Search

World-wide some 658 million people were infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and millions suffer from chemosensory impairment associated with long COVID. Current treatments for taste and smell disorders are limited. Involving patients has the potential to catalyze the dynamic exchange and development of new ideas and approaches to facilitate biomedical research and therapeutics. We assessed patients' perceptions of the efficacy of treatments for chemosensory impairment using an online questionnaire completed by 5,815 people in the US Logistic regression determined variables predictive of reported treatment efficacy for patients aged 18 to 24, 25 to 39, 40 to 60, and 60+ yrs. who were treated with nasal steroids, oral steroids, zinc, nasal rinse, smell training, theophylline, platelet-rich plasma, and Omega 3. The most consistent predictor was age, with the majority of those 40 to 60 and 60+ reporting that nasal steroids, oral steroids, zinc, nasal rinse, and smell training were only slightly effective or not effective at all. Many of these treatment strategies target regeneration and immune response, processes compromised by age. Only those under 40 reported more than slight efficacy of steroids or smell training. Findings emphasize the need to include patients of all ages in clinical trials. Older adults with olfactory impairment are at increased risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD). We speculate that olfactory impairment associated with long COVID introduces the potential for a significant rise in AD. Long COVID-associated chemosensory impairment increases the urgency for translational and clinical research on novel treatment strategies. Suggestions for high-priority areas for epidemiological, basic, and clinical research on chemosensory impairment follow., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

SCENTinel, a rapid smell test designed to screen for olfactory disorders, including anosmia (no ability to smell an odor) and parosmia (distorted sense of smell), measures 4 components of olfactory function: detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness. Each test card contains one of 9 odorant mixtures. Some people born with genetic insensitivities to specific odorants (i.e. specific anosmia) may fail the test if they cannot smell an odorant but otherwise have a normal sense of smell. However, using odorant mixtures has largely been found to prevent this from happening. To better understand whether genetic differences affect SCENTinel test results, we asked genetically informative adult participants (twins or triplets, N = 630; singletons, N = 370) to complete the SCENTinel test. A subset of twins (n = 304) also provided a saliva sample for genotyping. We examined data for differences between the 9 possible SCENTinel odors; effects of age, sex, and race on SCENTinel performance, test-retest variability; and heritability using both structured equation modeling and SNP-based statistical methods. None of these strategies provided evidence for specific anosmia for any of the odors, but ratings of pleasantness were, in part, genetically determined (h2 = 0.40) and were nominally associated with alleles of odorant receptors (e.g. OR2T33 and OR1G1; P < 0.001). These results provide evidence that using odorant mixtures protected against effects of specific anosmia for ratings of intensity but that ratings of pleasantness showed effects of inheritance, possibly informed by olfactory receptor genotypes., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

It is estimated that 20%-67% of those with COVID-19 develop olfactory disorders, depending on the SARS-CoV-2 variant. However, there is an absence of quick, population-wide olfactory tests to screen for olfactory disorders. The purpose of this study was to provide a proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid, inexpensive, population-wide olfactory test, can discriminate between anosmia (total smell loss), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), parosmia (distorted odor perception), and phantosmia (odor sensation without a source). Participants were mailed a SCENTinel 1.1 test, which measures odor detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness, using one of 4 possible odors. Those who completed the test (N = 287) were divided into groups based on their self-reported olfactory function: quantitative olfactory disorder only (anosmia or hyposmia, N = 135), qualitative olfactory disorder only (parosmia and/or phantosmia; N = 86), and normosmia (normal sense of smell; N = 66). SCENTinel 1.1 accurately discriminates quantitative olfactory disorders, qualitative olfactory disorders, and normosmia groups. When olfactory disorders were assessed individually, SCENTinel 1.1 discriminates between hyposmia, parosmia, and anosmia. Participants with parosmia rated common odors less pleasant than those without parosmia. We provide proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid smell test, can discriminate quantitative and qualitative olfactory disorders, and is the only direct test to rapidly discriminate parosmia., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

