OBJECTIVE: Responses to volatile chemicals are often subjective and variable, both over time and across individuals. Although variability can derive from differences in individual olfactory sensitivity, the response to a chemical stimulus is also influenced by the complex environment surrounding the exposure, which can include the perceiver's cognitive state. To explore the role of cognitive bias in chemical exposures, we evaluated whether information about the consequences of exposure to acetone could influence ratings of odor and irritation during exposure and/or the frequency or intensity of reported health symptoms following exposure. METHODS: Ninety adults (mean age 33.7, range 25-64) with no history of occupational exposure to solvents, were exposed to 800 ppm acetone in a chamber for 20 min. To control for non-specific responses to the odor of acetone, the subjects were also exposed for 20 min to 200 ppm phenylethyl alcohol (PEA), a non-irritant volatile chemical that produces a distinct odor but does not elicit irritation in the vapor phase. Subjects were assigned to one of three groups (n = 30/group); each group was given either a positive, negative or neutral bias towards the consequences of exposure to the chemicals in the study. During exposure, subjects rated the intensity of odor and irritation; following exposure, they completed symptom questionnaires. RESULTS: During the 20-min exposure to acetone, the positive bias group exhibited the most adaptation to its odor and the lowest perceived irritation; following exposure they reported the fewest health symptoms. In contrast, the negative bias group rated higher levels of odor intensity and, on average, reported the most over-all irritation; following exposure they reported significantly more health symptoms than the other groups, None of the demographic variables studied (e.g., age, gender, race, smoking status) were predictive of the response to odor or irritation. The perceived irritancy of acetone was well predicted by a linear combination of the perceived odor of acetone and perceived irritation for PEA (the nonirritant), r2 = 0.73. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide strong evidence that both the perceived odor and cognitive expectations about a chemical can significantly affect how individuals respond to it. Moreover, because naive control subjects appear to exhibit extreme variation in their cognitive evaluations of chemical effects, there may be limited value in using non-exposed controls to assess the irritancy of chemicals for worker populations.
OBJECTIVE: Responses to volatile chemicals are often subjective and variable, both over time and across individuals. Although variability can derive from differences in individual olfactory sensitivity, the response to a chemical stimulus is also influenced by the complex environment surrounding the exposure, which can include the perceiver's cognitive state. To explore the role of cognitive bias in chemical exposures, we evaluated whether information about the consequences of exposure to acetone could influence ratings of odor and irritation during exposure and/or the frequency or intensity of reported health symptoms following exposure. METHODS: Ninety adults (mean age 33.7, range 25-64) with no history of occupational exposure to solvents, were exposed to 800 ppm acetone in a chamber for 20 min. To control for non-specific responses to the odor of acetone, the subjects were also exposed for 20 min to 200 ppm phenylethyl alcohol (PEA), a non-irritant volatile chemical that produces a distinct odor but does not elicit irritation in the vapor phase. Subjects were assigned to one of three groups (n = 30/group); each group was given either a positive, negative or neutral bias towards the consequences of exposure to the chemicals in the study. During exposure, subjects rated the intensity of odor and irritation; following exposure, they completed symptom questionnaires. RESULTS: During the 20-min exposure to acetone, the positive bias group exhibited the most adaptation to its odor and the lowest perceived irritation; following exposure they reported the fewest health symptoms. In contrast, the negative bias group rated higher levels of odor intensity and, on average, reported the most over-all irritation; following exposure they reported significantly more health symptoms than the other groups, None of the demographic variables studied (e.g., age, gender, race, smoking status) were predictive of the response to odor or irritation. The perceived irritancy of acetone was well predicted by a linear combination of the perceived odor of acetone and perceived irritation for PEA (the nonirritant), r2 = 0.73. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide strong evidence that both the perceived odor and cognitive expectations about a chemical can significantly affect how individuals respond to it. Moreover, because naive control subjects appear to exhibit extreme variation in their cognitive evaluations of chemical effects, there may be limited value in using non-exposed controls to assess the irritancy of chemicals for worker populations.
Authors: Christoph van Thriel; Michael Schäper; Ernst Kiesswetter; Stefan Kleinbeck; Stephanie Juran; Meinolf Blaszkewicz; Hajo-Hennig Fricke; Lilo Altmann; Hans Berresheim; Thomas Brüning Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2006-01-06 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Sine Skovbjerg; Robert Zachariae; Alice Rasmussen; Jeanne Duus Johansen; Jesper Elberling Journal: Environ Health Prev Med Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 3.674
Authors: Jonas K Olofsson; Robert S Hurley; Nicholas E Bowman; Xiaojun Bao; M-Marsel Mesulam; Jay A Gottfried Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2014-11-05 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: John Gallacher; Karin Bronstering; Stephen Palmer; David Fone; Ronan Lyons Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.710