The respiratory system extends from the breathing zone just outside of the nose and mouth through the conductive airways in the head and thorax to the alveoli, where respiratory gas exchange takes place between the alveoli and the capillary blood flowing around them. Its prime function is to deliver oxygen (O₂) to the gas-exchange region of the lung, where it can diffuse to and through the walls of the alveoli to oxygenate the blood passing through the alveolar capillaries as needed over a wide range of work or activity levels. In addition, the system must also: (1) remove an equal volume of carbon dioxide entering the lungs from the alveolar capillaries; (2) maintain body temperature and water vapour saturation within the lung airways (in order to maintain the viability and functional capacities of the surface fluids and cells); (3) maintain sterility (to prevent infections and their adverse consequences); and (4) eliminate excess surface fluids and debris, such as inhaled particles and senescent phagocytic and epithelial cells. It must accomplish all of these demanding tasks continuously over a lifetime, and do so with high efficiency in terms of performance and energy utilization. The system can be abused and overwhelmed by severe insults such as high concentrations of cigarette smoke and industrial dust, or by low concentrations of specific pathogens which attack or destroy its defence mechanisms, or cause them to malfunction. Its ability to overcome or compensate for such insults as competently as it usually does is a testament to its elegant combination of structure and function.

Mass Transfer

The complex structure and numerous functions of the human respiratory tract have been summarized concisely by a Task Group of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 1994), as shown in figure 1. The conductive airways, also known as the respiratory dead space, occupy about 0.2 litres. They condition the inhaled air and distribute it, by convective (bulk) flow, to the approximately 65,000 respiratory acini leading off the terminal bronchioles. As tidal volumes increase, convective flow dominates gas exchange deeper into the respiratory bronchioles. In any case, within the respiratory acinus, the distance from the convective tidal front to alveolar surfaces is short enough so that efficient CO₂-O₂ exchange takes place by molecular diffusion. By contrast, airborne particles, with diffusion coefficients smaller by orders of magnitude than those for gases, tend to remain suspended in the tidal air, and can be exhaled without deposition.

Figure 1.  Morphometry, cytology, histology, function and structure of the respiratory tract and regions used in the 1994 ICRP dosimetry model.

A significant fraction of the inhaled particles do deposit within the respiratory tract. The mechanisms accounting for particle deposition in the lung airways during the inspiratory phase of a tidal breath are summarized in figure 2. Particles larger than about 2 mm in aerodynamic diameter (diameter of a unit density sphere having the same terminal settling (Stokes) velocity) can have significant momentum and deposit by impaction at the relatively high velocities present in the larger airways. Particles larger than about 1 mm can deposit by sedimentation in the smaller conductive airways, where flow velocities are very low. Finally, particles with diameters between 0.1 and 1 mm, which have a very low probability of depositing during a single tidal breath, can be retained within the approximately 15% of the inspired tidal air that is exchanged with residual lung air during each tidal cycle. This volumetric exchange occurs because of the variable time-constants for airflow in the different segments of the lungs. Due to the much longer residence times of the residual air in the lungs, the low intrinsic particle displacements of 0.1 to 1 mm particles within such trapped volumes of inhaled tidal air become sufficient to cause their deposition by sedimentation and/or diffusion over the course of successive breaths.

Figure 2. Mechanisms for particle deposition in lung airways

The essentially particle-free residual lung air that accounts for about 15% of the expiratory tidal flow tends to act like a clean-air sheath around the axial core of distally moving tidal air, such that particle deposition in the respiratory acinus is concentrated on interior surfaces such as airway bifurcations, while interbranch airway walls have little deposition.

The number of particles deposited and their distribution along the respiratory tract surfaces are, along with the toxic properties of the material deposited, the critical determinants of pathogenic potential. The deposited particles can damage the epithelial and/or the mobile phagocytic cells at or near the deposition site, or can stimulate the secretion of fluids and cell-derived mediators that have secondary effects on the system. Soluble materials deposited as, on, or within particles can diffuse into and through surface fluids and cells and be rapidly transported by the bloodstream throughout the body.

Aqueous solubility of bulk materials is a poor guide to particle solubility in the respiratory tract. Solubility is generally greatly enhanced by the very large surface-to-volume ratio of particles small enough to enter the lungs. Furthermore, the ionic and lipid contents of surface fluids within the airways are complex and highly variable, and can lead to either enhanced solubility or to rapid precipitation of aqueous solutes. Furthermore, the clearance pathways and residence times for particles on airway surfaces are very different in the different functional parts of the respiratory tract.

The revised ICRP Task Group’s clearance model identifies the principal clearance pathways within the respiratory tract that are important in determining the retention of various radioactive materials, and thus the radiation doses received by respiratory tissues and other organs after translocation. The ICRP deposition model is used to estimate the amount of inhaled material that enters each clearance pathway. These discrete pathways are represented by the compartment model shown in figure 3. They correspond to the anatomic compartments illustrated in Figure 1, and are summarized in table 1, along with those of other groups providing guidance on the dosimetry of inhaled particles.

Figure 3. Compartment model to represent time-dependent particle transport from each region in 1994 ICRP model

Table 1. Respiratory tract regions as defined in particle deposition models

Extrathoracic airways

As shown in figure 1, the extrathoracic airways were partitioned by ICRP (1994) into two distinct clearance and dosimetric regions: the anterior nasal passages (ET₁) and all other extrathoracic airways (ET₂)—that is, the posterior nasal passages, the naso- and oropharynx, and the larynx. Particles deposited on the surface of the skin lining the anterior nasal passages (ET₁) are assumed to be subject only to removal by extrinsic means (nose blowing, wiping and so on). The bulk of material deposited in the naso-oropharynx or larynx (ET₂) is subject to fast clearance in the layer of fluid that covers these airways. The new model recognizes that diffusional deposition of ultrafine particles in the extrathoracic airways can be substantial, while the earlier models did not.

Thoracic airways

Radioactive material deposited in the thorax is generally divided between the tracheobronchial (TB) region, where deposited particles are subject to relatively fast mucociliary clearance, and the alveolar-interstitial (AI) region, where the particle clearance is much slower.

For dosimetry purposes, the ICRP (1994) divided deposition of inhaled material in the TB region between the trachea and bronchi (BB), and the more distal, small airways, the bronchioles (bb). However, the subsequent efficiency with which cilia in either type of airways are able to clear deposited particles is controversial. In order to be certain that doses to bronchial and bronchiolar epithelia would not be underestimated, the Task Group assumed that as much as half the number of particles deposited in these airways is subject to relatively “slow” mucociliary clearance. The likelihood that a particle is cleared relatively slowly by the mucociliary system appears to depend on its physical size.

Material deposited in the AI region is subdivided among three compartments (AI₁, AI₂ and AI₃) that are each cleared more slowly than TB deposition, with the subregions cleared at different characteristic rates.

Figure 4. Fractional deposition in each region of respiratory tract for reference light worker (normal nose breather) in 1994 ICRP model.

Figure 4 depicts the predictions of the ICRP (1994) model in terms of the fractional deposition in each region as a function of the size of the inhaled particles. It reflects the minimal lung deposition between 0.1 and 1 mm, where deposition is determined largely by the exchange, in the deep lung, between tidal and residual lung air. Deposition increases below 0.1 mm as diffusion becomes more efficient with decreasing particle size. Deposition increases with increasing particle size above 1 mm as sedimentation and impaction become increasingly effective.

Less complex models for size-selective deposition have been adopted by occupational health and community air pollution professionals and agencies, and these have been used to develop inhalation exposure limits within specific particle size ranges. Distinctions are made between:

1. those particles that are not aspirated into the nose or mouth and therefore represent no inhalation hazard
2. the inhalable (also known as inspirable) particulate mass (IPM)—those that are inhaled and are hazardous when deposited anywhere within the respiratory tract
3. the thoracic particulate mass (TPM)—those that penetrate the larynx and are hazardous when deposited anywhere within the thorax and
4. the respirable particulate mass (RPM)—those particles that penetrate through the terminal bronchioles and are hazardous when deposited within the gas-exchange region of the lungs.

In the early 1990s there has been an international harmonization of the quantitative definitions of IPM, TPM and RPM. The size-selective inlet specifications for air samplers meeting the criteria of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH 1993), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 1991) and the European Standardization Committee (CEN 1991) are enumerated in table 2. They differ from the deposition fractions of ICRP (1994), especially for larger particles, because they take the conservative position that protection should be provided for those engaged in oral inhalation, and thereby bypass the more efficient filtration efficiency of the nasal passages.

Table 2. Inhalable, thoracic and respirable dust criteria of ACGIH, ISO and CEN, and PM₁₀ criteria of US EPA

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 1987) standard for ambient air particle concentration is known as PM₁₀, that is, particulate matter less than 10 mm in aerodynamic diameter. It has a sampler inlet criterion that is similar (functionally equivalent) to TPM but, as shown in Table 2, somewhat different numerical specifications.

Air Pollutants

Pollutants can be dispersed in air at normal ambient temperatures and pressures in gaseous, liquid and solid forms. The latter two represent suspensions of particles in air and were given the generic term aerosols by Gibbs (1924) on the basis of analogy to the term hydrosol, used to describe dispersed systems in water. Gases and vapours, which are present as discrete molecules, form true solutions in air. Particles consisting of moderate to high vapour pressure materials tend to evaporate rapidly, because those small enough to remain suspended in air for more than a few minutes (i.e., those smaller than about 10 mm) have large surface-to-volume ratios. Some materials with relatively low vapour pressures can have appreciable fractions in both vapour and aerosol forms simultaneously.

Gases and vapours

Once dispersed in air, contaminant gases and vapours generally form mixtures so dilute that their physical properties (such as density, viscosity, enthalpy and so on) are indistinguishable from those of clean air. Such mixtures may be considered to follow ideal gas law relationships. There is no practical difference between a gas and a vapour except that the latter is generally considered to be the gaseous phase of a substance that can exist as a solid or liquid at room temperature. While dispersed in air, all molecules of a given compound are essentially equivalent in their size and probabilities of capture by ambient surfaces, respiratory tract surfaces and contaminant collectors or samplers.

Aerosols

Aerosols, being dispersions of solid or liquid particles in air, have the very significant additional variable of particle size. Size affects particle motion and, hence, the probabilities of physical phenomena such as coagulation, dispersion, sedimentation, impaction onto surfaces, interfacial phenomena and light-scattering properties. It is not possible to characterize a given particle by a single size parameter. For example, a particle’s aerodynamic properties depend on density and shape as well as linear dimensions, and the effective size for light scattering is dependent on refractive index and shape.

In some special cases, all of the particles are essentially the same in size. Such aerosols are considered to be monodisperse. Examples are natural pollens and some laboratory-generated aerosols. More typically, aerosols are composed of particles of many different sizes and hence are called heterodisperse or polydisperse. Different aerosols have different degrees of size dispersion. It is, therefore, necessary to specify at least two parameters in characterizing aerosol size: a measure of central tendency, such as a mean or median, and a measure of dispersion, such as an arithmetic or geometric standard deviation.

Particles generated by a single source or process generally have diameters following a log-normal distribution; that is, the logarithms of their individual diameters have a Gaussian distribution. In this case, the measure of dispersion is the geometric standard deviation, which is the ratio of the 84.1 percentile size to the 50 percentile size. When more than one source of particles is significant, the resulting mixed aerosol will usually not follow a single log-normal distribution, and it may be necessary to describe it by the sum of several distributions.