E-cigarettes have surged in popularity over the last few years, particularly among youth and young adults. These battery-powered devices aerosolize e-liquids, comprised of propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, typically with nicotine, flavors, and stabilizers/humectants. Although the use of combustible cigarettes is associated with several adverse health effects including multiple pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases, the effects of e-cigarettes on both short- and long-term health have only begun to be investigated. Given the recent increase in the popularity of e-cigarettes, there is an urgent need for studies to address their potential adverse health effects, particularly as many researchers have suggested that e-cigarettes may pose less of a health risk than traditional combustible cigarettes and should be used as nicotine replacements. This report is prepared for clinicians, researchers, and other health care providers to provide the current state of knowledge on how e-cigarette use might affect cardiopulmonary health, along with research gaps to be addressed in future studies., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Physiological Society 2021. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Commercially available smell tests are primarily used in research or in-depth clinical evaluations and are too costly and time-consuming for population surveillance in health emergencies like COVID-19. To address this need, we developed the SCENTinel 1.0 test, which rapidly evaluates 3 olfactory functions: detection, intensity, and identification. We tested whether self-administering the SCENTinel 1.0 test discriminates between individuals with self-reported smell loss and those with average smell ability (normosmic individuals) and provides performance comparable to the validated and standardized NIH Toolbox Odor Identification Test in normosmic individuals. Using Bayesian linear models and prognostic classification algorithms, we compared the SCENTinel 1.0 performance of a group of self-reported anosmic individuals (N = 111, 47 ± 13 years old, F = 71%) and normosmic individuals (N = 154, 47 ± 14 years old, F = 74%) as well as individuals reporting other smell disorders (such as hyposmia or parosmia; N = 42, 55 ± 10 years old, F = 67%). Ninety-four percent of normosmic individuals met our SCENTinel 1.0 accuracy criteria compared with only 10% of anosmic individuals and 64% of individuals with other smell disorders. Overall performance on SCENTinel 1.0 predicted belonging to the normosmic group better than identification or detection alone (vs. anosmic: AUC = 0.95, specificity = 0.94). Odor intensity provided the best single-feature predictor to classify normosmic individuals. Among normosmic individuals, 92% met the accuracy criteria at both SCENTinel 1.0 and the NIH Toolbox Odor Identification Test. SCENTinel 1.0 is a practical test able to discriminate individuals with smell loss and will likely be useful in many clinical situations, including COVID-19 symptom screening., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Nasal airflow that effectively transports ambient odors to the olfactory receptors is important for human olfaction. Yet, the impact of nasal anatomical variations on airflow pattern and olfactory function is not fully understood. In this study, 22 healthy volunteers were recruited and underwent computed tomographic scans for computational simulations of nasal airflow patterns. Unilateral odor detection thresholds (ODT) to l-carvone, phenylethyl alcohol (PEA) and d-limonene were also obtained for all participants. Significant normative variations in both nasal anatomy and aerodynamics were found. The most prominent was the formation of an anterior dorsal airflow vortex in some but not all subjects, with the vortex size being significantly correlated with ODT of l-carvone (r = 0.31, P < 0.05). The formation of the vortex is likely the result of anterior nasal morphology, with the vortex size varying significantly with the nasal index (ratio of the width and height of external nose, r = -0.59, P < 0.001) and nasal vestibule "notch" index (r = 0.76, P < 0.001). The "notch" is a narrowing of the upper nasal vestibule cartilage region. The degree of the notch also significantly correlates with ODT for PEA (r = 0.32, P < 0.05) and l-carvone (r = 0.33, P < 0.05). ODT of d-limonene, a low mucosal soluble odor, does not correlate with any of the anatomical or aerodynamic variables. The current study revealed that nasal anatomy and aerodynamics might have a significant impact on normal olfactory sensitivity, with greater airflow vortex and a narrower vestibule region likely intensifying the airflow vortex toward the olfactory region and resulting in greater olfactory sensitivity to high mucosal soluble odors.

