ArticleSafety and health at work2011
Odor thresholds and breathing changes of human volunteers as consequences of sulphur dioxide exposure considering individual factors.
Article in Safety and health at work, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observations of Nocturnal Sulfuric Acid Formation in Pittsburgh, PA.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Toxic Effects of Sulfur Dioxide: A Review.Toxics · 2026Review
- Exposure limits for indoor volatile substances concerning the general population: The role of population-based differences in sensory irritation of the eyes and airways for assessment factors.Archives of toxicology · 2024Review
- Sensory irritation as a basis for setting occupational exposure limits.Archives of toxicology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThough sulfur dioxide (SO(2)) is used widely at workplaces, itseffects on humans are not known. Thresholds are reported without reference to gender or age and occupational exposure limits are basedon effects on lung functioning,although localized effects in the upper airways can be expected.This study's aim is to determine thresholds with respect to age and gender and suggests a new approach to risk assessment using breathing reflexes presumably triggered by trigeminal receptors in the upper airways.
methodsOdor thresholds were determined by the ascending method of limits in groups stratified by age and gender.Subjects rated intensities of different olfactory and trigeminal perceptions at different concentrations of SO(2). During the presentation of the concentrations, breathing movements were measured by respiratory inductive plethysmography.
resultsNeither age nor gender effects were observed for odor threshold. Only ratings of nasal irritation were influenced bygender. A benchmark dose analysis on relative respiratory depth revealed a 10%-deviation from baseline at about 25.27 mg/m(3).
conclusionThe proposed new approach to risk assessment appearsto be sustainable. We discuss whether a 10%-deviation of breathingdepth is relevant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.