Particle characteristics

There are many properties of particles other than their linear size that can greatly influence their airborne behaviour and their effects on the environment and health. These include:

Surface. For spherical particles, the surface varies as the square of the diameter. However, for an aerosol of given mass concentration, the total aerosol surface increases with decreasing particle size. For non-spherical or aggregate particles, and for particles with internal cracks or pores, the ratio of surface to volume can be much greater than for spheres.

Volume. Particle volume varies as the cube of the diameter; therefore, the few largest particles in an aerosol tend to dominate its volume (or mass) concentration.

Shape. A particle’s shape affects its aerodynamic drag as well as its surface area and therefore its motion and deposition probabilities.

Density. A particle’s velocity in response to gravitational or inertial forces increases as the square root of its density.

Aerodynamic diameter. The diameter of a unit-density sphere having the same terminal settling velocity as the particle under consideration is equal to its aerodynamic diameter. Terminal settling velocity is the equilibrium velocity of a particle that is falling under the influence of gravity and fluid resistance. Aerodynamic diameter is determined by the actual particle size, the particle density and an aerodynamic shape factor.

Types of aerosols

Aerosols are generally classified in terms of their processes of formation. Although the following classification is neither precise nor comprehensive, it is commonly used and accepted in the industrial hygiene and air pollution fields.

Dust. An aerosol formed by mechanical subdivision of bulk material into airborne fines having the same chemical composition. Dust particles are generally solid and irregular in shape and have diameters greater than 1 mm.

Fume. An aerosol of solid particles formed by condensation of vapours formed by combustion or sublimation at elevated temperatures. The primary particles are generally very small (less than 0.1 mm) and have spherical or characteristic crystalline shapes. They may be chemically identical to the parent material, or may be composed of an oxidation product such as metal oxide. Since they may be formed in high number concentrations, they often rapidly coagulate, forming aggregate clusters of low overall density.

Smoke. An aerosol formed by condensation of combustion products, generally of organic materials. The particles are generally liquid droplets with diameters less than 0.5 mm.

Mist. A droplet aerosol formed by mechanical shearing of a bulk liquid, for example, by atomization, nebulization, bubbling or spraying. The droplet size can cover a very large range, usually from about 2 mm to greater than 50 mm.

Fog. An aqueous aerosol formed by condensation of water vapour on atmospheric nuclei at high relative humidities. The droplet sizes are generally greater than 1 mm.

Smog. A popular term for a pollution aerosol derived from a combination of smoke and fog. It is now commonly used for any atmospheric pollution mixture.

Haze. A submicrometer-sized aerosol of hygroscopic particles that take up water vapour at relatively low relative humidities.

Aitken or condensation nuclei (CN). Very small atmospheric particles (mostly smaller than 0.1 mm) formed by combustion processes and by chemical conversion from gaseous precursors.

Accumulation mode. A term given to the particles in the ambient atmosphere ranging from 0.1 to about 1.0 mm in diameter. These particles generally are spherical (having liquid surfaces), and form by coagulation and condensation of smaller particles that derive from gaseous precursors. Being too large for rapid coagulation and too small for effective sedimentation, they tend to accumulate in the ambient air.

Coarse particle mode. Ambient air particles larger than about 2.5 mm in aerodynamic diameter and generally formed by mechanical processes and surface dust resuspension.

Biological Responses of the Respiratory System to Air Pollutants

Responses to air pollutants range from nuisance to tissue necrosis and death, from generalized systemic effects to highly specific attacks on single tissues. Host and environmental factors serve to modify the effects of inhaled chemicals, and the ultimate response is the result of their interaction. The main host factors are:

1. age—for example, older people, especially those with chronically reduced cardiovascular and respiratory function, who may not be able to cope with additional pulmonary stresses
2. state of health—for example, concurrent disease or dysfunction
3. nutritional status
4. immunological status
5. sex and other genetic factors—for example, enzyme-related differences in biotransformation mechanisms, such as deficient metabolic pathways, and inability to synthesize certain detoxification enzymes
6. psychological state—for example, stress, anxiety and
7. cultural factors—for example, cigarette smoking, which may affect normal defences, or may potentiate the effect of other chemicals.

The environmental factors include the concentration, stability and physicochemical properties of the agent in the exposure environment and the duration, frequency and route of exposure. Acute and chronic exposures to a chemical may result in different pathological manifestations.

Any organ can respond in only a limited number of ways, and there are numerous diagnostic labels for the resultant diseases. The following sections discuss the broad types of responses of the respiratory system which may occur following exposure to environmental pollutants.

Irritant response

Irritants produce a pattern of generalized, non-specific tissue inflammation, and destruction may result at the area of contaminant contact. Some irritants produce no systemic effect because the irritant response is much greater than any systemic effect, while some also have significant systemic effects following absorption—for example, hydrogen sulphide absorbed via the lungs.

At high concentrations, irritants may cause a burning sensation in the nose and throat (and usually also in the eyes), pain in the chest and coughing producing inflammation of the mucosa (tracheitis, bronchitis). Examples of irritants are gases such as chlorine, fluorine, sulphur dioxide, phosgene and oxides of nitrogen; mists of acids or alkali; fumes of cadmium; dusts of zinc chloride and vanadium pentoxide. High concentrations of chemical irritants may also penetrate deep into the lungs and cause lung oedema (the alveoli are filled with liquid) or inflammation (chemical pneumonitis).

Highly elevated concentrations of dusts which have no chemical irritative properties can also mechanically irritate bronchi and, after entering the gastrointestinal tract, may also contribute to stomach and colon cancer.

Exposure to irritants may result in death if critical organs are severely damaged. On the other hand, the damage may be reversible, or it may result in permanent loss of some degree of function, such as impaired gas-exchange capacity.

Fibrotic response

A number of dusts lead to the development of a group of chronic lung disorders termed pneumoconioses. This general term encompasses many fibrotic conditions of the lung, that is, diseases characterized by scar formation in the interstitial connective tissue. Pneumoconioses are due to the inhalation and subsequent selective retention of certain dusts in the alveoli, from which they are subject to interstitial sequestration.

Pneumoconioses are characterized by specific fibrotic lesions, which differ in type and pattern according to the dust involved. For example, silicosis, due to the deposition of crystalline-free silica, is characterized by a nodular type of fibrosis, while a diffuse fibrosis is found in asbestosis, due to asbestos-fibre exposure. Certain dusts, such as iron oxide, produce only altered radiology (siderosis) with no functional impairment, while the effects of others range from a minimal disability to death.

Allergic response

Allergic responses involve the phenomenon known as sensitization. Initial exposure to an allergen results in the induction of antibody formation; subsequent exposure of the now “sensitized” individual results in an immune response—that is, an antibody-antigen reaction (the antigen is the allergen in combination with an endogenous protein). This immune reaction may occur immediately following exposure to the allergen, or it may be a delayed response.

The primary respiratory allergic reactions are bronchial asthma, reactions in the upper respiratory tract which involve the release of histamine or histamine-like mediators following immune reactions in the mucosa, and a type of pneumonitis (lung inflammation) known as extrinsic allergic alveolitis. In addition to these local reactions, a systemic allergic reaction (anaphylactic shock) may follow exposure to some chemical allergens.

Infectious response

Infectious agents can cause tuberculosis, anthrax, ornithosis, brucellosis, histoplasmosis, Legionnaires’ disease and so on.

Carcinogenic response

Cancer is a general term for a group of related diseases characterized by the uncontrolled growth of tissues. Its development is due to a complex process of interacting multiple factors in the host and the environment.

One of the great difficulties in attempting to relate exposure to a specific agent to cancer development in humans is the long latent period, typically from 15 to 40 years, between onset of exposure and disease manifestation.

Examples of air pollutants that can produce cancer of the lungs are arsenic and its compounds, chromates, silica, particles containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and certain nickel-bearing dusts. Asbestos fibres can cause bronchial cancer and mesothelioma of the pleura and peritoneum. Deposited radioactive particles may expose lung tissue to high local doses of ionizing radiation and be the cause of cancer.

Systemic response

Many environmental chemicals produce a generalized systemic disease due to their effects upon a number of target sites. Lungs are not only the target for many harmful agents but the site of entry of toxic substances which pass through the lungs into the bloodstream without any damage to the lungs. However, when distributed by the blood circulation to various organs, they can damage them or cause general poisoning and have systemic effects. This role of the lungs in occupational pathology is not the subject of this article. However, the effect of finely dispersed particulates (fumes) of several metal oxides which are often associated with an acute systemic syndrome known as metal fume fever should be mentioned.

Back

Lung function may be measured in a number of ways. However, the aim of the measurements has to be clear before the examination, in order to interpret the results correctly. In this article we will discuss lung function examination with special regard to the occupational field. It is important to remember the limitations in different lung function measurements. Acute temporary lung function effects may not be discernible in case of exposure to fibrogenic dust like quartz and asbestos, but chronic effects on lung function after long-term (>20 years) exposure may be. This is due to the fact that chronic effects occur years after the dust is inhaled and deposited in the lungs. On the other hand, acute temporary effects of organic and inorganic dust, as well as mould, welding fumes and motor exhaust, are well suited to study. This is due to the fact that the irritative effect of these dusts will occur after a few hours of exposure. Acute or chronic lung function effects also may be discernible in cases of exposure to concentrations of irritating gases (nitrogen dioxide, aldehydes, acids and acid chlorides) in the vicinity of well documented exposure limit values, especially if the effect is potentiated by particulate air contamination.

Lung function measurements have to be safe for the examined subjects, and the lung function equipment has to be safe for the examiner. A summary of the specific requirements for different kinds of lung function equipment are available (e.g., Quanjer et al. 1993). Of course, the equipment must be calibrated according to independent standards. This may be difficult to achieve, especially when computerized equipment is being used. The result of the lung function test is dependent on both the subject and the examiner. To provide satisfactory results from the examination, technicians have to be well trained, and able to instruct the subject carefully and also encourage the subject to carry out the test properly. The examiner should also have knowledge about the airways and lungs in order to interpret the results from the recordings correctly.

It is recommended that the methods used have a fairly high reproducibility both between and within subjects. Reproducibility may be measured as the coefficient of variation, that is, the standard deviation multiplied by 100 divided by the mean value. Values below 10% in repeated measurements on the same subject are deemed acceptable.

In order to determine if the measured values are pathological or not, they must be compared with prediction equations. Usually the prediction equations for spirometric variables are based on age and height, stratified for sex. Men have on the average higher lung function values than women, of the same age and height. Lung function decreases with age and increases with height. A tall subject will therefore have higher lung volume than a short subject of the same age. The outcome from prediction equations may differ considerably between different reference populations. The variation in age and height in the reference population will also influence the predicted values. This means, for example, that a prediction equation must not be used if age and/or height for the examined subject are outside the ranges for the population that is the basis for the prediction equation.

Smoking will also diminish lung function, and the effect may be potentiated in subjects who are occupationally exposed to irritating agents. Lung function used to be considered as not being pathological if the obtained values are within 80% of the predicted value, derived from a prediction equation.

Measurements

Lung function measurements are carried out to judge the condition of the lungs. Measurements may either concern single or multiple measured lung volumes, or the dynamic properties in the airways and lungs. The latter is usually determined through effort-dependent manoeuvres. The conditions in the lungs may also be examined with regard to their physiological function, that is, diffusion capacity, airway resistance and compliance (see below).

Measurements concerning ventilatory capacity are obtained by spirometry. The breathing manoeuvre is usually performed as a maximal inspiration followed by a maximal expiration, vital capacity (VC, measured in litres). At least three technically satisfactory recordings (i.e., full inspiration and expiration effort and no observed leaks) should be done, and the highest value reported. The volume may be directly measured by a water-sealed or a low-resistive bell, or indirectly measured by pneumotachography (i.e., integration of a flow signal over time). It is important here to note that all measured lung volumes should be expressed in BTPS, that is, body temperature and ambient pressure saturated with water vapour.

