Chemical sensitivity in physicians.

By the nature of their work environment, physicians may be exposed to potentially toxic substances that can trigger chemical sensitivity. Nineteen physicians with chemical sensitivity were evaluated at the Environmental Health Center - Dallas regarding: type of specialty, history of chemical exposure, symptoms produced, food and water tolerance, immune parameters and double-blind chemical inhalation challenge. Food and chemical sensitivities were demonstrated in these physicians by oral, intradermal and inhalation challenges. After treatment, fifteen of the nineteen physicians were able to resume medical practice. Potential sources of chemical exposure in medical environments are evaluated.

Confirmation of chemical sensitivity by means of double-blind inhalant challenge of toxic volatile chemicals.

Fifty chemically sensitive patients with vascular, asthmatic and arthritic signs, ranging in age from 21 to 61, were exposed to double-blind challenges of ambient doses of inhaled toxic chemicals in a specially designed booth in an Environmental Control Unit (ECU). Primary signs and symptoms were recorded before and after challenge with five chemicals and three placebos. Inhaled challenges included phenol (less than .0025 ppm), petroleum-derived ethyl alcohol (less than .5 ppm), formaldehyde (less than .2 ppm), chlorine (less than .3 ppm), and pesticide (2, 3,-D at less than .0034 ppm). Placebos were water or saline. A set on testing criteria were evaluated for maximizing the likelihood of well-defined, reproducible information from these ambient-dose double-blind challenges. For best results, these testing criteria include: Before testing, the patient must be housed in a chemically less polluted environment. The individual must have been de-adapted to food, air, and water pollutants by means of a water fat for three to four days. At the time of the challenge, the patient must be on food and water previously determined to be safe. An enclosed non-pulluted challenge booth must be used for these chemical exposures. Sign and symptom scores appropriate for that patient must be recorded, before and after challenge. Appropriate doses of the chemical in question (determined by air concentration and length of exposure) are necessary to investigate a particular problem. The conclusion of the study is that in these patients, chemical sensitivity clearly does exist (pulse rate differences between positive responses and placebo - p .001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Aliphatic hydrocarbon solvents in chemically sensitive patients.

The purpose of the present study was to see if chemically sensitive individuals had aliphatic hydrocarbon solvents as part of their total body load. This was done by measuring blood levels from 85 chemically sensitive patients. These were measured by a purging trap method with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCC/MS) by the methods of Laseter. Thirteen patients had blood levels below the detection limit of less than 1 ppb and 72 were above the detection limit. An average of three solvents, out of seven measured, including n-pentane, 2,2-dimethylbutane, cyclopentane, 2-methylpentane, 3-methylpentane, n-hexane, n-heptane, was found in 85% of the patients' blood on the 1 to 299 ppb range. The means were as follows: n-pentane 14.7 ppb, 2,2-dimethylbutane 2.5 ppb, cyclopentane 9.0 ppb, 2-methylpentane 16.7 ppb, 3-methylpentane 28.0 ppb, n-heptane 5.5 ppb. The most frequently found of the above solvents was 2-methylpentane (found in 68.1% of the patients), 3-methylpentane (62.5%), n-hexane (61.1%), and pentane (40.3%).

Food and chemicals as environmental incitants.

Susceptibility to environmental incitants such as air, food and water components is becoming an increasingly recognized health problem. These sensitivities and reactions can induce a spectrum of symptoms affecting smooth muscle, mucous membranes and collagen in the respiratory, gastrointestinal, genitourinary and vascular systems. These reactions may be mistaken for hypochondriasis, but actually are due to reactions to foods and chemicals found in the patient's home and work environments. Careful clinical histories should alert the nurse and physician, who can confirm suspicions by eliminating and challenging the patient with potentially offending agents under controlled circumstances.

Clearing of toxic volatile hydrocarbons from humans.

In this study, different modes of therapy for the removal of toxic chemicals from the human body have been assessed and compared. This consisted of: 1) thirteen inpatients in an environmentally controlled area in a hospital, 2) fourty-one outpatients with home environmental control and work area change, and 3) fifteen outpatients in a physical therapy/sauna program with a good environmental control. Attention to manipulation of food, food contaminants, water and air pollution as well as nutritional therapy was important in all groups. Each modality seemed efficacious in++ its own right; 100% inpatients, 80% sauna/physical therapy patients, and 70% outpatients improved their signs and symptoms. Inpatient therapy in a finally controlled environment was far superior to the other two modalities in clearing of symptoms, as well as in clearing of organic chemicals. Outpatient and sauna/physical therapy are efficacious for less ill patients.