[ Previous ] [ Next ]

RECENT FINDINGS  -   Fragrances,  Air Fresheners,  Gasoline,  Carpets.

                *Anderson R.C. and Anderson J.H.  Acute Toxic Effects of Fragrance Products.  Anderson Laboratories, West Harford, Vermont, USA.  Archives of Envir Health.  53(2): 138-146, 1998. 

Assessed ability of fragrance products to cause acute toxic effects in mammals using std ASTM-E-981 toxicological method to determine lung and sensory irritation.  Mice are much less sensitive than most humans so little chance of false positives. FOB neurobehavioural screening tool also used.  Confounding factors like viral or bacterial infections ruled out.  Five fragrance products were tested on 186 groups of mice, with 21 sham tests on unexposed control groups.  Zero grade medical air blown in to establish baseline control.  Then a small vial of cotton-tipped fragrance-sprayed applicators opened.  15 minutes recovery given after 1 hour exposure.  Testing over 3 yrs in 2 different labs.  Found “statistically significant acute toxic effects for sensory and pulmonary irritation, airflow limitation, and/or neurotoxicity for each product,  often at lowest dose tested.  As opposed to the shams, breathing immediately became abnormal - breathing gradually returned to normal when exposure ceased.  Neurological effects evaluated 15 mins after exposure ceased -  83 shams scored 4.6; some fragrance mice scored in excess of 100.  Abnormal responses included: altered posture, gait, muscle tone, tremors, abnormal repetitive movements, severe lip smacking, eye, ear, tail twitching, rapid circling oblivious to other mice, increased response to stimuli, abnormal reflexes and grip, balance problems.  Many statistically significant.  Some developed facial swelling, hair erection, localised cyanosis (dark discolouration of skin from reduced haemoglobin)  - might be significant for possible disruption of porphyrin metabolism/ disrupted heme leading to reduced haemoglobin, severe lacrimation, protruding eyeballs, paralysis of 1-2 limbs, coma, convulsions, death.  Five fragrance mice died  (mechanism unclear), no sham-exposed died.  Repeat exposures (2/day for 2 days) produced no increase in shams’ symptoms  but increased neurotoxicity in the fragrance mice - perhaps some “increasing sensitivity to the fragrance product emissions, perhaps even time-dependant sensitization.”  “We believe that these behavioural changes reflected toxicity in selected areas of the nervous system, rather than nonspecific effects (eg general anesthesia)...because some functions were unchanged”.  Inhalation excitotoxicity, or excess excitatory neurotransmitter firing from chemical stimulation of the olfactory nerves can cause specific neurologic effects, and even convulsions.  Other studies have shown induced airflow limitation in asthmatic humans exposed to spray colognes, scent-strips and perfumed magazines.  Highly irritant limolene was found on analysis.

AIR FRESHENERS

                *Anderson R C, Anderson J H. Toxic Effects of Air Freshener Emissions.  Archives of Environmental Health 52(6): 433-441 (1997).  Reported in Our Toxic Times  July 1998  by Cindy Duehring.  Air “fresheners” do much the opposite by releasing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and adding to the indoor air pollution. This study used the ASTM-E-981 and FOB to assess sensory, pulmonary and neurological function changes in mice.  Used a brand often complained of.  One hour exposure to common air freshener  levels caused increases in sensory and pulmonary irritation, airflow velocity decreases (bronchoconstriction, asthma-like), and behavioural abnormalities consistent with neurologic impairment.  Some mice died.  The adverse effects were not found in the sham exposure (control) mice and none of these died.  After air freshener fumes were introduced, the respiratory rate changed and dropped as much as 50% within 10 minutes.  It returned rapidly towards baseline when exposure ceased and pure zero grade air was reintroduced.  Other tests involved air from a ‘room with a small air quality problem’, and a small amount of fresh latex paint.  In both tests they greatly increased the total VOCs.  The neurotoxicity was especially increased to severe levels in the ‘room’ test which would approximate exposure in a small kitchen.  The mouse to human applicability for sensory and pulmonary irritation is well-established.  Analysis of the VOCs in the test air found toluene,  limonene (can cause symptoms affecting the eye, skin, stomach, lung, and brain including dizziness, inco-ordination, convulsions, and death), pinene, sabinene, phellandrene, methoxybenzaldehyde, dihydrobenzofuran, terpinolene, ocimene, terpinene, butanoic acid, thujene, and methyl formamide.  The MSDS lists its health hazards: 2 on a scale of 1-4  (4 worst),  and recommends a NIOSH approved respirator  “if the vapour concentration is high due to heat”.  High vapour “may cause headache, nervousness, dizziness, tremours, fatigue, nausea, narcosis”.  Use of air fresheners in confined spaces like elevators could well give possible high vapour concentrations.