Forced expired vital capacity (FVC, in litres) is defined as a VC measurement performed with a maximally forced expiratory effort. Due to the simplicity of the test and the relatively inexpensive equipment, the forced expirogram has become a useful test in the monitoring of lung function. However, this has resulted in many poor recordings, of which the practical value is debatable. In order to carry out satisfactory recordings, the updated guideline for the collection and use of the forced expirogram, published by the American Thoracic Society in 1987, may be useful.

Instantaneous flows may be measured on flow-volume or flow-time curves, while time average flows or times are derived from the spirogram. Associated variables which can be calculated from the forced expirogram are forced expired volume in one second (FEV₁, in litres per second), in percentage of FVC (FEV₁%), peak flow (PEF, l/s), maximal flows at 50% and 75% of forced vital capacity (MEF₅₀ and MEF₂₅, respectively). An illustration of the derivation of FEV₁ from the forced expirogram is outlined in figure 1. In healthy subjects, maximal flow rates at large lung volumes (i.e., at the beginning of expiration) reflect mainly the flow characteristics of the large airways while those at small lung volumes (i.e., the end of expiration) are usually held to reflect the characteristics of the small airways, figure 2. In the latter the flow is laminar, while in the large airways it may be turbulent.

Figure 1. Forced expiratory spirogram showing the derivation of FEV₁ and FVC according to the extrapolation principle.

Figure 2.  Flow-volume curve showing the derivation of peak expiratory flow (PEF), maximal flows at 50% and 75% of forced vital capacity (and , respectively).

PEF may also be measured by a small portable device such as the one developed by Wright in 1959. An advantage with this equipment is that the subject may carry out serial measurements—for example, at the workplace. To get useful recordings, however, it is necessary to instruct the subjects well. Moreover, one should keep in mind that measurements of PEF with, for example, a Wright meter and those measured by conventional spirometry should not be compared due to the different blow techniques.

The spirometric variables VC, FVC and FEV₁ show a reasonable variation between individuals where age, height and sex usually explain 60 to 70% of the variation. Restrictive lung function disorders will result in lower values for VC, FVC and FEV₁. Measurements of flows during expiration show a great individual variation, since the measured flows are both effort and time dependent. This means, for example, that a subject will have extremely high flow in case of diminished lung volume. On the other hand, the flow may be extremely low in case of very high lung volume. However, the flow is usually decreased in case of a chronic obstructive disease (e.g., asthma, chronic bronchitis).

Figure 3.  A principal outline of the equipment for determination of total lung capacity (TLC) according to the helium dilution technique.

The proportion of residual volume (RV), that is, the volume of air which still is in the lungs after a maximal expiration, can be determined by gas dilution or by body plethysmography. The gas dilution technique requires less complicated equipment and is therefore more convenient to use in studies carried out at the workplace. In figure 3, the principle for the gas dilution technique has been outlined. The technique is based on dilution of an indicator gas in a rebreathing circuit. The indicator gas must be sparingly soluble in biological tissues so that it is not taken up by the tissues and blood in the lung. Hydrogen was initially used, but because of its ability to form explosive mixtures with air it was replaced by helium, which is easily detected by means of the thermal conductivity principle.

The subject and the apparatus form a closed system, and the initial concentration of the gas is thus reduced when it is diluted into the gas volume in the lungs. After equilibration, the concentration of indicator gas is the same in the lungs as in the apparatus, and functional residual capacity (FRC) can be calculated by means of a simple dilution equation. The volume of the spirometer (including the addition of the gas mixture into the spirometer) is denoted by V_S, V_L is the volume of the lung, F_i is the initial gas concentration and F_f is the final concentration.

FRC = V_L = [(V_S · F_i) / F_f] – V_S

Two to three VC manoeuvres are carried out to provide a reliable base for the calculation of TLC (in litres). The subdivisions of the different lung volumes are outlined in figure 4.

Figure 4. Spirogram labelled to show the subdivisions of the total capacity.

Due to change in the elastic properties of the airways, RV and FRC increase with age. In chronic obstructive diseases, increased values of RV and FRC are usually observed, while VC is decreased. However, in subjects with badly ventilated lung areas—for example, subjects with emphysema—the gas dilution technique may underestimate RV, FRC and also TLC. This is due to the fact that the indicator gas will not communicate with closed-off airways, and therefore the decrease in the indicator gas concentration will give erroneously small values.

Figure 5. A principal outline of the recording of airway closure and the slope of the alveolar plateau (%).

Measures of airway closure and gas distribution in the lungs can be obtained in one and the same manoeuvre by the single breath wash-out technique, figure 5. The equipment consists of a spirometer connected to a bag-in-box system and a recorder for continuous measurements of nitrogen concentration. The manoeuvre is carried out by means of a maximal inspiration of pure oxygen from the bag. In the beginning of the expiration, the nitrogen concentration increases as a result of emptying the subject’s deadspace, containing pure oxygen. The expiration continues with the air from the airways and alveoli. Finally, air from the alveoli, containing 20 to 40% nitrogen, is expired. When the expiration from the basal parts of the lungs increases, the nitrogen concentration will rise abruptly in case of airway closure in dependent lung regions, figure 5. This volume above RV, at which airways close during an expiration, is usually expressed as closing volume (CV) in percentage of VC (CV%). Distribution of the inspired air in the lungs is expressed as the slope of the alveolar plateau (%N₂ or phase III, %N₂/l). It is obtained by taking the difference in nitrogen concentration between the point when 30% of the air is exhaled and the point for airway closure, and dividing this by the corresponding volume.

Ageing as well as chronic obstructive disorders will result in increased values for both CV% and phase III. However, not even healthy subjects have a uniform gas distribution in the lungs, resulting in slightly elevated values for phase III, that is, 1 to 2% N₂/l. The variables CV% and phase III are considered to reflect the conditions in the peripheral small airways with an internal diameter about 2 mm. Normally, the peripheral airways contribute to a small part (10 to 20%) of the total airway resistance. Quite extensive changes which are not detectable by conventional lung function tests like dynamic spirometry, may occur, for example, as a result of an exposure to irritating substances in the air in the peripheral airways. This suggests that airway obstruction begins in the small airways. Results from studies also have shown alterations in CV% and phase III before any changes from the dynamic and static spirometry have occurred. These early changes may go into remission when exposure to hazardous agents has ceased.

The transfer factor of the lung (mmol/min; kPa) is an expression of the diffusion capacity of oxygen transport into the pulmonary capillaries. The transfer factor can be determined using single or multiple breath techniques; the single breath technique is considered to be most suitable in studies at the workplace. Carbon monoxide (CO) is used since the back pressure of CO is very low in the peripheral blood, in contrast to that of oxygen. The uptake of CO is assumed to follow an exponential model, and this assumption can be used to determine the transfer factor for the lung.

Determination of TL_CO (transfer factor measured with CO) is carried out by means of a breathing manoeuvre including a maximal expiration, followed by a maximal inspiration of a gas mixture containing carbon monoxide, helium, oxygen and nitrogen. After a breath-holding period, a maximal exhalation is done, reflecting the content in the alveolar air, Figure 10. Helium is used for the determination of the alveolar volume (V_A). Assuming that the dilution of CO is the same as for helium, the initial concentration of CO, before the diffusion has started, can be calculated. TL_CO is calculated according to the equation outlined below, where k depends on the dimensions of the component terms, t is the effective time for breath-holding and log is base 10 logarithm. Inspired volume is denoted V_i and the fractions F of CO and helium are denoted by i and a for inspired and alveolar, respectively.

TL_CO = k V_i (F_a,He/F_i,He) log (F_i,CO F_a,He/F_a,CO F_i,He) (t)^-1

Figure 6. A principal outline of the recording of transfer factor

The size of TL_CO will depend on a variety of conditions—for example, the amount of available haemoglobin, the volume of ventilated alveoli and perfused lung capillaries and their relation to each other. Values for TL_CO decrease with age and increase with physical activity and increased lung volumes. Decreased TL_CO will be found in both restrictive and obstructive lung disorders.

Compliance (l/kPa) is a function, inter alia, of the elastic property of the lungs. The lungs have an intrinsic tendency to collaborate—that is, to collapse. The power to keep the lungs stretched will depend on the elastic lung tissue, the surface tension in the alveoli, and the bronchial musculature. On the other hand, the chest wall tends to expand at lung volumes 1 to 2 litres above the FRC level. At higher lung volumes, power has to be applied to further expand the chest wall. At the FRC level, the corresponding tendency in the lungs is balanced by the tendency to expand. The FRC level is therefore denoted by the resting level of the lung.

The compliance of the lung is defined as the change in volume divided by the change in transpulmonary pressure, that is, the difference between the pressures in the mouth (atmospheric) and in the lung, as the result of a breathing manoeuvre. Measurements of the pressure in the lung are not easily carried out and are therefore replaced by measurements of the pressure in the oesophagus. The pressure in the oesophagus is almost the same as the pressure in the lung, and it is measured with a thin polyethylene catheter with a balloon covering the distal 10 cm. During inspiratory and expiratory manoeuvres, the changes in volume and pressure are recorded by means of a spirometer and pressure transducer, respectively. When the measurements are performed during tidal breathing, dynamic compliance can be measured. Static compliance is obtained when a slow VC manoeuvre is carried out. In the latter case, the measurements are carried out in a body plethysmograph, and the expiration is intermittently interrupted by means of a shutter. However, measurements of compliance are cumbersome to perform when examining exposure effects on lung function at the worksite, and this technique is considered to be more appropriate in the laboratory.

A decreased compliance (increased elasticity) is observed in fibrosis. To cause a change in volume, large changes in pressure are required. On the other hand, a high compliance is observed, for example, in emphysema as the result of loss of elastic tissue and therefore also elasticity in the lung.

The resistance in the airways essentially depends on the radius and length of the airways but also on air viscosity. The airway resistance (R_L in (kPa/l) /s), can be determined by use of a spirometer, pressure transducer and a pneumotachograph (to measure the flow). The measurements may also be carried out using a body plethysmograph to record the changes in flow and pressure during panting manoeuvres. By administration of a drug intended to cause broncho-constriction, sensitive subjects, as a result of their hyperreactive airways, may be identified. Subjects with asthma usually have increased values for R_L.

Acute and Chronic Effects of Occupational Exposure on Pulmonary Function

Lung function measurement may be used to disclose an occupational exposure effect on the lungs. Pre-employment examination of lung function should not be used to exclude job-seeking subjects. This is because the lung function of healthy subjects varies within wide limits and it is difficult to draw a borderline below which it can safely be stated that the lung is pathological. Another reason is that the work environment should be good enough to allow even subjects with slight lung function impairment to work safely.

Chronic effects on the lungs in occupationally exposed subjects may be detected in a number of ways. The techniques are designed to determine historical effects, however, and are less suitable to serve as guidelines to prevent lung function impairment. A common study design is to compare the actual values in exposed subjects with the lung function values obtained in a reference population without occupational exposure. The reference subjects may be recruited from the same (or nearby) workplaces or from the same city.

Multivariate analysis has been used in some studies to assess differences between exposed subjects and matched unexposed referents. Lung function values in exposed subjects may also be standardized by means of a reference equation based on lung function values in the unexposed subjects.