Given that context affects olfaction and the elderly exhibit olfactory deficits, the current study tested whether a subtle change in internal context, evoked by priming the elderly stereotype, would affect performance in a variety of olfactory tasks including odor sensitivity, discrimination, and identification (Experiment 1), as well as perceived odor intensity, pleasantness and familiarity, and an odor reaction time task (Experiment 2). Such internalization of the elderly stereotype has been demonstrated with slower walking speeds and fewer words recalled in a memory task. In the current study, 76 participants first listened to a presentation about age-related declines in olfaction and then participated in 3 language tasks which, unbeknownst to them, served as the elderly stereotype priming manipulation. This priming manipulation was effective at decreasing walking speed and word recall, confirming the findings of previous researchers; however, olfaction was not affected. Whether olfaction is resistant to stereotype priming is discussed.

The primary sensory neurons of the olfactory system are chronically exposed to the ambient environment and may therefore be susceptible to damage from occupational exposure to many volatile chemicals. To investigate whether occupational exposure to styrene was associated with olfactory impairment, we examined olfactory function in 2 groups: workers in a German reinforced-plastics boat-manufacturing facility having a minimum of 2 years of styrene exposure (15-25 ppm as calculated from urinary metabolite concentrations, with historical exposures up to 85 ppm) and a group of age-matched workers from the same facility with lower styrene exposures. The results were also compared with normative data previously collected from healthy, unexposed individuals. Multiple measures of olfactory function were evaluated using a standardized battery of clinical assessments from the Monell-Jefferson Chemosensory Clinical Research Center that included tests of threshold sensitivity for phenylethyl alcohol (PEA) and odor identification ability. Thresholds for styrene were also obtained as a measure of occupational olfactory adaptation. Styrene exposure history was calculated through the use of past biological monitoring results for urinary metabolites of styrene (mandelic acid [MA], phenylglyoxylic acid [PGA]); current exposure was determined for each individual using passive air sampling for styrene and biological monitoring for styrene urinary metabolites. Current mean effective styrene exposure during the day of olfactory testing for the group of workers who worked directly with styrene resins was 18 ppm styrene (standard deviation [SD] = 14), 371 g/g creatinine MA + PGA (SD = 289) and that of the group of workers with lower exposures was 4.8 ppm (SD = 5.2), 93 g/g creatinine MA+PGA (SD = 100). Historic annual average exposures for all workers were greater by a factor of up to 6x. No differences unequivocally attributable to exposure status were observed between the Exposed and Comparison groups or between performance of either group and normative population values on thresholds for PEA or odor identification. Although odor identification performance was lower among workers with higher ongoing exposures, performance on this test is not a pure measure of olfactory ability and is influenced by familiarity with the stimuli and their sources. Consistent with exposure-induced sensory adaptation, however, elevated styrene thresholds were significantly associated with higher occupational exposures to styrene. In summary, the present study found no evidence among a cross-section of reinforced-plastics workers that current or historical exposure to styrene was associated with a general impairment of olfactory function. When taken together with prior studies of styrene-exposed workers, these results suggest that styrene is not a significant olfactory toxicant in humans at current exposure levels.

Odor and lateralization (irritation) thresholds (LTs) for ammonia vapor were measured using static and dynamic olfactometry. The purpose of the study was to explore the test-retest reliability and comparability of dynamic olfactometry methodology, generally used to determine odor thresholds following European Committee for Standardization guidelines in the context of odor regulations to outside emissions, with static olfactometry. Within a 2-week period, odor and LTs for ammonia were obtained twice for each method for 24 females. No significant differences between methods were found: mean odor detection thresholds (ODTs) were 2.6 parts per million (ppm) for either method (P = 0.96), and mean LTs were 31.7 and 60.9 ppm for the static and dynamic method, respectively (P = 0.07). Test-retest reliability was higher for the dynamic than for the static method (r = 0.61 vs. 0.14 for ODTs and r = 0.86 vs. 0.45 for LTs). The choice of optimal method for any application, however, depends not only on psychometric factors but also on practical factors such as physicochemical properties of the compound, availability of equipment and expertise, task efficiency, and costs.

