, say 95%, commonly exceeds two orders of magnitude (Cain et al 2005). For chemesthesis, the span may fall below one order of magnitude.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Odor and chemesthesis from exposures to glutaraldehyde vapor

Cain

Schmidt

Jalowayski

2007

Int Arch Occup Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glutaraldehyde has much higher odor potency than previously thought. Its green-apple odor should signal presence of the vapor at levels more than a 100-fold below any that might evoke sensory irritation in brief exposures. Exposures that start decidedly below irritating (100 ppb and below) seem unlikely to turn irritating over time. Although the effects from these concentrations differentiated themselves from those of air and an odor control, they exhibited none of the concentration dependence seen for sensations of feel. They seemed likely driven by the penetrating odor of glutaraldehyde.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Odor and chemesthesis from exposures to glutaraldehyde vapor

Cain

Schmidt

Jalowayski

2007

Int Arch Occup Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of different measures were used in this study. Two of them, the negative mucosal potential, and the ability to specify to which nostril air-phase stimuli are presented, i.e., lateralization, are thought to be dependent upon the trigeminal system (e.g., Cain et al 2005). It was found that normosmics' negative mucosal potential responses to, and intensity judgments of, androstenone were concentration dependent and correlated with the same measures for presentations of the primarily trigeminal stimulus CO 2 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Retronasal and Oral-Cavity-Only Identifications of Air-Phase Trigeminal Stimuli

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral-cavity-only (OCO) identifications of airphase trigeminal stimulus chemicals, i.e., pure chemicals that are often discriminated from their solvents by anosmics and are usually lateralized without sniffing by normosmics, were compared with retronasal identifications made by 20 participants. Participants selected the best possible identification from nine alternatives, but did not respond if they could not provide an identification within the 10-s response interval. It was found that, except for DL-menthol, the frequencies of correct identifications for OCO presentations were significantly different from the frequencies for retronasal presentations. OCO percent correct identifications were: eugenol 7%, heptyl alcohol 5%, nonanal 10%, 1-octanal 18%, and valeric acid 20%, but 58% correct for DL-menthol. Median percent correct OCO identifications were all 0% except 67% for DL-menthol. Modal OCO identification responses were 'no response', except "peppermint" for DL-menthol. In contrast, retronasal overall percent correct identifications, median percent correct identifications, and modal identifications were: eugenol 78%, 100%, "cloves"; heptyl alcohol 49%, 67%, "cleaner"; nonanal 54%, 58%, "citrus"; 1-octanal 71%, 67%, "cleaner"; DL-menthol 80%, 100%, "peppermint"; valeric acid 66%, 67%, "rancid". One implication of the differences between OCO and retronasal responses is that, for many trigeminal stimuli at retronasal-effective concentrations, responses from the oral cavity trigeminal sensory system are not sufficient for identification, suggesting that the oral cavity trigeminal system may be different from and generally provides less differential information than the nasal cavity one. However, because DL-menthol received consistent oral cavity identifications comparable to retronasal identifications, this ten-carbon alcohol may represent a unique class of trigeminal stimuli. Abbreviations ANOVA Analysis of variance dfDegrees of freedom ID Identification OCOOral-cavity-only ODC Odorant delivery container SIR Semi-interquartile range TRPM8 Transient receptor potential melastatine family 8

show abstract

“…6 Olfactory detection of TXIB began at concentrations below 1 ppb, with 50% correct detection at 1.2 ppb (comparable detection for ethanol occurred at almost two orders of magnitude higher.) 6 Chemesthetic detection of TXIB began at about 500 ppb, with 50% correct detection at 2.1 ppm for the eye and 4.6 ppm for the nose, both close to saturated vapor concentration (comparable detection for ethanol occurred essentially three orders of magnitude higher.) 6 This shows that plasticizers can be detected by olfactory and chemesthetic detection at very low concentrations.…”

Section: Effect Of Additivesmentioning

confidence: 98%