Another approach is to study the difference between the lung function values in exposed and unexposed workers after adjustment for age and height with the use of external reference values, calculated by means of a prediction equation based on healthy subjects. The reference population may also be matched to the exposed subjects according to ethnic group, sex, age, height and smoking habits in order to further control for those influencing factors.

The problem is, however, to decide if a decrease is large enough to be classified as pathological, when external reference values are being used. Although the instruments in the studies have to be portable and simple, attention must be paid both to the sensitivity of the chosen method for detecting small anomalies in airways and lungs and the possibility of combining different methods. There are indications that subjects with respiratory symptoms, such as exertion dyspnoea, are at a higher risk of having an accelerated decline in lung function. This means that the presence of respiratory symptoms is important and so should not be neglected.

The subject may also be followed-up by spirometry, for example, once a year, for a number of years, in order to give a warning against the development of illness. There are limitations, however, since this will be very time-consuming and the lung function may have deteriorated permanently when the decrease can be observed. This approach therefore must not be an excuse for delay in carrying out measures in order to decrease harmful concentrations of air pollutants.

Finally, chronic effects on lung function may also be studied by examining the individual changes in lung function in exposed and unexposed subjects over a number of years. One advantage of the longitudinal study design is that the intersubject variability is eliminated; however, the design is considered to be time-consuming and expensive.

Susceptible subjects may also be identified by comparing their lung function with and without exposure during working shifts. In order to minimize possible effects of diurnal variations, lung function is measured at the same time of day on one unexposed and one exposed occasion. The unexposed condition can be obtained, for example, by occasionally moving the worker to an uncontaminated area or by use of a suitable respirator during a whole shift, or in some cases by performing lung function measurements in the afternoon of a worker’s day off.

One special concern is that repeated, temporary effects can result in chronic effects. An acute temporary lung function decrease may not only be a biological exposure indicator but also a predictor of a chronic lung function decrement. Exposure to air pollutants may result in discernible acute effects on lung function, although the mean values of the measured air pollutants are below the hygienic limit values. The question thus arises, whether these effects really are harmful in the long run. This question is hard to answer directly, especially since the air pollution in workplaces often has a complex composition and the exposure cannot be described in terms of mean concentrations of single compounds. The effect of an occupational exposure is also partly due to the sensitivity of the individual. This means that some subjects will react sooner or to a larger extent than others. The underlying pathophysiological ground for an acute, temporary decrease in lung function is not fully understood. The adverse reaction upon exposure to an irritating air contaminant is, however, an objective measurement, in contrast to subjective experiences like symptoms of different origin.

The advantage of detecting early changes in airways and lungs caused by hazardous air pollutants is obvious—the prevailing exposure may be reduced in order to prevent more severe illnesses. Therefore, an important aim in this respect is to use the measurements of acute temporary effects on lung function as a sensitive early warning system that can be used when studying groups of healthy working people.

Monitoring of Irritants

Irritation is one of the most frequent criteria for setting exposure limit values. It is, however, not certain that compliance with an exposure limit based on irritation will protect against irritation. It should be considered that an exposure limit for an air contaminant usually contains at least two parts—a time-weighted average limit (TWAL) and a short-term exposure limit (STEL), or at least rules for exceeding the time-weighted average limit, “excursion limits”. In the case of highly irritating substances, such as sulphur dioxide, acrolein and phosgene, it is important to limit the concentration even during very short periods, and it has therefore been common practice to fix occupational exposure limit values in the form of ceiling limits, with a sampling period that is kept as short as the measuring facilities will allow.

Time-weighted average limit values for an eight-hour day combined with rules for excursion above these values are given for most of the substances in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit value (TLV) list. The TLV list of 1993-94 contains the following statement concerning excursion limits for exceeding limit values:

“For the vast majority of substances with a TLV-TWA, there is not enough toxicological data available to warrant a STEL = short-term exposure limit). Nevertheless, excursions above the TLV-TWA should be controlled even where the eight-hour TWA is within recommended limits.”

Exposure measurements of known air contaminants and comparison with well documented exposure limit values should be carried out on a routine basis. There are, however, many situations when the determination of compliance with exposure limit values is not enough. This is the case in the following circumstances (inter alia):

1. when the limit value is too high to safeguard against irritation
2. when the irritant is unknown
3. when the irritant is a complex mixture and there is no suitable indicator known.

As advocated above, the measurement of acute, temporary effects on lung function can be used in these cases as a warning against over-exposure to irritants.

In cases (2) and (3), acute, temporary effects on lung function may be applicable also in testing the efficiency of control measures to decrease exposure to air contamination or in scientific investigations, for example, in attributing biological effects to components of air contaminants. A number of examples follow in which acute, temporary lung function effects have been successfully employed in occupational health investigations.

Studies of Acute, Temporary Lung Function Effects

Work-related, temporary decrease of lung function over a work shift was recorded in cotton workers at the end of 1950. Later, several authors reported work-related, acute, temporary changes of lung function in hemp and textile workers, coal miners, workers exposed to toluene di-isocyanate, fire-fighters, rubber processing workers, moulders and coremakers, welders, ski waxers, workers exposed to organic dust and irritants in water-based paints.

However, there are also several examples where measurements before and after exposure, usually during a shift, have failed to demonstrate any acute effects, despite a high exposure. This is probably due to the effect of normal circadian variation, mainly in lung function variables depending on the size of airway calibre. Thus the temporary decrease in these variables must exceed the normal circadian variation to be recognized. The problem may be circumvented, however, by measuring lung function at the same time of the day at each study occasion. By using the exposed employee as his or her own control, the interindividual variation is further decreased. Welders were studied in this way, and although the mean difference between unexposed and exposed FVC values was less than 3% in 15 examined welders, this difference was significant at the 95% confidence level with a power of more than 99%.

The reversible transient effects on the lungs can be used as an exposure indicator of complicated irritating components. In the study cited above, particles in the work environment were crucial for the irritating effects on the airways and lungs. The particles were removed by a respirator consisting of a filter combined with a welding helmet. The results indicated that the effects on the lungs were caused by the particles in welding fumes, and that the use of a particulate respirator might prevent this effect.

Exposure to diesel exhaust also gives measurable irritative effects on the lungs, shown as an acute, temporary lung function decrease. Mechanical filters mounted on the exhaust pipes of trucks used in loading operations by stevedores relieved subjective disorders and reduced the acute, temporary lung function decrease observed when no filtration was done. The results thus indicate that the presence of particles in the work environment does play a role in the irritative effect on airways and lungs, and that it is possible to assess the effect by measurements of acute changes in lung function.

A multiplicity of exposures and a continually changing work environment may present difficulties in discerning the causal relationship of the different agents existing in a work environment. The exposure scenario in sawmills is an illuminating example. It is not possible (e.g., for economical reasons) to carry out exposure measurements of all possible agents (terpenes, dust, mould, bacteria, endotoxin, mycotoxins, etc.) in this work environment. A feasible method may be to follow the development of lung function longitudinally. In a study of sawmill workers in the wood-trimming department, lung function was examined before and after a working week, and no statistically significant decrease was found. However, a follow-up study carried out a few years later disclosed that those workers who actually had a numerical decrease in lung function during a working week also had an accelerated long-term decline in lung function. This may indicate that vulnerable subjects can be detected by measuring changes in lung function during a working week.

Back

The presence of respiratory irritants in the workplace can be unpleasant and distracting, leading to poor morale and decreased productivity. Certain exposures are dangerous, even lethal. In either extreme, the problem of respiratory irritants and inhaled toxic chemicals is common; many workers face a daily threat of exposure. These compounds cause harm by a variety of different mechanisms, and the extent of injury can vary widely, depending on the degree of exposure and on the biochemical properties of the inhalant. However, they all have the characteristic of nonspecificity; that is, above a certain level of exposure virtually all persons experience a threat to their health.

There are other inhaled substances that cause only susceptible individuals to develop respiratory problems; such complaints are most appropriately approached as diseases of allergic and immunological origin. Certain compounds, such as isocyanates, acid anhydrides and epoxy resins, can act not only as non-specific irritants in high concentrations, but can also predispose certain subjects to allergic sensitization. These compounds provoke respiratory symptoms in sensitized individuals at very low concentrations.

Respiratory irritants include substances that cause inflammation of the airways after they are inhaled. Damage may occur in the upper and lower airways. More dangerous is acute inflammation of the pulmonary parenchyma, as in chemical pneumonitis or non-cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Compounds that can cause parenchymal damage are considered toxic chemicals. Many inhaled toxic chemicals also act as respiratory irritants, warning us of their danger with their noxious odour and symptoms of nose and throat irritation and cough. Most respiratory irritants are also toxic to the lung parenchyma if inhaled in sufficient amount.

Many inhaled substances have systemic toxic effects after being absorbed by inhalation. Inflammatory effects on the lung may be absent, as in the case of lead, carbon monoxide or hydrogen cyanide. Minimal lung inflammation is normally seen in the inhalation fevers (e.g., organic dust toxic syndrome, metal fume fever and polymer fume fever). Severe lung and distal organ damage occurs with significant exposure to toxins such as cadmium and mercury.

The physical properties of inhaled substances predict the site of deposition; irritants will produce symptoms at these sites. Large particles (10 to 20mm) deposit in the nose and upper airways, smaller particles (5 to 10mm) deposit in the trachea and bronchi, and particles less than 5mm in size may reach the alveoli. Particles less than 0.5mm are so small they behave like gases. Toxic gases deposit according to their solubility. A water-soluble gas will be adsorbed by the moist mucosa of the upper airway; less soluble gases will deposit more randomly throughout the respiratory tract.

Respiratory Irritants

Respiratory irritants cause non-specific inflammation of the lung after being inhaled. These substances, their sources of exposure, physical and other properties, and effects on the victim are outlined in Table 1. Irritant gases tend to be more water soluble than gases more toxic to the lung parenchyma. Toxic fumes are more dangerous when they have a high irritant threshold; that is, there is little warning that the fume is being inhaled because there is little irritation.

Table 1. Summary of respiratory irritants

This condition is thought to result from persistent inflammation with reduction of epithelial cell layer permeability or reduced conductance threshold for subepithelial nerve endings.Adapted from Sheppard 1988; Graham 1994; Rom 1992; Blanc and Schwartz 1994; Nemery 1990; Skornik 1988.

The nature and extent of the reaction to an irritant depends on the physical properties of the gas or aerosol, the concentration and time of exposure, and on other variables as well, such as temperature, humidity and the presence of pathogens or other gases (Man and Hulbert 1988). Host factors such as age (Cabral-Anderson, Evans and Freeman 1977; Evans, Cabral-Anderson and Freeman 1977), prior exposure (Tyler, Tyler and Last 1988), level of antioxidants (McMillan and Boyd 1982) and presence of infection may play a role in determining the pathological changes seen. This wide range of factors has made it difficult to study the pathogenic effects of respiratory irritants in a systematic way.

The best understood irritants are those which inflict oxidative injury. The majority of inhaled irritants, including the major pollutants, act by oxidation or give rise to compounds that act in this way. Most metal fumes are actually oxides of the heated metal; these oxides cause oxidative injury. Oxidants damage cells primarily by lipid peroxidation, and there may be other mechanisms. On a cellular level, there is initially a fairly specific loss of ciliated cells of the airway epithelium and of Type I alveolar epithelial cells, with subsequent violation of the tight junction interface between epithelial cells (Man and Hulbert 1988; Gordon, Salano and Kleinerman 1986; Stephens et al. 1974). This leads to subepithelial and submucosal damage, with stimulation of smooth muscle and parasympathetic sensory afferent nerve endings causing bronchoconstriction (Holgate, Beasley and Twentyman 1987; Boucher 1981). An inflammatory response follows (Hogg 1981), and the neutrophils and eosinophils release mediators that cause further oxidative injury (Castleman et al. 1980). Type II pneumocytes and cuboidal cells act as stem cells for repair (Keenan, Combs and McDowell 1982; Keenan, Wilson and McDowell 1983).

