I have seen Dale Archer's reply. It seems to me that overlaying one
chemical interaction with a biological receptor with another (the air
freshener) is a bad solution on principle. If the air freshener
interacts with one receptor to create a pleasant sensation, it can
equally act as a perperipheral sensory irritant and interact with a
receptor to create an unpleasant sensation (or exacerbate a pre-existing
condition). Respiratory irritation is the logical conclusion when the
chemical is put into the air. Better by far to ventilate properly!
Frying pans and fires seem to be appropriate phrases here.
Paul Illing
Occupational Health Toxicologist
Hon Lect. COEH, Univ Manchester
In message <003401c0cf10$d2c31300$140efea9@computer>, bcb56
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>From: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>> Does anyone have any experience of automatic air fresheners? These are the
>devices found in >toilets and increasingly around hospitals which
>automatically dose the air with a jet of air freshener >at regular time
>periods.
>
>They are triggers for asthma and potentially very harmful. And they can dose
>an individual with fragrance if they happen to spray when someone is in the
>restroom. If this person is one that is very sensitive to fragrances, it
>could be very serious.
>
>Several studies address effects of air fresheners. The study by Anderson, et
>al studies the toxic effects on mice inhaling air freshener emissions. An
>abstract is available on Medline.
> Anderson RC, Anderson JH. Related Articles
> Toxic effects of air freshener emissions.
> Arch Environ Health. 1997 Nov-Dec;52(6):433-41.
> PMID: 9541364 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
>ds=9541364&dopt=Abstract
>
>There are several other studies by Anderson, et al that may be of interest.
>One examines toxic effects of fragrances, another the emissions from
>bedding, and another the emissions from baby diapers. They can be obtained
>from a really neat site: http://www.findarticles.com
>
>http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0907/n2_v53/20596015/print.jhtml
>http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0907/3_54/55214783/print.jhtml
>http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0907/5_54/57872310/print.jhtml
>
>
>Wainman, et al looks at the formation of submicron particles in indoor air
>from the interaction of limonene (a common substance in air fresheners) and
>ozone. An abstract is available both from Medline and Environmental Health
>Perspectives. EHP is a US government publication so the article can be used
>freely as long as proper credit is given. If anyone needs an electronic copy
>of it, please let me know.
>
>Wainman T, Zhang J, Weschler CJ, Lioy PJ. Related Articles
>Ozone and limonene in indoor air: a source of submicron particle exposure.
>Environ Health Perspect. 2000 Dec;108(12):1139-45.
>PMID: 11133393 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
>ds=11133393&dopt=Abstract
>
>Little information currently exists regarding the occurrence of secondary
>organic aerosol formation in indoor air. Smog chamber studies have
>demonstrated that high aerosol yields result from the reaction of ozone with
>terpenes, both of which commonly occur in indoor air. However, smog chambers
>are typically static systems, whereas indoor environments are dynamic. We
>conducted a series of experiments to investigate the potential for secondary
>aerosol in indoor air as a result of the reaction of ozone with d-limonene,
>a compound commonly used in air fresheners. A dynamic chamber design was
>used in which a smaller chamber was nested inside a larger one, with air
>exchange occurring between the two. The inner chamber was used to represent
>a model indoor environment and was operated at an air exchange rate below 1
>exchange/hr, while the outer chamber was operated at a high air exchange
>rate of approximately 45 exchanges/hr. Limonene was introduced into the
>inner chamber either by the evaporation of reagent-grade d-limonene or by
>inserting a lemon-scented, solid air freshener. A series of ozone injections
>were made into the inner chamber during the course of each experiment, and
>an optical particle counter was used to measure the particle concentration.
>Measurable particle formation and growth occurred almost exclusively in the
>0.1-0.2 microm and 0.2-0.3 microm size fractions in all of the experiments.
>Particle formation in the 0.1-0.2 microm size range occurred as soon as
>ozone was introduced, but the formation of particles in the 0.2-0.3 microm
>size range did not occur until at least the second ozone injection occurred.
>The results of this study show a clear potential for significant particle
>concentrations to be produced in indoor environments as a result of
>secondary particle formation via the ozone-limonene reaction. Because people
>spend the majority of their time indoors, secondary particles formed in
>indoor environments may make a significant contribution to overall particle
>exposure. This study provides data for assessing the impact of outdoor ozone
>on indoor particles. This is important to determine the efficacy of the
>mass-based particulate matter standards in protecting public health because
>the indoor secondary particles can vary coincidently with the variations of
>outdoor fine particles in summer.
>
>
>Betty Bridges, RN
>Fragranced Products Information Network
>http://www.ameliaww.com/fpin/fpin.htm
>http://www.fpinva.org
--
Paul Illing
|