Evaluation of the experimental basis for assessment factors to protect individuals with asthma from health effects during short-term exposure to airborne chemicals

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

Assessment factors (AFs) are essential in the derivation of occupational exposure limits (OELs) and indoor air quality guidelines. The factors shall accommodate differences in sensitivity between subgroups, i.e., workers, healthy and sick people, and occupational exposure versus life-long exposure for the general population. Derivation of AFs itself is based on empirical knowledge from human and animal exposure studies with immanent uncertainty in the empirical evidence due to knowledge gaps and experimental reliability. Sensory irritation in the eyes and airways constitute about 30-40% of OELs and is an abundant symptom in non-industrial buildings characterizing the indoor air quality and general health. Intraspecies differences between subgroups of the general population should be quantified for the proposal of more 'empirical' based AFs. In this review, we focus on sensitivity differences in sensory irritation about gender, age, health status, and vulnerability in people, based solely on human exposure studies. Females are more sensitive to sensory irritation than males for few volatile substances. Older people appear less sensitive than younger ones. However, impaired defense mechanisms may increase vulnerability in the long term. Empirical evidence of sensory irritation in children is rare and limited to children down to the age of six years. Studies of the nervous system in children compared to adults suggest a higher sensitivity in children; however, some defense mechanisms are more efficient in children than in adults. Usually, exposure studies are performed with healthy subjects. Exposure studies with sick people are not representative due to the deselection of subjects with moderate or severe eye or airway diseases, which likely underestimates the sensitivity of the group of people with diseases. Psychological characterization like personality factors shows that concentrations of volatile substances far below their sensory irritation thresholds may influence the sensitivity, in part biased by odor perception. Thus, the protection of people with extreme personality traits is not feasible by an AF and other mitigation strategies are required. The available empirical evidence comprising age, lifestyle, and health supports an AF of not greater than up to 2 for sensory irritation. Further, general AFs are discouraged for derivation, rather substance-specific derivation of AFs is recommended based on the risk assessment of empirical data, deposition in the airways depending on the substance's water solubility and compensating for knowledge and experimental gaps. Modeling of sensory irritation would be a better 'empirical' starting point for derivation of AFs for children, older, and sick people, as human exposure studies are not possible (due to ethical reasons) or not generalizable (due to self-selection). Dedicated AFs may be derived for environments where dry air, high room temperature, and visually demanding tasks aggravate the eyes or airways than for places in which the workload is balanced, while indoor playgrounds might need other AFs due to physical workload and affected groups of the general population.

Characterising the ground level concentrations of harmful organic and inorganic substances released during major industrial fires, and implications for human health

We report on the concentration ranges and combustion source-related emission profiles of organic and inorganic species released during 34 major industrial fires in the UK. These episodic events tend to be acute in nature and demand a rapid public health risk assessment to indicate the likely impact on exposed populations. The objective of this paper is to improve our understanding of the nature, composition and potential health impacts of emissions from major incident fires and so support the risk assessment process. Real world monitoring data was obtained from portable Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) monitoring (Gasmet DX-4030/40) carried out as part of the UK's Air Quality in Major Incidents service. The measured substances include carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen bromide, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen cyanide, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethyl benzene, acrolein, phosgene, arsine, phosphine and methyl isocyanate. We evaluate the reported concentrations against Acute Exposure Guideline Values (AEGLs) and Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPGs), as well as against UK, EU and WHO short-term ambient guideline values. Most exceedances of AEGL or ERPG guideline values were at levels likely only to cause discomfort to exposed populations (hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride and formaldehyde), though for several substances the exceedances could have potentially given rise to more serious health effects (acrolein, phosphine, phosgene and methyl isocyanate). In the latter cases, the observed high concentrations are likely to be due to cross-interference from other substances that absorb in the mid-range of the infrared spectrum, particularly when the ground level plume is very concentrated.