Other mechanisms of lung injury eventually involve the oxidative pathway of cellular damage, particularly after damage to the protective epithelial cell layer has occurred and an inflammatory response has been elicited. The most commonly described mechanisms are outlined in table 2.

Table 2. Mechanisms of lung injury by inhaled substances

Workers exposed to low levels of respiratory irritants may have subclinical symptoms traceable to mucous membrane irritation, such as watery eyes, sore throat, runny nose and cough. With significant exposure, the added feeling of shortness of breath will often prompt medical attention. It is important to secure a good medical history in order to determine the likely composition of the exposure, the quantity of exposure, and the period of time during which the exposure took place. Signs of laryngeal oedema, including hoarseness and stridor, should be sought, and the lungs should be examined for signs of lower airway or parenchymal involvement. Assessment of the airway and lung function, together with chest radiography, are important in short-term management. Laryngoscopy may be indicated to evaluate the airway.

If the airway is threatened, the patient should undergo intubation and supportive care. Patients with signs of laryngeal oedema should be observed for at least 12 hours to insure that the process is self-limited. Bronchospasm should be treated with b-agonists and, if refractory, intravenous corticosteroids. Irritated oral and ocular mucosa should be thoroughly irrigated. Patients with crackles on examination or chest radiograph abnormalities should be hospitalized for observation in view of the possibility of pneumonitis or pulmonary oedema. Such patients are at risk of bacterial superinfection; nevertheless, no benefit has been demonstrated by using prophylactic antibiotics.

The overwhelming majority of patients who survive the initial insult recover fully from irritant exposures. The chances for long-term sequelae are more likely with greater initial injury. The term reactive airway dysfunction syndrome (RADS) has been applied to the persistence of asthma-like symptoms following acute exposure to respiratory irritants (Brooks, Weiss and Bernstein 1985).

High-level exposures to alkalis and acids can cause upper and lower respiratory tract burns that lead to chronic disease. Ammonia is known to cause bronchiectasis (Kass et al. 1972); chlorine gas (which becomes HCl in the mucosa) is reported to cause obstructive lung disease (Donelly and Fitzgerald 1990; Das and Blanc 1993). Chronic low-level exposures to irritants may cause continued ocular and upper airway symptoms (Korn, Dockery and Speizer 1987), but deterioration of lung function has not been conclusively documented. Studies of the effects of chronic low-level irritants on airway function are hampered by a lack of long-term follow-up, confounding by cigarette smoking, the “healthy worker effect,” and the minimal, if any, actual clinical effect (Brooks and Kalica 1987).

After a patient recovers from the initial injury, regular follow-up by a physician is needed. Clearly, there should be an effort to investigate the workplace and evaluate respiratory precautions, ventilation and containment of the culprit irritants.

Toxic Chemicals

Chemicals toxic to the lung include most of the respiratory irritants given enough high exposure, but there are many chemicals that cause significant parenchymal lung injury despite possessing low to moderate irritant properties. These compounds work their effects by mechanisms reviewed in Table 3 and discussed above. Pulmonary toxins tend to be less water soluble than upper airway irritants. Examples of lung toxins and their sources of exposure are reviewed in table 3.

Table 3. Compounds capable of lung toxicity after low to moderate exposure

One group of inhalable toxins are termed asphyxiants. When present in high enough concentrations, the asphyxiants, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen, displace oxygen and in effect suffocate the victim. Hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide act by inhibiting cellular respiration despite adequate delivery of oxygen to the lung. Non-asphyxiant inhaled toxins damage target organs, causing a wide variety of health problems and mortality.

The medical management of inhaled lung toxins is similar to the management of respiratory irritants. These toxins often do not elicit their peak clinical effect for several hours after exposure; overnight monitoring may be indicated for compounds known to cause delayed onset pulmonary oedema. Since the therapy of systemic toxins is beyond the scope of this chapter, the reader is referred to discussions of the individual toxins elsewhere in this Encyclopaedia and in further texts on the subject (Goldfrank et al. 1990; Ellenhorn and Barceloux 1988).

Inhalation Fevers

Certain inhalation exposures occurring in a variety of different occupational settings may result in debilitating flu-like illnesses lasting a few hours. These are collectively referred to as inhalation fevers. Despite the severity of the symptoms, the toxicity seems to be self-limited in most cases, and there are few data to suggest long-term sequelae. Massive exposure to inciting compounds can cause a more severe reaction involving pneumonitis and pulmonary oedema; these uncommon cases are considered more complicated than simple inhalation fever.

The inhalation fevers have in common the feature of nonspecificity: the syndrome can be produced in nearly anyone, given adequate exposure to the inciting agent. Sensitization is not required, and no previous exposure is necessary. Some of the syndromes exhibit the phenomenon of tolerance; that is, with regular repeated exposure the symptoms do not occur. This effect is thought to be related to an increased activity of clearance mechanisms, but has not been adequately studied.

Organic Dust Toxic Syndrome

Organic dust toxic syndrome (ODTS) is a broad term denoting the self-limited flu-like symptoms that occur following heavy exposure to organic dusts. The syndrome encompasses a wide range of acute febrile illnesses that have names derived from the specific tasks that lead to dust exposure. Symptoms occur only after a massive exposure to organic dust, and most individuals so exposed will develop the syndrome.

Organic dust toxic syndrome has previously been called pulmonary mycotoxicosis, owing to its putative aetiology in the action of mould spores and actinomycetes. With some patients, one can culture species of Aspergillus, Penicillium, and mesophilic and thermophilic actinomycetes (Emmanuel, Marx and Ault 1975; Emmanuel, Marx and Ault 1989). More recently, bacterial endotoxins have been proposed to play at least as large a role. The syndrome has been provoked experimentally by inhalation of endotoxin derived from Enterobacter agglomerans, a major component of organic dust (Rylander, Bake and Fischer 1989). Endotoxin levels have been measured in the farm environment, with levels ranging from 0.01 to 100μg/m³. Many samples had a level greater than 0.2μg/m³, which is the level where clinical effects are known to occur (May, Stallones and Darrow 1989). There is speculation that cytokines, such as IL-1, may mediate the systemic effects, given what is already known about the release of IL-1 from alveolar macrophages in the presence of endotoxin (Richerson 1990). Allergic mechanisms are unlikely given the lack of need for sensitization and the requirement for high dust exposure.

Clinically, the patient will usually present symptoms 2 to 8 hours after exposure to (usually mouldy) grain, hay, cotton, flax, hemp or wood chips, or upon manipulation of pigs (Do Pico 1992). Often symptoms begin with eye and mucous membrane irritation with dry cough, progressing to fever, and malaise, chest tightness, myalgias and headache. The patient appears ill but otherwise normal upon physical examination. Leukocytosis frequently occurs, with levels as high as 25,000 white blood corpuscles (WBC)/mm³. The chest radiograph is almost always normal. Spirometry may reveal a modest obstructive defect. In cases where fibre optic bronchoscopy was performed and bronchial washings were obtained, an elevation of leukocytes was found in the lavage fluid. The percentage of neutrophils was significantly higher than normal (Emmanuel, Marx and Ault 1989; Lecours, Laviolette and Cormier 1986). Bronchoscopy 1 to 4 weeks after the event shows a persistently high cellularity, predominantly lymphocytes.

Depending on the nature of the exposure, the differential diagnosis may include toxic gas (such as nitrogen dioxide or ammonia) exposure, particularly if the episode occurred in a silo. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis should be considered, especially if there are significant chest radiograph or pulmonary function test abnormalities. The distinction between hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) and ODTS is important: HP will require strict exposure avoidance and has a worse prognosis, whereas ODTS has a benign and self-limited course. ODTS is also distinguished from HP because it occurs more frequently, requires higher levels of dust exposure, does not induce the release of serum precipitating antibodies, and (initially) does not give rise to the lymphocytic alveolitis that is characteristic of HP.

Cases are managed with antipyretics. A role for steroids has not been advocated given the self-limited nature of the illness. Patients should be educated about massive exposure avoidance. The long-term effect of repeated occurrences is thought to be negligible; however, this question has not been adequately studied.

Metal Fume Fever

Metal fume fever (MFF) is another self-limited, flu-like illness that develops after inhalation exposure, in this instance to metal fumes. The syndrome most commonly develops after zinc oxide inhalation, as occurs in brass foundries, and in smelting or welding galvanized metal. Oxides of copper and iron also cause MFF, and vapours of aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, cobalt, chromium, silver, manganese, selenium and tin have been occasionally implicated (Rose 1992). Workers develop tachyphalaxis; that is, symptoms appear only when the exposure occurs after several days without exposure, not when there are regular repeated exposures. An eight-hour TLV of 5 mg/m³ for zinc oxide has been established by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), but symptoms have been elicited experimentally after a two-hour exposure at this concentration (Gordon et al. 1992).

The pathogenesis of MFF remains unclear. The reproducible onset of symptoms regardless of the individual exposed argues against a specific immune or allergic sensitization. The lack of symptoms associated with histamine release (flushing, itching, wheezing, hives) also militates against the likelihood of an allergic mechanism. Paul Blanc and co-workers have developed a model implicating cytokine release (Blanc et al. 1991; Blanc et al.1993). They measured the levels of tumour necrosis factor (TNF), and of the interleukins IL-1, IL-4, IL-6 and IL-8 in the fluid lavaged from the lungs of 23 volunteers experimentally exposed to zinc oxide fumes (Blanc et al. 1993). The volunteers developed elevated levels of TNF in their bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid 3 hours after exposure. Twenty hours later, high BAL fluid levels of IL-8 (a potent neutrophil attractant) and an impressive neutrophilic alveolitis were observed. TNF, a cytokine capable of causing fever and stimulating immune cells, has been shown to be released from monocytes in culture that are exposed to zinc (Scuderi 1990). Accordingly, the presence of increased TNF in the lung accounts for the onset of symptoms observed in MFF. TNF is known to stimulate the release of both IL-6 and IL-8, in a time period that correlated with the peaks of the cytokines in these volunteers’ BAL fluid. The recruitment of these cytokines may account for the ensuing neutrophil alveolitis and flu-like symptoms that characterize MFF. Why the alveolitis resolves so quickly remains a mystery.

Symptoms begin 3 to 10 hours after exposure. Initially, there may be a sweet metallic taste in the mouth, accompanied by a worsening dry cough and shortness of breath. Fever and shaking chills often develop, and the worker feels ill. The physical examination is otherwise unremarkable. Laboratory evaluation shows a leukocytosis and a normal chest radiograph. Pulmonary function studies may show a slightly reduced FEF_25-75 and DLCO levels (Nemery 1990; Rose 1992).

With a good history the diagnosis is readily established and the worker can be treated symptomatically with antipyretics. Symptoms and clinical abnormalities resolve within 24 to 48 hours. Otherwise, bacterial and viral aetiologies of the symptoms must be considered. In cases of extreme exposure, or exposures involving contamination by toxins such as zinc chloride, cadmium or mercury, MFF may be a harbinger of a clinical chemical pneumonitis that will evolve over the next 2 days (Blount 1990). Such cases can exhibit diffuse infiltrates on a chest radiograph and signs of pulmonary oedema and respiratory failure. While this possibility should be considered in the initial evaluation of an exposed patient, such a fulminant course is unusual and not characteristic of uncomplicated MFF.

