Self-reported Illness from Chemical Odors in Young Adults without Clinical Syndromes or Occupational Exposures

Abstract

The present survey of young adult college students investigated the prevalence of self-reported illness from the smell of the five following common environmental chemicals (cacosmia): (1) pesticide, (2) automobile exhaust, (3) paint, (4) new carpet, and (5) perfume. Sixty-six percent of 643 students reported feeling ill from one or more of the five chemicals; 15% identified the smell of at least four chemicals as making them ill. Ratings of illness from pesticide correlated weakly but significantly with ratings for the largest number of individual symptoms (9 of 11); daytime tiredness and daytime grogginess both correlated at high levels of significance with illness ratings (on a 5-point scale) for four of the five chemicals. The most cacosmic group (CS) included significantly more women (79%) than the noncacosmic group (NS) (49%); women overall were more cacosmic than men (p < .001), even with the significant covariate of depression. Ratings of cacosmia correlated only weakly with scores for depression (r = 0.16), anxiety (r = 0.08), and trait shyness (r = 0.18) in the total sample. On stepwise multiple regression with cacosmia score as the dependent measure, shyness accounted for 5.8% of the variance, while depression, anxiety, sense of mastery, and repression did not enter the equation. Histories of physician-diagnosed hay fever, but not asthma, were more frequent in the CS (16%) than in the NS group (5%). Without the confounds of chronic illness or specific treatment programs, these data are similar to patterns described clinically for a subset of patients with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), including previous data on increased nasal resistance in MCS.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A review of a two-phase population study of multiple chemical sensitivities.

“…Two subsequent studies also used subjects from specialized subgroups: one sample group was composed of 809 young adult college students (Bell et al 1993) and one group comprised 160 elderly persons (Bell et al 1997), both in Arizona. In these studies (Bell et al 1993(Bell et al , 1997, approximately 15% of the younger sample and more than 37% of the elderly group reported a hypersensitivity.…”

Multiple chemical sensitivity and idiopathic environmental intolerance (part one)

“…Bell et al (14) found that 66% of college students reported illness from at least one of five listed chemicals (pesticides, auto exhaust, paint, new carpets, and perfume), and 15% from at least four of the chemicals, and also up to 30% of the general population report milder forms of chemical intolerance, without disability (83). Meggs et al (11) found, in a random household sample of 1,027 people polled in North Carolina, that 33% reported chemical sensitivity, with the major incitants being perfume, pesticides, cigarette smoke, and fresh paint.…”

“…With regard to gender difference, Bell et al (14) stated that females outnumber males as environmental illness patients by a ratio of 2 : 1. Clinical samples studied by some authors (98)(99)(100)(101)(102) were also predominantly women.…”

“…Several prevalence surveys of MCS/IEI-like symptoms have been conducted among samples of the general population (11,12) and college students (14,15). However, no information accompanied these surveys with which to access the sensitivity or specificity of the questionnaires used against definitional criteria for MCS/ IEI.…”

“…In an effort to isolate effects from disability, litigation, and expectation/attribution, Bell et al (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) initiated a series of studies focused on chemical intolerance in high-functioning older and young adults from the community who were not clinically ill. Findings in these preclinical chemical intolerant individuals, who constituted 15-30% of the general population samples, included life histories of medical problems that overlapped with those of MCS/IEI patients (10,17,19), increased trait shyness (14,15,17), objectively lower total sleep times (20), evaluation of plasma beta-endorphins (21), alterations in spectral electroencephalographic patterns during chemical exposure (22) and reduced reaction times on divided-attention tasks (23).…”