Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32185413›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2020

A short-term inhalation study to assess the reversibility of sensory irritation in human volunteers.

Stefan Kleinbeck, Michael Schäper, Marlene Pacharra, Marie Louise Lehmann, Klaus Golka, Meinolf Blaszkewicz, Thomas Brüning, Christoph van Thriel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 56% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Formaldehyde and asthma: a plausibility?Archives of toxicology · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Stefan KleinbeckLeibniz Research Center for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund University, Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany. kleinbeck@ifado.de.
Michael SchäperLeibniz Research Center for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund University, Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany.
Marlene PacharraLeibniz Research Center for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund University, Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany.
Marie Louise LehmannLeibniz Research Center for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund University, Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany.
Klaus GolkaLeibniz Research Center for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund University, Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany.
Meinolf BlaszkewiczLeibniz Research Center for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund University, Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany.
Thomas BrüningResearch Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bürkle de la Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany.
Christoph van ThrielLeibniz Research Center for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund University, Ardeystr. 67, 44139, Dortmund, Germany.
TU Dortmund University · DELeibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors · DEInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine · DEMSH Medical School Hamburg – University of Applied Sciences and Medical University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensory irritation is an acute adverse effect caused by chemicals that stimulate chemoreceptors of the upper respiratory tract or the mucous membranes of the outer eye. The avoidance of this end point is of uttermost importance in regulatory toxicology. In this study, repeated exposures to ethyl acrylate were analyzed to investigate possible carryover effects from day to day for different markers of sensory irritation. Thirty healthy subjects were exposed for 4 h on five subsequent days to ethyl acrylate at concentrations permitted by the German occupational exposure limit at the time of study. Ratings of eye irritation as well as eye blinking frequencies indicate the elicitation of sensory irritation. These markers of sensory irritation showed a distinct time course on every single day. However, cumulative carryover effects could not be identified across the week for any marker. The rhinological and biochemical markers could not reveal hints for more pronounced sensory irritation. Neither increased markers of neurogenic inflammation nor markers of immune response could be identified. Furthermore, the performance on neurobehavioral tests was not affected by ethyl acrylate and despite the strong odor of ethyl acrylate the participants improved their performances from day to day. While the affected physiological marker, the increased eye blinking frequency stays roughly on the same level across the week, subjective markers like perception of eye irritation decrease slightly from day to day though the temporal pattern of, i.e., eye irritation perception stays the same on each day. A hypothetical model of eye irritation time course derived from PK/PD modeling of the rabbit eye could explain the within-day time course of eye irritation ratings repeatedly found in this study more precisely.

Indexed as

IrritantsAcrylatesAdministration, InhalationAdultAir Pollutants, OccupationalAnimalsEyeFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansInhalation ExposureMaleOccupational ExposureOdorantsRabbitsSensory ThresholdsAcrylatesAir Pollutants, Occupationalethyl acrylateIrritants5-Day controlled exposure studyBiochemical markers of neurogenic inflammationEthyl acrylateEye blinking frequenciesObjective measures of irritationPerceptual ratingsSensory irritation

Identifiers

PMID32185413
PMCPMC7261732
OpenAlexW3010870918

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.