Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25182421›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2014

Sensory irritation as a basis for setting occupational exposure limits.

Thomas Brüning, Rüdiger Bartsch, Hermann Maximillian Bolt, Herbert Desel, Hans Drexler, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Andrea Hartwig, Rudolf Jäckh, Edgar Leibold, Dirk Pallapies and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 143 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Chemosensory tobacco product toxicology part 1: sensory mechanisms.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Formaldehyde and asthma: a plausibility?Archives of toxicology · 2025
    Review
  7. The MAK collection for occupational health and safety · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The MAK collection for occupational health and safety · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Examining the Influence of Chemosensation on Laryngeal Health and Disorders.Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Naphthalene: irritative and inflammatory effects on the airways.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Electronic Cigarette Liquid Constituents Induce Nasal and Tracheal Sensory Irritation in Mice in Regionally Dependent Fashion.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas BrüningInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance (IPA), Bochum, Germany, bruening@ipa-dguv.de.
Rüdiger Bartsch
Hermann Maximillian Bolt
Herbert Desel
Hans Drexler
Ursula Gundert-Remy
Andrea Hartwig
Rudolf Jäckh
Edgar Leibold
Dirk Pallapies
Albert W Rettenmeier
Gerhard Schlüter
Gisela Stropp
Kirsten Sucker
Gerhard Triebig
Götz Westphal
Christoph van Thriel
Ruhr University Bochum · DEBASF (Germany) · DEInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine · DEBayer (Germany) · DEFederal Institute for Risk Assessment · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEHeidelberg University · DEInstitut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie · DEKarlsruhe Institute of Technology · DELeibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors · DETechnical University of Munich · DETU Dortmund University · DEUniversity of Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a need of guidance on how local irritancy data should be incorporated into risk assessment procedures, particularly with respect to the derivation of occupational exposure limits (OELs). Therefore, a board of experts from German committees in charge of the derivation of OELs discussed the major challenges of this particular end point for regulatory toxicology. As a result, this overview deals with the question of integrating results of local toxicity at the eyes and the upper respiratory tract (URT). Part 1 describes the morphology and physiology of the relevant target sites, i.e., the outer eye, nasal cavity, and larynx/pharynx in humans. Special emphasis is placed on sensory innervation, species differences between humans and rodents, and possible effects of obnoxious odor in humans. Based on this physiological basis, Part 2 describes a conceptual model for the causation of adverse health effects at these targets that is composed of two pathways. The first, "sensory irritation" pathway is initiated by the interaction of local irritants with receptors of the nervous system (e.g., trigeminal nerve endings) and a downstream cascade of reflexes and defense mechanisms (e.g., eyeblinks, coughing). While the first stages of this pathway are thought to be completely reversible, high or prolonged exposure can lead to neurogenic inflammation and subsequently tissue damage. The second, "tissue irritation" pathway starts with the interaction of the local irritant with the epithelial cell layers of the eyes and the URT. Adaptive changes are the first response on that pathway followed by inflammation and irreversible damages. Regardless of these initial steps, at high concentrations and prolonged exposures, the two pathways converge to the adverse effect of morphologically and biochemically ascertainable changes. Experimental exposure studies with human volunteers provide the empirical basis for effects along the sensory irritation pathway and thus, "sensory NOAEChuman" can be derived. In contrast, inhalation studies with rodents investigate the second pathway that yields an "irritative NOAECanimal." Usually the data for both pathways is not available and extrapolation across species is necessary. Part 3 comprises an empirical approach for the derivation of a default factor for interspecies differences. Therefore, from those substances under discussion in German scientific and regulatory bodies, 19 substances were identified known to be human irritants with available human and animal data. The evaluation started with three substances: ethyl acrylate, formaldehyde, and methyl methacrylate. For these substances, appropriate chronic animal and a controlled human exposure studies were available. The comparison of the sensory NOAEChuman with the irritative NOAECanimal (chronic) resulted in an interspecies extrapolation factor (iEF) of 3 for extrapolating animal data concerning local sensory irritating effects. The adequacy of this iEF was confirmed by its application to additional substances with lower data density (acetaldehyde, ammonia, n-butyl acetate, hydrogen sulfide, and 2-ethylhexanol). Thus, extrapolating from animal studies, an iEF of 3 should be applied for local sensory irritants without reliable human data, unless individual data argue for a substance-specific approach.

Indexed as

Air Pollutants, OccupationalEyeHumansIrritantsNo-Observed-Adverse-Effect LevelOccupational ExposureRespiratory SystemRisk AssessmentSensory ThresholdsSolubilityThreshold Limit ValuesAir Pollutants, OccupationalIrritants

Identifiers

PMID25182421
PMCPMC4161939
OpenAlexW2050592534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.