                Note:  Formaldehyde and phenol are also components of air fresheners most of which “interfere with your ability to smell by coating your nasal passages with an oil film or by releasing a deadening nerve agent”. (Richard Alexander,  Top “10” Hazardous Household Chemicals,  <http://wwwconsumerlawpage.com/article/household-chemicals.shtml> 

GASOLINE

                *Davidoff A L, Keyl P M, Meggs W.  Development of Multiple Chemical Sensitivities in Laborers after Acute Gasoline Fume Exposure in an Underground Tunnelling Operation.  Arch Envir Health  53(3): 183-189  (1998).  Reported by Cindy Duerhing in OTT,  Nov 1998,  pp13-14. 

Seventy-seven tunnel workers were chronically exposed for 2 mnths to gasoline fumes including benzene while excavating.  30 workers were randomly chosen and compared with a random sample of 30 from the general population and a reference group of others with MCSS.  Initial symptoms: nausea, headache, throat irritation, eye irritation, cough consistent with exposure levels between 150ppm and 500ppm.  10-13 mnths after the incident, chronic health complaints were still present for some - 26.7% reported the new onset of chemical hypersensitivities and other characteristics that fit the conservative criteria for MCSS. Relatively naive, low socioeconomic non-litigious laborers reported: CNS system, musculoskeletal symptoms, lower respiratory and gastrointestinal problems. All groups reported some chemical sensitivities including 33% of the general population group.  60.7% of the gasoline group had sensitivities before the exposure but an additional 33% reported new or intensified sensitivities.  This was not a group of disgruntled workers or housewives with mass hysteria.  In this well-documented exposure none of the workers (all males) had previously complained of MCSS;  none had been seen by clinical ecologists or were members of support groups.  When interviewed, all the workers were seeking work or were gainfully employed.  Routine assays showed no differentiating abnormalities.

CARPETS

                *Cindy Duehring.  Carpet Toxicity Associated with MCS and Chronic Illness in Humans.  EARN  Profile. Vol  9, No 1.  (Reported in Our Toxic Times, Feb 1999. From JA Anderson’s Reactions to Carpet Emissions in Journal of Nutritional and Envir Med 7, 177-185, 1997.) 

Synthetic carpets emit more than 200 chemicals.  Anderson Lab researchers questioned 110 families with a carpet which showed positive test results for toxicity.  Their symptoms were diverse and overlapped  MCS.  Fatigue 85%;  pain in trunk or limbs 73%;  CNS - concentration/memory 72%;  skin rash/hair loss 45%;  tremors 40%;  irregular heartbeat 37%;  swollen glands 21%;  diarrhoea 29%;  blurred vision 47%; 

paralysis 9%;  convulsions 3%;   respiratory 65%;  headache 60%;  weakness 51%;  ENT 85%....

82% had developed symptoms within 3 mnths.  “The mechanism appears to involve acute toxicity (rather than allergic mediators) because they can be demonstrated within 60 minutes of the first exposure of naive mice to these carpet emissions”  in the lab.  The lab testing involved computer analysis and observation of mice behaviour. On video, showed many cases of abnormal movements eg rapid continuous circling, twitching, paralysis, coma/convulsions.  Some carpets killed none, some killed all four mice.  The sensory and pulmonary irritation, nervous system effects, and muscle weakness  correlated well with corresponding effects in humans.  In general, symptoms clearly decreased away from the exposure.  Odour is not a reliable guide to presence of toxins. 

Another study found similar symptoms in Swedish teachers in schools with wall-to-wall carpet compared with hardwood floors, including increased conjunctival irritation, swollen eyelids, facial rash, headache, and unusual fatigue.  When teachers moved to non-carpeted schools symptoms decreased.  Other studies have linked carpet exposure with oral pharyngeal cancers and lymphocytic leukemia in carpet installers/workers.