Risk assessment for irritating chemicals - Derivation of extrapolation factors

Irritation of the eyes and the upper respiratory tract are important endpoints for setting guide values for chemicals. To optimize the use of the often-limited data, we analysed controlled human exposure studies (CHS) with 1-4 h inhalation of the test substance, repeated dose inhalation studies in rodents, and Alarie-Tests and derived extrapolation factors (EF) for exposure duration, inter- and intraspecies differences. For the endpoint irritating effects in the respiratory tract in rodents, geometric mean (GM) values of 1.9 were obtained for the EF for subacute→subchronic (n = 16), 2.1 for subchronic→chronic (n = 40), and 2.9 for subacute→chronic (n = 10) extrapolation. Based on these data we suggest an EF of 2 for subchronic→chronic and of 4 for subacute→chronic extrapolation. In CHS, exposure concentration determines the effects rather than exposure duration. Slight reversible effects during 4 h exposure indicate that an EF of 1 can be considered for assessing chronic exposures. To assess species extrapolation, 10 chemicals were identified with both, reliable rat inhalation studies and CHS. The GM of the ratio between the No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC) in rats and humans was 2.3 and increased to 3.6 when expanding the dataset to all available EF (n = 25). Based on these analyses, an EF of 3 is suggested to extrapolate from a NOAEC in a chronic rat study to a NOAEC in a CHS. The analysis of EFs for the extrapolation from a 50% decrease in respiratory frequency in the Alarie test in mice (RD₅₀) to a NOAEC in a CHS resulted in a GM of 40, for both, the reliable (n = 11) and the overall dataset (n = 19). We propose to use the RD₅₀ from the Alarie test for setting guide values and to use 40 as EF. Efs for intraspecies differences in the human population must account for susceptible persons, most importantly for persons with chemical intolerance (CI), who show subjective signs of irritation at low concentrations. The limited data available do not justify to deviate from an EF of 10 - 20 as currently used in different regulatory settings.

Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Limonene in the Prevention and Control of Injuries in the Respiratory System: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

The pulmonary inflammatory response results from exposure to injurious factors and is associated with oxidative stress, which intensifies the pathological reaction. In this context, limonene, a monoterpene found in citrus fruits, can be a therapeutic alternative for the treatment of this pathology, as it presents known anti-inflammatory and antioxidant actions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the anti-inflammatory activity of limonene and its capacity to prevent and control respiratory system injuries.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane, Scopus, MEDLINE-PubMed, Web of Science, and Lilacs databases was performed using the keywords: "limonene", "lung", "pulmonary", "airway", "trachea", "lung injury", "respiratory system", "respiratory tract diseases".

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies on the use of limonene in disorders of the respiratory system, published until August 2019, were included. Those that did not use limonene alone or treated lesions in different systems other than the respiratory system, without targeting its anti-inflammatory action were excluded. In addition, review articles, meta-analyses, abstracts, conference papers, editorials/letters and case reports were also excluded.

RESULTS

Of the 561 articles found, 64 were in the Cochrane database, 235 in Scopus, 99 in Web of science, 150 in PubMed and 13 in Lilacs. After completing the systematic steps, 25 articles were selected for full reading, after which 7 papers remained in the review. An article was added after a manual literature search, resulting in a total of 8 papers. There was a high level of agreement on inclusion/exclusion among the researchers who examined the papers (Kappa index > 88%).

CONCLUSION

Limonene has effective anti-inflammatory activity in both preventing and controlling respiratory system injuries.

Pain Perception, Brain Connectivity, and Neurochemistry in Healthy, Capsaicin-Sensitive Subjects

Most of the occupational exposure limits (OELs) are based on local irritants. However, exposure to much lower concentrations of irritant substances can also lead to health complaints from workers. Exposure to irritants is often accompanied by strong unpleasant odors, and strong odors might have distracting effects and hence pose a safety risk. The findings obtained in human exposure studies with chemically sensitive, stressed, or anxious persons suggest that their ability to direct attention away from the odorous exposure and to focus on a cognitive task is reduced. In addition, after repeated odor exposure, these persons show signs of sensitization, i.e., difficulties in ignoring or getting used to the exposure. The question arises as to whether certain health conditions are accompanied by a change in sensitivity to odors and irritants, so that these persons are potentially more distracted by odors and irritants and therefore more challenged in working memory tasks than nonsusceptible persons. In our study, susceptible persons with sensory airway hyperreactivity ("capsaicin-sensitive") respond more strongly to mechanical skin stimuli than controls and show altered network connectivity. Capsaicin-sensitive subjects have a lower pain threshold and thus are more sensitive to mechanical skin stimuli. The intrinsic functional connectivity of their saliency network is higher, and the lower the GABAergic tone of the thalamus, the higher their pain sensitivity to mechanical stimuli. It seems that the increased communication between resting-state networks promotes a stronger perception of the sensory input signal. The results can be used to inform about actual risks (i.e., attention diversion and increased risk of accidents) and "pseudo" risks such as odor perception without a negative impact on one's well-being. This way, uncertainties that still prevail in the health assessment of odorous and sensory irritating chemicals could be reduced.