MFF does not require a specific sensitivity of the individual for the metal fumes; rather, it indicates inadequate environmental control. The exposure problem should be addressed to prevent recurrent symptoms. Although the syndrome is considered benign, the long-term effects of repeated bouts of MFF have not been adequately investigated.

Polymer Fume Fever

Polymer fume fever is a self-limited febrile illness similar to MFF, but caused by inhaled pyrolysis products of fluoropolymers, including polytetrafluoroethane (PTFE; trade names Teflon, Fluon, Halon). PTFE is widely used for its lubricant, thermal stability and electrical insulative properties. It is harmless unless heated above 30°C, when it starts to release degradation products (Shusterman 1993). This situation occurs when welding materials coated with PTFE, heating PTFE with a tool edge during high speed machining, operating moulding or extruding machines (Rose 1992) and rarely during endotracheal laser surgery (Rom 1992a).

A common cause of polymer fume fever was elicited after a period of classic public health detective work in the early 1970s (Wegman and Peters 1974; Kuntz and McCord 1974). Textile workers were developing self-limited febrile illnesses with exposures to formaldehyde, ammonia and nylon fibre; they did not have exposure to fluoropolymer fumes but handled crushed polymer. After finding that exposure levels of the other possible aetiological agents were within acceptable limits, the fluoropolymer work was examined more closely. As it turned out, only cigarette smokers working with the fluoropolymer were symptomatic. It was hypothesized that the cigarettes were being contaminated with fluoropolymer on the worker’s hands, then the product was combusted on the cigarette when it was smoked, exposing the worker to toxic fumes. After banning cigarette smoking in the workplace and setting strict handwashing rules, no further illnesses were reported (Wegman and Peters 1974). Since then, this phenomenon has been reported after working with waterproofing compounds, mould-release compounds (Albrecht and Bryant 1987) and after using certain kinds of ski wax (Strom and Alexandersen 1990).

The pathogenesis of polymer fume fever is not known. It is thought to be similar to the other inhalation fevers owing to its similar presentation and apparently non-specific immune response. There have been no human experimental studies; however, rats and birds both develop severe alveolar epithelial damage on exposure to PTFE pyrolysis products (Wells, Slocombe and Trapp 1982; Blandford et al. 1975). Accurate measurement of pulmonary function or BAL fluid changes has not been done.

Symptoms appear several hours after exposure, and a tolerance or tachyphalaxis effect is not there as seen in MFF. Weakness and myalgias are followed by fever and chills. Often there is chest tightness and cough. Physical examination is usually otherwise normal. Leukocytosis is often seen, and the chest radiograph is usually normal. Symptoms resolve spontaneously in 12 to 48 hours. There have been a few cases of persons developing pulmonary oedema after exposure; in general, PTFE fumes are thought to be more toxic than zinc or copper fumes in causing MFF (Shusterman 1993; Brubaker 1977). Chronic airways dysfunction has been reported in persons who have had multiple episodes of polymer fume fever (Williams, Atkinson and Patchefsky 1974).

The diagnosis of polymer fume fever requires a careful history with high clinical suspicion. After ascertaining the source of the PTFE pyrolysis products, efforts must be made to prevent further exposure. Mandatory handwashing rules and the elimination of smoking in the workplace has effectively eliminated cases related to contaminated cigarettes. Workers who have had multiple episodes of polymer fume fever or associated pulmonary oedema should have long-term medical follow-up.

Back

Asthma is a respiratory disease characterized by airway obstruction that is partially or completely reversible, either spontaneously or with treatment; airway inflammation; and increased airway responsiveness to a variety of stimuli (NAEP 1991). Occupational asthma (OA) is asthma that is caused by environmental exposures in the workplace. Several hundred agents have been reported to cause OA. Pre-existing asthma or airway hyper-responsiveness, with symptoms worsened by work exposure to irritants or physical stimuli, is usually classified separately as work-aggravated asthma (WAA). There is general agreement that OA has become the most prevalent occupational lung disease in developed countries, although estimates of actual prevalence and incidence are quite variable. It is clear, however, that in many countries asthma of occupational aetiology causes a largely unrecognized burden of disease and disability with high economic and non-economic costs. Much of this public health and economic burden is potentially preventable by identifying and controlling or eliminating the workplace exposures causing the asthma. This article will summarize current approaches to recognition, management and prevention of OA. Several recent publications discuss these issues in more detail (Chan-Yeung 1995; Bernstein et al. 1993).

Magnitude of the Problem

Prevalences of asthma in adults generally range from 3 to 5%, depending on the definition of asthma and geographic variations, and may be considerably higher in some low-income urban populations. The proportion of adult asthma cases in the general population that is related to the work environment is reported to range from 2 to 23%, with recent estimates tending towards the higher end of the range. Prevalences of asthma and OA have been estimated in small cohort and cross-sectional studies of high-risk occupational groups. In a review of 22 selected studies of workplaces with exposures to specific substances, prevalences of asthma or OA, defined in various ways, ranged from 3 to 54%, with 12 studies reporting prevalences over 15% (Becklake, in Bernstein et al. 1993). The wide range reflects real variation in actual prevalence (due to different types and levels of exposure). It also reflects differences in diagnostic criteria, and variation in the strength of the biases, such as “survivor bias” which may result from exclusion of workers who developed OA and left the workplace before the study was conducted. Population estimates of incidence range from 14 per million employed adults per year in the United States to 140 per million employed adults per year in Finland (Meredith and Nordman 1996). Ascertainment of cases was more complete and methods of diagnosis were generally more rigorous in Finland. The evidence from these different sources is consistent in its implication that OA is often under-diagnosed and/or under-reported and is a public health problem of greater magnitude than generally recognized.

Causes of Occupational Asthma

Over 200 agents (specific substances, occupations or industrial processes) have been reported to cause OA, based on epidemiological and/or clinical evidence. In OA, airway inflammation and bronchoconstriction can be caused by immunological response to sensitizing agents, by direct irritant effects, or by other non-immunological mechanisms. Some agents (e.g., organophosphate insecticides) may also cause bronchoconstriction by direct pharmacological action. Most of the reported agents are thought to induce a sensitization response. Respiratory irritants often worsen symptoms in workers with pre-existing asthma (i.e., WAA) and, at high exposure levels, can cause new onset of asthma (termed reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS) or irritant-induced asthma) (Brooks, Weiss and Bernstein 1985; Alberts and Do Pico 1996).

OA may occur with or without a latency period. Latency period refers to the time between initial exposure and development of symptoms, and is highly variable. It is often less than 2 years, but in around 20% of cases is 10 years or longer. OA with latency is generally caused by sensitization to one or more agents. RADS is an example of OA without latency.

High molecular weight sensitizing agents (5,000 daltons (Da) or greater) often act by an IgE-dependent mechanism. Low molecular weight sensitizing agents (less than 5,000 Da), which include highly reactive chemicals like isocyanates, may act by IgE-independent mechanisms or may act as haptens, combining with body proteins. Once a worker becomes sensitized to an agent, re-exposure (frequently at levels far below the level that caused sensitization) results in an inflammatory response in the airways, often accompanied by increases in airflow limitation and non-specific bronchial responsiveness (NBR).

In epidemiological studies of OA, workplace exposures are consistently the strongest determinants of asthma prevalence, and the risk of developing OA with latency tends to increase with estimated intensity of exposure. Atopy is an important and smoking a somewhat less consistent determinant of asthma occurrence in studies of agents that act through an IgE-dependent mechanism. Neither atopy nor smoking appears to be an important determinant of asthma in studies of agents acting through IgE-independent mechanisms.

Clinical Presentation

The symptom spectrum of OA is similar to non-occupational asthma: wheeze, cough, chest tightness and shortness of breath. Patients sometimes present cough-variant or nocturnal asthma. OA can be severe and disabling, and deaths have been reported. Onset of OA occurs due to a specific job environment, so identifying exposures that occurred at the time of onset of asthmatic symptoms is key to an accurate diagnosis. In WAA, workplace exposures cause a significant increase in frequency and/or severity of symptoms of pre-existing asthma.

Several features of the clinical history may suggest occupational aetiology (Chan-Yeung 1995). Symptoms frequently worsen at work or at night after work, improve on days off, and recur on return to work. Symptoms may worsen progressively towards the end of the workweek. The patient may note specific activities or agents in the workplace that reproducibly trigger symptoms. Work-related eye irritation or rhinitis may be associated with asthmatic symptoms. These typical symptom patterns may be present only in the initial stages of OA. Partial or complete resolution on weekends or vacations is common early in the course of OA, but with repeated exposures, the time required for recovery may increase to one or two weeks, or recovery may cease to occur. The majority of patients with OA whose exposures are terminated continue to have symptomatic asthma even years after cessation of exposure, with permanent impairment and disability. Continuing exposure is associated with further worsening of asthma. Brief duration and mild severity of symptoms at the time of cessation of exposure are good prognostic factors and decrease the likelihood of permanent asthma.

Several characteristic temporal patterns of symptoms have been reported for OA. Early asthmatic reactions typically occur shortly (less than one hour) after beginning work or the specific work exposure causing the asthma. Late asthmatic reactions begin 4 to 6 hours after exposure begins, and can last 24 to 48 hours. Combinations of these patterns occur as dual asthmatic reactions with spontaneous resolution of symptoms separating an early and late reaction, or as continuous asthmatic reactions with no resolution of symptoms between phases. With exceptions, early reactions tend to be IgE mediated, and late reactions tend to be IgE independent.

Increased NBR, generally measured by methacholine or histamine challenge, is considered a cardinal feature of occupational asthma. The time course and degree of NBR may be useful in diagnosis and monitoring. NBR may decrease within several weeks after cessation of exposure, although abnormal NBR commonly persists for months or years after exposures are terminated. In individuals with irritant-induced occupational asthma, NBR is not expected to vary with exposure and/or symptoms.

Recognition and Diagnosis

Accurate diagnosis of OA is important, given the substantial negative consequences of either under- or over-diagnosis. In workers with OA or at risk of developing OA, timely recognition, identification and control of the occupational exposures causing the asthma improve the chances of prevention or complete recovery. This primary prevention can greatly reduce the high financial and human costs of chronic, disabling asthma. Conversely, since a diagnosis of OA may obligate a complete change of occupation, or costly interventions in the workplace, accurately distinguishing OA from asthma that is not occupational can prevent unnecessary social and financial costs to both employers and workers.

Several case definitions of OA have been proposed, appropriate in different circumstances. Definitions found valuable for worker screening or surveillance (Hoffman et al. 1990) may not be entirely applicable for clinical purposes or compensation. A consensus of researchers has defined OA as “a disease characterized by variable airflow limitation and/or airway hyper-responsiveness due to causes and conditions attributable to a particular occupational environment and not to stimuli encountered outside the workplace” (Bernstein et al. 1993). This definition has been operationalized as a medical case definition, summarized in table 1 (Chan-Yeung 1995).

