Cargando…
Physiologic and Symptomatic Responses to Low-Level Substances in Individuals with and without Chemical Sensitivities: A Randomized Controlled Blinded Pilot Booth Study
We conducted a pilot study using a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled exposure among 10 individuals with and 7 without reported chemical sensitivities in a dedicated testing chamber. Objectives of the study were to explore the length of the adaptation period to obtain stable readings, eval...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
2005
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16140624 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.7198 |
Sumario: | We conducted a pilot study using a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled exposure among 10 individuals with and 7 without reported chemical sensitivities in a dedicated testing chamber. Objectives of the study were to explore the length of the adaptation period to obtain stable readings, evaluate responses to different substances, and measure the level and type of symptomatic and physiologic reactions to low-level exposures. Reported and observed symptoms, electrodermal response, heart rate, skin temperature, surface electromyogram, respiratory rate, contrast sensitivity, and the Brown-Peterson cognitive test were used and compared between cases and controls and between test substances (glue, body wash solution, dryer sheet) and control substances (unscented shampoo and clean air). Subjects with chemical sensitivities (cases) took longer to adapt to baseline protocols than did controls. After adaptation, despite small study numbers, cases displayed statistically significant responses (all measures, p < 0.02) in tonic electrodermal response to test substances compared with controls and compared with the control substance. Symptoms were also higher in cases than in controls for the body wash solution (p = 0.05) and dryer sheets (p = 0.02). Test–retest showed good agreement for both symptoms and tonic electrodermal responses (McNemar’s test, p = 0.32 and p = 0.33, respectively). Outside of skin conductance, other measures had no consistent patterns between test and control substances and between cases and controls. This study shows the importance of using an adaptation period in testing individuals with reported chemical sensitivities and, despite small numbers, raises questions about underlying mechanisms and level of reactivity to low-level chemical exposures in sensitive individuals. |
---|