Discrimination Between Atopic, Allergic, and Asthmatic Volunteers for Human Exposure Studies on Sensory Irritation

Atopic, allergic, and especially asthmatic subjects might be particularly susceptible to sensory irritation induced by airborne chemicals compared to healthy individuals. Therefore, a good characterization of subjects is essential in inhalation exposure studies on sensory irritants. A total of 105 volunteers, 87% of whom reported to be non-allergic, participated in a medical examination that included skin prick test (SPT), measurements of total IgE, specific IgE (sIgE) to an ubiquitous allergen mix (sx1), and fractionated exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), as well as pulmonary function and methacholine test. The median value of sIgE to sx1 was 0.20 kU/L (0.07-91.3 kU/L) and correlated significantly with total IgE (28.8 kU/L (2-756 kU/L)) and FeNO (14 ppb (5-100 ppb)). Forty-three subjects (41%) had sIgE to sx1 ≥ 0.35 kU/L and were classified as atopic. Thirty-five subjects, all also sx1-positive, were positive in SPT. Obstruction, small airway disease, and/or bronchial hyperreactivity were diagnosed in 18 subjects. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were performed to check whether signs of sensitization are useful to discriminate subjects with and without airway diseases. However, sx1, total IgE, FeNO, and SPT reached only low areas under the curve (AUC: 0.57-0.66). Although predominantly young and, according to their own statements, mostly non-allergic subjects participated in the study, almost half of them were atopic, and 10% had airway disease or bronchial hyperreactivity. This indicates that the validity of self-reported data might be inaccurate. In summary, diversified investigations of the allergy-related health status appear necessary for a thorough characterization of subjects for exposure studies on sensory irritants.

Are asthmatics more sensitive to irritants?

Asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease characterized by increased airway hyper-responsiveness to external stimuli such as irritants. One may speculate that asthmatics are more sensitive to irritants in the air than healthy subjects, i.e. react at lower concentrations. We reviewed the scientific support for this speculation and investigated to what extent asthma is considered when setting exposure limits and guidance values. We found that the experimental studies comparing healthy and asthmatic subjects are often inconclusive. Still, the available studies are underused, by expert committees and industry alike. Data for a few irritants suggest that asthmatics are up to three-fold more sensitive than the healthy. The most abundant data were found for sulfur dioxide. Here, a benchmark concentration analysis suggests a nine-fold difference in sensitivity. Based on these data a default assessment factor of 10 is suggested when setting exposure limits and guidance values for irritants.

Comparison of airway response in naïve and ovalbumin-sensitized mice during short-term inhalation exposure to chlorine

OBJECTIVE

It has been suggested that asthmatics are more susceptible than healthy individuals to airborne irritating chemicals in general. However, there is limited human data available to support this hypothesis due to ethical and practical difficulties. We explored a murine model of ovalbumin (OVA)-induced airway inflammation to study susceptibility during acute exposure to chemicals with chlorine as a model substance.

METHODS

Naïve and OVA sensitized female BALB/c mice were exposed to chlorine at four different concentrations (0, 5, 30 and 80 ppm) for 15 minutes with online recording of the respiratory function by plethysmography. The specific effects on respiratory mechanics, inflammatory cells and inflammatory mediators (cytokines and chemokines) of the airways were measured 24 hours after the chlorine exposure as well as histopathological examination of the lungs.

RESULTS

Similar concentration-dependent reductions in respiratory frequency were seen in the two groups, with a 50% reduction (RD₅₀) slightly above 5 ppm. Decreased body weight 24 hours after exposure to 80 ppm was also observed in both groups. Naïve, but not OVA-sensitized, mice showed increased bronchial reactivity and higher number of neutrophils in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid at 80 ppm.

CONCLUSIONS

The results do not support an increased susceptibility to chlorine among OVA-sensitized mice. This animal model, which represents a phenotype of eosinophilic airway inflammation, seems unsuitable to study susceptibility to inhalation of irritants in relation to asthma.

Does industry take the susceptible subpopulation of asthmatic individuals into consideration when setting derived no-effect levels?

Asthma, a chronic respiratory disease, can be aggravated by exposure to certain chemical irritants. The objectives were first to investigate the extent to which experimental observations on asthmatic subjects are taken into consideration in connection with the registration process under the EU REACH regulation, and second, to determine whether asthmatics are provided adequate protection by the derived no-effect levels (DNELs) for acute inhalation exposure. We identified substances for which experimental data on the pulmonary functions of asthmatics exposed to chemicals under controlled conditions are available. The effect concentrations were then compared with DNELs and other guideline and limit values. As of April 2015, only 2.6% of 269 classified irritants had available experimental data on asthmatics. Fourteen of the 22 identified substances with available data were fully registered under REACH and we retrieved 114 reliable studies related to these. Sixty-three of these studies, involving nine of the 14 substances, were cited by the REACH registrants. However, only 17 of the 114 studies, involving four substances, were regarded as key studies. Furthermore, many of the DNELs for acute inhalation were higher than estimated effect levels for asthmatics, i.e., lowest observed adverse effect concentrations or no-observed adverse effect concentrations, indicating low or no safety margin. We conclude that REACH registrants tend to disregard findings on asthmatics when deriving these DNELs. In addition, we found examples of DNELs, particularly among those derived for workers, which likely do not provide adequate protection for asthmatics. Copyright © 2016 The Authors Journal of Applied Toxicology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.