Table 1. ACCP medical case definition of occupational asthma

Criteria for diagnosis of occupational asthma¹ (requires all 4, A-D):

(A)        Physician diagnosis of asthma and/or physiological evidence of airways hyper-responsiveness

(B)        Occupational exposure preceded onset of asthmatic symptoms¹

(C)        Association between symptoms of asthma and work

(D)        Exposure and/or physiological evidence of relation of asthma to workplace environment (Diagnosis of OA requires one or more of D2-D5, likely OA requires only D1)

(1)        Workplace exposure to agent reported to give rise to OA

(2)        Work-related changes in FEV¹ and/or PEF

(3)        Work-related changes in serial testing for non-specific bronchial responsiveness (e.g., Methacholine Challenge Test)

(4)        Positive specific bronchial challenge test

(5)        Onset of asthma with a clear association with a symptomatic exposure to an inhaled irritant in the workplace (generally RADS)

Criteria for diagnosis of RADS (should meet all 7):

(1)        Documented absence of preexisting asthma-like complaints

(2)        Onset of symptoms after a single exposure incident or accident

(3)        Exposure to a gas, smoke, fume, vapour or dust with irritant properties present in high concentration

(4)        Onset of symptoms within 24 hours after exposure with persistence of symptoms for at least 3 months

(5)        Symptoms consistent with asthma: cough, wheeze, dyspnoea

(6)        Presence of airflow obstruction on pulmonary function tests and/or presence of non-specific bronchial hyper-responsiveness (testing should be done shortly after exposure)

(7)        Other pulmonary diseases ruled out

Criteria for diagnosis of work-aggravated asthma (WAA):

(1)        Meets criteria A and C of ACCP Medical Case Definition of OA

(2)        Pre-existing asthma or history of asthmatic symptoms, (with active symptoms during the year prior to start of employment or exposure of interest)

(3)        Clear increase in symptoms or medication requirement, or documentation of work-related changes in PEF^R or FEV¹ after start of employment or exposure of interest

¹ A case definition requiring A, C and any one of D1 to D5 may be useful in surveillance for OA, WAA and RADS.
Source: Chan-Yeung 1995.

Thorough clinical evaluation of OA can be time consuming, costly and difficult. It may require diagnostic trials of removal from and return to work, and often requires the patient to reliably chart serial peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements. Some components of the clinical evaluation (e.g., specific bronchial challenge or serial quantitative testing for NBR) may not be readily available to many physicians. Other components may simply not be achievable (e.g., patient no longer working, diagnostic resources not available, inadequate serial PEF measurements). Diagnostic accuracy is likely to increase with the thoroughness of the clinical evaluation. In each individual patient, decisions on the extent of medical evaluation will need to balance costs of the evaluation with the clinical, social, financial and public health consequences of incorrectly diagnosing or ruling out OA.

In consideration of these difficulties, a stepped approach to diagnosis of OA is outlined in table 2. This is intended as a general guide to facilitate accurate, practical and efficient diagnostic evaluation, recognizing that some of the suggested procedures may not be available in some settings. Diagnosis of OA involves establishing both the diagnosis of asthma and the relation between asthma and workplace exposures. After each step, for each patient, the physician will need to determine whether the level of diagnostic certainty achieved is adequate to support the necessary decisions, or whether evaluation should continue to the next step. If facilities and resources are available, the time and cost of continuing the clinical evaluation are usually justified by the importance of making an accurate determination of the relationship of asthma to work. Highlights of diagnostic procedures for OA will be summarized; details can be found in several of the references (Chan-Yeung 1995; Bernstein et al. 1993). Consultation with a physician experienced in OA may be considered, since the diagnostic process may be difficult.

Table 2. Steps in diagnostic evaluation of asthma in the workplace

Step 1 Thorough medical and occupational history and directed physical examination.

Step 2 Physiologic evaluation for reversible airway obstruction and/or non specific bronchial hyper-responsiveness.

Step 3 Immunologic assessment, if appropriate.

Assess Work Status:

Currently working: Proceed to Step 4 first.
Not currently working, diagnostic trial of return to work feasible: Step 5 first, then Step 4.
Not currently working, diagnostic trial of return to work not feasible: Step 6.

Step 4 Clinical evaluation of asthma at work or diagnostic trial of return to work.

Step 5 Clinical evaluation of asthma away from work or diagnostic trial of removal from work.

Step 6 Workplace challenge or specific bronchial challenge testing. If available for suspected causal exposures, this step may be performed prior to Step 4 for any patient.

This is intended as a general guide to facilitate practical and efficient diagnostic evaluation. It is recommended that physicians who diagnose and manage OA refer to current clinical literature as well.

RADS, when caused by an occupational exposure, is usually considered a subclass of OA. It is diagnosed clinically, using the criteria in Table 6. Patients who have experienced significant respiratory injury due to high-level irritant inhalations should be evaluated for persistent symptoms and presence of airflow obstruction shortly after the event. If the clinical history is compatible with RADS, further evaluation should include quantitative testing for NBR, if not contra-indicated.

WAA may be common, and may cause a substantial preventable burden of disability, but little has been published on diagnosis, management or prognosis. As summarized in Table 6, WAA is recognized when asthmatic symptoms preceded the suspected causal exposure but are clearly aggravated by the work environment. Worsening at work can be documented either by physiological evidence or through evaluation of medical records and medication use. It is a clinical judgement whether patients with a history of asthma in remission, who have recurrence of asthmatic symptoms that otherwise meet the criteria for OA, are diagnosed with OA or WAA. One year has been proposed as a sufficiently long asymptomatic period that the onset of symptoms is likely to represent a new process caused by the workplace exposure, although no consensus yet exists.

Step 1: Thorough medical and occupational history anddirected physical examination

Initial suspicion of possible OA in appropriate clinical and workplace situations is key, given the importance of early diagnosis and intervention in improving prognosis. The diagnosis of OA or WAA should be considered in all asthmatic patients in whom symptoms developed as a working adult (especially recent onset), or in whom the severity of asthma has substantially increased. OA should also be considered in any other individuals who have asthma-like symptoms and work in occupations in which they are exposed to asthma-causing agents or who are concerned that their symptoms are work-related.

Patients with possible OA should be asked to provide a thorough medical and occupational/environmental history, with careful documentation of the nature and date of onset of symptoms and diagnosis of asthma, and any potentially causal exposures at that time. Compatibility of the medical history with the clinical presentation of OA described above should be evaluated, especially the temporal pattern of symptoms in relation to work schedule and changes in work exposures. Patterns and changes in patterns of use of asthma medications, and the minimum period of time away from work required for improvement in symptoms should be noted. Prior respiratory diseases, allergies/atopy, smoking and other toxic exposures, and a family history of allergy are pertinent.

Occupational and other environmental exposures to potential asthma-causing agents or processes should be thoroughly explored, with objective documentation of exposures if possible. Suspected exposures should be compared with a comprehensive list of agents reported to cause OA (Harber, Schenker and Balmes 1996; Chan-Yeung and Malo 1994; Bernstein et al. 1993; Rom 1992b), although inability to identify specific agents is not uncommon and induction of asthma by agents not previously described is possible as well. Some illustrative examples are shown in table 3. Occupational history should include details of current and relevant past employment with dates, job titles, tasks and exposures, especially current job and job held at time of onset of symptoms. Other environmental history should include a review of exposures in the home or community that could cause asthma. It is helpful to begin the exposure history in an open-ended way, asking about broad categories of airborne agents: dusts (especially organic dusts of animal, plant or microbial origin), chemicals, pharmaceuticals and irritating or visible gases or fumes. The patient may identify specific agents, work processes or generic categories of agents that have triggered symptoms. Asking the patient to describe step by step the activities and exposures involved in the most recent symptomatic workday can provide useful clues. Materials used by co-workers, or those released in high concentration from a spill or other source, may be relevant. Further information can often be obtained on product name, ingredients and manufacturer name, address and phone number. Specific agents can be identified by calling the manufacturer or through a variety of other sources including textbooks, CD ROM databases, or Poison Control Centers. Since OA is frequently caused by low levels of airborne allergens, workplace industrial hygiene inspections which qualitatively evaluate exposures and control measures are often more helpful than quantitative measurement of air contaminants.

Table 3. Sensitizing agents that can cause occupational asthma

The clinical history appears to be better for excluding rather than for confirming the diagnosis of OA, and an open-ended history taken by a physician is better than a closed questionnaire. One study compared the results of an open-ended clinical history taken by trained OA specialists with a “gold standard” of specific bronchial challenge testing in 162 patients referred for evaluation of possible OA. The investigators reported that the sensitivity of a clinical history suggestive of OA was 87%, specificity 55%, predictive value positive 63% and predictive value negative 83%. In this group of referred patients, prevalence of asthma and OA were 80% and 46%, respectively (Malo et al. 1991). In other groups of referred patients, predictive values positive of a closed questionnaire ranged from 8 to 52% for a variety of workplace exposures (Bernstein et al. 1993). The applicability of these results to other settings needs to be assessed by the physician.

Physical examination is sometimes helpful, and findings relevant to asthma (e.g., wheezing, nasal polyps, eczematous dermatitis), respiratory irritation or allergy (e.g., rhinitis, conjunctivitis) or other potential causes of symptoms should be noted.

Step 2: Physiological evaluation for reversible airway obstruction and/or non-specific bronchial hyper-responsiveness

If sufficient physiological evidence supporting the diagnosis of asthma (NAEP 1991) is already in the medical record, Step 2 can be skipped. If not, technician-coached spirometry should be performed, preferably post-workshift on a day when the patient is experiencing asthmatic symptoms. If spirometry reveals airway obstruction which reverses with a bronchodilator, this confirms the diagnosis of asthma. In patients without clear evidence of airflow limitation on spirometry, quantitative testing for NBR using methacholine or histamine should be done, the same day if possible. Quantitative testing for NBR in this situation is a key procedure for two reasons. First, it can often identify patients with mild or early stage OA who have the greatest potential for cure but who would be missed if testing stopped with normal spirometry. Second, if NBR is normal in a worker who has ongoing exposure in the workplace environment associated with the symptoms, OA can generally be ruled out without further testing. If abnormal, evaluation can proceed to Step 3 or 4, and the degree of NBR may be useful in monitoring the patient for improvement after diagnostic trial of removal from the suspected causal exposure (Step 5). If spirometry reveals significant airflow limitation that does not improve after inhaled bronchodilator, a re-evaluation after more prolonged trial of therapy, including corticosteroids, should be considered (ATS 1995; NAEP 1991).

Step 3: Immunological assessment, if appropriate

Skin or serological (e.g., RAST) testing can demonstrate immunological sensitization to a specific workplace agent. These immunological tests have been used to confirm the work-relatedness of asthma, and, in some cases, eliminate the need for specific inhalation challenge tests. For example, among psyllium-exposed patients with a clinical history compatible with OA, documented asthma or airway hyper-responsiveness, and evidence of immunological sensitization to psyllium, approximately 80% had OA confirmed on subsequent specific bronchial challenge testing (Malo et al. 1990). In most cases, diagnostic significance of negative immunological tests is less clear. The diagnostic sensitivity of the immunological tests depends critically on whether all the likely causal antigens in the workplace or hapten-protein complexes have been included in the testing. Although the implication of sensitization for an asymptomatic worker is not well defined, analysis of grouped results can be useful in evaluating environmental controls. The utility of immunological evaluation is greatest for agents for which there are standardized in vitro tests or skin-prick reagents, such as platinum salts and detergent enzymes. Unfortunately, most occupational allergens of interest are not currently available commercially. The use of non-commercial solutions in skin-prick testing has on occasions been associated with severe reactions, including anaphylaxis, and thus caution is necessary.

If results of Steps 1 and 2 are compatible with OA, further evaluation should be pursued if possible. The order and extent of further evaluation depends on availability of diagnostic resources, work status of the patient and feasibility of diagnostic trials of removal from and return to work as indicated in Table 7. If further evaluation is not possible, a diagnosis must be based on the information available at this point.