MCSS  and  TILT       

                The first overview of environmental illness was written in Italy in 1700.  Bernardino Ramazzini, the father of industrial medicine, examined 42 occupations in a Treatise on the Diseases of Tradesmen, (including painters).  More extensive knowledge of the effects of solvents picked up in the 1970s.  Several papers in the 1960’s noted the relatively strong irritant and/or toxic properties of glutaraldehyde used as a sterilant[1] with concern gradually increasing.  Research on the effects of chemicals in X-ray  goes back to work on glutaraldehyde begun by Dr Robert Zach in the USA in the late 1970s and the wider campaign about all the X-ray chemicals begun by Marjorie Gordon,  (who gave the name Darkroom Disease in 1984), and The Society of Radiographers  (UK)  subsequently.  See also the SNFTAAS  Bibliography:  http://nile1.northland.ac.nz/~Foot/snftaas/snftaas.html            or at            http://ncchem.com

                Many of the effects of  glutaraldehyde,  formaldehyde and  solvents on sensitised individuals are the same,  and with the finding of  the solvents toluene and benzene in Xray chemistry, and the presence of the anaesthetic solvents in theatres,  the  SNFTAAS  network aims to support anyone exposed to any of these chemicals. Once sensitised,  many  glutaraldehyde /formaldehyde /solvent sensitised  people cross-react to an enormous range of chemicals and products used in modern living and based hugely on the petro-chemical industry.

                With solvent exposure, it is apparent that  "people are being affected ...  at levels below the WES"..[2]  The same applies to glutaraldehyde[3]  and formaldehyde: “..some especially sensitive people are likely to be affected by volatile organic compounds  [VOCs]  below the threshold of discomfort for the general population......Many of these volatiles are known irritants and intoxicants and include xylene and toluene from paint, formaldehyde from particle board and ketones from lacquers  and adhesives.”[4]A clue that an ingredient may be a petro-chemical is the “prop” prefix.

OTHER “FLATTENERS”:  Organic solvents: new copiers, computers and printers which off-gas organics from plastic casings and other construction components (hydrocarbons and VOCs - these emissions are believed to decrease over time to negligible levels), ‘Twink’, spirit pens, printing inks eg photocopier ink with benzene/toluene, new magazines, fresh newspaper; dry cleaning  - anything with these solvents  including  pesticides;  alcohol  (the first stage of the metabolism of alcohol in the liver is into an aldehyde - acetaldehyde; perfumes are mainly alcohol);  chlorine;  some  food preservatives,  are some of the other things which  “flatten” sensitised people.  Wines and many other foods eg sausages, may contain  sulphur dioxide as a preservative.  Similarly  many manufactured foods contain  additives eg  TBHA (tert-butylhydroquinone),  BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene), and acetic acid.  Minute quantities of such substances may affect those already  'primed'.  (See also the list of  aldehyde-containing products  p 13.)          

“THE COLLATED EVIDENCE SUGGESTS MCS DOES EXIST”

                Independent, London, 14 March 1999:  “A report commissioned by the British Health and Safety Executive has concluded that [MCS]  does exist and could be caused by chemicals affecting part of the brain. The study, carried out by the Institute of Occupational Medicine and endorsed by the Department of Health, also links MCS with other unexplained 20th-century illnesses, such as chronic fatigue syndrome and ME.” 

                Thousands of victims of a syndrome known as “Chemical Aids” are set to claim millions of pounds in compensation after winning a long battle for their condition to be officially recognised. Until now, successive governments have refused to acknowledge the existence of multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), caused by chemical poisoning, which experts claim is experienced by as many as one person in 10.

                Sufferers develop allergic reactions after being exposed to products including pesticides and wood treatments. The chemicals can cause blackouts, memory loss and vomiting when those affected subsequently come into contact with ordinary domestic products, such as hairsprays or washing powder. Several studies have dismissed the disorder as psychological and have linked it with child abuse. Campaigners say victims now plan to sue companies including Monsanto and Zeneca, which they blame for not giving adequate warning of possible side-effects from the toxic chemicals they use to produce pesticides and insecticides. They believe that manufacturers should be forced to seek safer alternatives to substances such as lindane, which has been blamed for many cases of MCS.

                Margaret Anderson, a victim, says lindane is responsible for ruining her life. The retired civil servant has suffered from an irregular heartbeat and muscle spasms since her neighbours in Ludlow, Shropshire, had their house treated with the chemical nearly eight years ago.  Miss Anderson now suffers an allergic reaction if she drinks coffee or smells diesel fumes. “When they treated the house I was gasping and choking and my doctor referred me to the Birmingham Poisons Unit. Then I found out that I reacted if I had a glass of wine or touched washing powder,” she said. “My social life has been reduced by half and I have to avoid  hospitals like the plague because of the chemicals that they use. Doctors are not trained to deal with this and most women just get shunted on to hormone replacement therapy. This report is a step forward because it recognises there is a problem for the first time.”[5]

[ Previous ] [ Next ]