Perceptual and Psychophysiological Responses of Non-smokers to a Range of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Concentrations

Abstract

To estimate the perceptual, psychophysiological and cognitive impact of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) on non‐smokers, seventeen male never‐smokers, ages 21–33, were exposed to five concentrations yielding mean ETS‐respirable suspended particles (RSP) levels of 58, 113, 217, 368, and 765 μg/m3. During each 90‐minute session, four smokers were seated behind a partition and smoked, when cued, to generate 70‐minute exposures. For control exposures, smokers “puffed” on unlit cigarettes. Odor Strength, Annoyance, Overall Acceptance and Eye Irritation at the lowest level were significantly different from control values and the degree of change generally increased monotonically with ETS level. Fatigue was not affected by any ETS level. Odor Strength (rated highest of all attributes at all levels) at the 217 μg/m3 ETS‐RSP level was 12.5% of the maximum odor intensity experienced prior to the study. No effect of ETS on information processing was observed. Psychological state and eye blink rate were affected at only the 765 μg/m3 ETS‐RSP level. During times when the participants were not completing a questionnaire or test, all ETS levels resulted in a 5–8% decrease in respiratory rate, due largely to an increase in expiratory duration, but no change in minute ventilation. The breathing changes may represent a psychophysiological response mediated by the olfactory system. Non‐smokers are aware of ETS at ETS‐RSP concentrations as low as 58 μg/m3 (˜80‐fold higher than the level typical of current U.S. workplace environments where smoking is permitted) but its sensory impact remains relatively small until ETS‐RSP concentrations above 217 μg/m3 are encountered.

An international survey of indoor air quality, ventilation, and smoking activity in restaurants: a pilot study

“…At a given ETS level, smokers tend to give higher acceptability ratings than nonsmokers. Among nonsmokers, 80% acceptability of air quality is generally achieved at ETS levels corresponding to an ETS-RSP concentration range of 60-100 mg/m 3 (Walker et al, 1997). The acceptance rate observed in this study is indeed substantially higher than what would have been predicted from the results of the above studies, including the most recent by Walker et al (1997).…”

“…Subjective responses from smokers and nonsmokers for spaces containing ETS have been investigated in experimental settings (Cain et al, 1983(Cain et al, , 1987Leaderer et al, 1984;Clausen et al, 1987;Gunnarsen and Fanger 1991;Straub et al, 1992;Walker et al, 1997). At a given ETS level, smokers tend to give higher acceptability ratings than nonsmokers.…”

Eye irritation and environmental factors in the office environment-hypotheses, causes and a physiological model

“…An increase in blink frequency may also be stimulated by ocular discomfort, as experienced by dry eye patients and people exposed to tobacco smoke, including side-stream tobacco smoke (22,62). The increase possibly occurs to maximize tear supply and clearance (15,41).…”

“…Eye irritation has been defined as "the magnitude of any stinging, scratching, burning, or other irritating sensation from the eye [p 188]" (22). Many other vague symptoms and signs of irritation and tiredness have been used in questionnaires.…”

Chemical Sensing in Humans and Machines

“…Since exposures in chambers can last for hours, they possess a clear advantage over other strategies when studying the effect of time of stimulation on chemosensory perception. Studies performed in environmental chambers have explored, among others, sensory responses to environmental tobacco smoke [76,[86][87][88][89], body odor [90], volatile organic compounds [91][92][93][94][95][96], fragrance materials in air fresheners [97], and formaldehyde (a substance off-gassing from certain home-insulation materials) [98].…”