Step 4: Clinical evaluation of asthma at work, or diagnostic trial of return to work

Often the most readily available physiological test of airway obstruction is spirometry. To improve reproducibility, spirometry should be coached by a trained technician. Unfortunately, single-day cross-shift spirometry, performed before and after the workshift, is neither sensitive nor specific in determining work-associated airway obstruction. It is probable that if multiple spirometries are performed each day during and after several workdays, the diagnostic accuracy may be improved, but this has not yet been adequately evaluated.

Due to difficulties with cross-shift spirometry, serial PEF measurement has become an important diagnostic technique for OA. Using an inexpensive portable meter, PEF measurements are recorded every two hours, during waking hours. To improve sensitivity, measurements must be done during a period when the worker is exposed to the suspected causal agents at work and is experiencing a work-related pattern of symptoms. Three repetitions are performed at each time, and measurements are made every day at work and away from work. The measurements should be continued for at least 16 consecutive days (e.g., two five-day work weeks and 3 weekends off) if the patient can safely tolerate continuing to work. PEF measurements are recorded in a diary along with notation of work hours, symptoms, use of bronchodilator medications, and significant exposures. To facilitate interpretation, the diary results should then be plotted graphically. Certain patterns suggest OA, but none are pathognomonic, and interpretation by an experienced reader is often helpful. Advantages of serial PEF testing are low cost and reasonable correlation with results of bronchial challenge testing. Disadvantages include the significant degree of patient cooperation required, inability to definitely confirm that data are accurate, lack of standardized method of interpretation, and the need for some patients to take 1 or 2 consecutive weeks off work to show significant improvement. Portable electronic recording spirometers designed for patient self monitoring, when available, can address some of the disadvantages of serial PEF.

Asthma medications tend to reduce the effect of work exposures on measures of airflow. However, it is not advisable to discontinue medications during airflow monitoring at work. Rather, the patient should be maintained on a constant minimal safe dosage of anti-inflammatory medications throughout the entire diagnostic process, with close monitoring of symptoms and airflow, and the use of short-acting bronchodilators to control symptoms should be noted in the diary.

The failure to observe work-related changes in PEF while a patient is working routine hours does not exclude the diagnosis of OA, since many patients will require more than a two-day weekend to show significant improvement in PEF. In this case, a diagnostic trial of extended removal from work (Step 5) should be considered. If the patient has not yet had quantitative testing for NBR, and does not have a medical contra-indication, it should be done at this time, immediately after at least two weeks of workplace exposure.

Step 5: Clinical evaluation of asthma away from work or diagnostic trial of extended removal from work

This step consists of completion of the serial 2-hourly PEF daily diary for at least 9 consecutive days away from work (e.g., 5 days off work plus weekends before and after). If this record, compared with the serial PEF diary at work, is not sufficient for diagnosing OA, it should be continued for a second consecutive week away from work. After 2 or more weeks away from work, quantitative testing for NBR can be performed and compared to NBR while at work. If serial PEF has not yet been done during at least two weeks at work, then a diagnostic trial of return to work (see Step 4) may be performed, after detailed counselling, and in close contact with the treating physician. Step 5 is often critically important in confirming or excluding the diagnosis of OA, although it may also be the most difficult and expensive step. If an extended removal from work is attempted, it is best to maximize the diagnostic yield and efficiency by including PEF, FEV₁, and NBR tests in one comprehensive evaluation. Weekly physician visits for counselling and to review the PEF chart can help to assure complete and accurate results. If, after monitoring the patient for at least two weeks at work and two weeks away from it, the diagnostic evidence is not yet sufficient, Step 6 should be considered next, if available and feasible.

Step 6: Specific bronchial challenge or workplace challenge testing

Specific bronchial challenge testing using an exposure chamber and standardized exposure levels has been labelled the “gold standard” for diagnosis of OA. Advantages include definitive confirmation of OA with ability to identify asthmatic response to sub-irritant levels of specific sensitizing agents, which can then be scrupulously avoided. Of all the diagnostic methods, it is the only one that can reliably distinguish sensitizer-induced asthma from provocation by irritants. Several problems with this approach have included inherent costliness of the procedure, general requirement of close observation or hospitalization for several days, and availability in only very few specialized centres. False negatives may occur if standardized methodology is not available for all suspected agents, if the wrong agents are suspected, or if too long a time has elapsed between last exposure and testing. False positives may result if irritant levels of exposure are inadvertently obtained. For these reasons, specific bronchial challenge testing for OA remains a research procedure in most localities.

Workplace challenge testing involves serial technician-coached spirometry in the workplace, performed at frequent (e.g., hourly) intervals before and during the course of a workday exposure to the suspected causal agents or processes. It may be more sensitive than specific bronchial challenge testing because it involves “real life” exposures, but since airway obstruction may be triggered by irritants as well as sensitizing agents, positive tests do not necessarily indicate sensitization. It also requires cooperation of the employer and much technician time with a mobile spirometer. Both of these procedures carry some risk of precipitating a severe asthmatic attack, and should therefore be done under close supervision of specialists experienced with the procedures.

Treatment and Prevention

Management of OA includes medical and preventive interventions for individual patients, as well as public health measures in workplaces identified as high risk for OA. Medical management is similar to that for non-occupational asthma and is well reviewed elsewhere (NAEP 1991). Medical management alone is rarely adequate to optimally control symptoms, and preventive intervention by control or cessation of exposure is an integral part of the treatment. This process begins with accurate diagnosis and identification of causative exposures and conditions. In sensitizer-induced OA, reducing exposure to the sensitizer does not usually result in complete resolution of symptoms. Severe asthmatic episodes or progressive worsening of the disease may be caused by exposures to very low concentrations of the agent and complete and permanent cessation of exposure is recommended. Timely referral for vocational rehabilitation and job retraining may be a necessary component of treatment for some patients. If complete cessation of exposure is impossible, substantial reduction of exposure accompanied by close medical monitoring and management may be an option, although such reduction in exposure is not always feasible and the long-term safety of this approach has not been tested. As an example, it would be difficult to justify the toxicity of long-term treatment with systemic corticosteroids in order to allow the patient to continue in the same employment. For asthma induced and/or triggered by irritants, dose response may be more predictable, and lowering of irritant exposure levels, accompanied by close medical monitoring, may be less risky and more likely to be effective than for sensitizer-induced OA. If the patient continues to work under modified conditions, medical follow-up should include frequent physician visits with review of the PEF diary, well-planned access to emergency services, and serial spirometry and/or methacholine challenge testing, as appropriate.

Once a particular workplace is suspected to be high risk, due either to occurrence of a sentinel case of OA or use of known asthma-causing agents, public health methods can be very useful. Early recognition and effective treatment and prevention of disability of workers with existing OA, and prevention of new cases, are clear priorities. Identification of specific causal agent(s) and work processes is important. One practical initial approach is a workplace questionnaire survey, evaluating criteria A, B, C, and D1 or D5 in the case definition of OA. This approach can identify individuals for whom further clinical evaluation might be indicated and help identify possible causal agents or circumstances. Evaluation of group results can help decide whether further workplace investigation or intervention is indicated and, if so, provide valuable guidance in targeting future prevention efforts in the most effective and efficient manner. A questionnaire survey is not adequate, however, to establish individual medical diagnoses, since predictive positive values of questionnaires for OA are not high enough. If a greater level of diagnostic certainty is needed, medical screening utilizing diagnostic procedures such as spirometry, quantitative testing for NBR, serial PEF recording, and immunological testing can be considered as well. In known problem workplaces, ongoing surveillance and screening programmes may be helpful. However, differential exclusion of asymptomatic workers with history of atopy or other potential susceptibility factors from workplaces believed to be high risk would result in removal of large numbers of workers to prevent relatively few cases of OA, and is not supported by the current literature.

Control or elimination of causal exposures and avoidance and proper management of spills or episodes of high-level exposures can lead to effective primary prevention of sensitization and OA in co-workers of the sentinel case. The usual exposure control hierarchy of substitution, engineering and administrative controls, and personal protective equipment, as well as education of workers and managers, should be implemented as appropriate. Proactive employers will initiate or participate in some or all of these approaches, but in the event that inadequate preventive action is taken and workers remain at high risk, governmental enforcement agencies may be helpful.

Impairment and Disability

Medical impairment is a functional abnormality resulting from a medical condition. Disability refers to the total effect of the medical impairment on the patient’s life, and is influenced by many non-medical factors such as age and socio-economic status (ATS 1995).

Assessment of medical impairment is done by the physician and may include a calculated impairment index, as well as other clinical considerations. The impairment index is based on (1) degree of airflow limitation after bronchodilator, (2) either degree of reversibility of airflow limitation with bronchodilator or degree of airway hyper-responsiveness on quantitative testing for NBR, and (3) minimum medication required to control asthma. The other major component of the assessment of medical impairment is the physician’s medical judgement of the ability of the patient to work in the workplace environment causing the asthma. For example, a patient with sensitizer-induced OA may have a medical impairment which is highly specific to the agent to which he or she has become sensitized. The worker who experiences symptoms only when exposed to this agent may be able to work in other jobs, but permanently unable to work in the specific job for which she or he has the most training and experience.

Assessment of disability due to asthma (including OA) requires consideration of medical impairment as well as other non-medical factors affecting ability to work and function in everyday life. Disability assessment is initially made by the physician, who should identify all the factors affecting the impact of the impairment on the patient’s life. Many factors such as occupation, educational level, possession of other marketable skills, economic conditions and other social factors may lead to varying levels of disability in individuals with the same level of medical impairment. This information can then be used by administrators to determine disability for purposes of compensation.

Impairment and disability may be classified as temporary or permanent, depending on the likelihood of significant improvement, and whether effective exposure controls are successfully implemented in the workplace. For example, an individual with sensitizer-induced OA is generally considered permanently, totally impaired for any job involving exposure to the causal agent. If the symptoms resolve partially or completely after cessation of exposure, these individuals may be classified with less or no impairment for other jobs. Often this is considered permanent partial impairment/disability, but terminology may vary. An individual with asthma which is triggered in a dose-dependent fashion by irritants in the workplace would be considered to have temporary impairment while symptomatic, and less or no impairment if adequate exposure controls are installed and are effective in reducing or eliminating symptoms. If effective exposure controls are not implemented, the same individual might have to be considered permanently impaired to work in that job, with recommendation for medical removal. If necessary, repeated assessment for long-term impairment/disability may be carried out two years after the exposure is reduced or terminated, when improvement of OA would be expected to have plateaued. If the patient continues to work, medical monitoring should be ongoing and reassessment of impairment/disability should be repeated as needed.

Workers who become disabled by OA or WAA may qualify for financial compensation for medical expenses and/or lost wages. In addition to directly reducing the financial impact of the disability on individual workers and their families, compensation may be necessary to provide proper medical treatment, initiate preventive intervention and obtain vocational rehabilitation. The worker’s and physician’s understanding of specific medico-legal issues may be important to ensuring that the diagnostic evaluation meets local requirements and does not result in compromise of the rights of the affected worker.

Although discussions of cost savings frequently focus on the inadequacy of compensation systems, genuinely reducing the financial and public health burden placed on society by OA and WAA will depend not only on improvements in compensation systems but, more importantly, on effectiveness of the systems deployed to identify and rectify, or prevent entirely, workplace exposures that are causing onset of new cases of asthma.

Conclusions

OA has become the most prevalent occupational respiratory disease in many countries. It is more common than generally recognized, can be severe and disabling, and is generally preventable. Early recognition and effective preventive interventions can substantially reduce the risk of permanent disability and the high human and financial costs associated with chronic asthma. For many reasons, OA merits more widespread attention among clinicians, health and safety specialists, researchers, health policy makers, industrial hygienists, and others interested in prevention of work-related diseases.

Back