Human sniffing behavior usually involves bouts of short, high flow rate inhalation (>300 ml/s through each nostril) with mostly turbulent airflow. This has often been characterized as a factor enabling higher amounts of odorant to deposit onto olfactory mucosa than for laminar airflow and thereby aid in olfactory detection. Using computational fluid dynamics human nasal cavity models, however, we found essentially no difference in predicted olfactory odorant flux (g/cm2 s) for turbulent versus laminar flow for total nasal flow rates between 300 and 1000 ml/s and for odorants of quite different mucosal solubility. This lack of difference was shown to be due to the much higher resistance to lateral odorant mass transport in the mucosal nasal airway wall than in the air phase. The simulation also revealed that the increase in airflow rate during sniffing can increase odorant uptake flux to the nasal/olfactory mucosa but lower the cumulative total uptake in the olfactory region when the inspired air/odorant volume was held fixed, which is consistent with the observation that sniff duration may be more important than sniff strength for optimizing olfactory detection. In contrast, in rats, sniffing involves high-frequency bouts of both inhalation and exhalation with laminar airflow. In rat nose odorant uptake simulations, it was observed that odorant deposition was highly dependent on solubility and correlated with the locations of different types of receptors.

It is well established that both the emotional tone of sensory stimuli and the personality characteristics of an individual can bias sensory perception. What has largely been unexplored is whether the current emotional state of an individual has a similar effect, and how it works together with other factors. Here we carry out a comprehensive study to examine how olfactory perception is affected by the emotional tone of the stimuli, and the personality and current emotional state of the individual. Subjects reported experiencing happiness, sadness, negativity/hostility and neutrality when exposed to corresponding emotionally themed video clips, and in each case, smelled a suprathreshold pleasant, an unpleasant and a neutral odorant. The time taken for the subject to detect each odorant and the olfactory intensity were recorded. We found that women detected the pleasant odorant faster than the neutral one. In addition, personality modulated reaction time and olfactory intensity, such that neurotic and anxious individuals were selectively biased toward affective rather than neutral odorants. Finally, current emotional state augmented intensity in men but not in women, and differentially influenced the response time. These findings provided new insights into the effects of emotion and personality on olfactory perception.

Recent studies that have compared CT or MRI images of an individual's nasal anatomy and measures of their olfactory sensitivity have found a correlation between specific anatomical areas and performance on olfactory assessments. Using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) techniques, we have developed a method to quickly (

Objectives: Phlebotomists occupationally exposed to isopropanol (IPA) (2-propanol) and naïve controls (n = 12 per group) were exposed to the time-weighted average threshold limit value of 400 p.p.m. IPA for 4 h in an environmental chamber to investigate: (i) acute effects of sensory irritation using subjective health symptom reports and objective, physiological end-points; and (ii) differences in measured effects in relation to exposure history., Methods: Before, during and after exposure subjects gave self-reports of health complaints. During exposure subjects rated the intensity of the odor, sensory irritation and annoyance. Objective end-points of ocular hyperemia, nasal congestion, nasal secretion and respiration were obtained at various times before, during and after exposure. Results were compared with exposure to phenylethyl alcohol (PEA), a negative control for irritation, and to clean air (CA), a negative control for odor and irritation, using a within-subjects design., Results: Significantly higher intensity ratings of odor, irritation and annoyance were reported during the exposure to IPA, when compared with exposure to CA or PEA. Nevertheless, the overall level of reported sensory irritation to IPA was low and perceived as 'weak' on average. Health symptom ratings were not significantly elevated for IPA as compared with PEA or CA exposure. The only physiological end-point that showed a change exclusively in the IPA condition was respiration frequency: relative to baseline, respiration frequency increased in response to IPA in both groups. No differences were encountered between the occupationally exposed and the control groups., Conclusions: The increase in respiration frequency in response to IPA may reflect either a reflexive change due to sensory irritation (an autonomic event) or a voluntary change in breathing in response to perception of an unpleasant, solvent-like odor (a physiological event caused by cognitive mediation). Our findings on objective end-points, including nasal and ocular sensory irritation, did not confirm subjective irritation reports. Irritation reports and odor intensity decreased, rather than increased, over time, lending credence to the cognitive argument and suggesting that the elevated subjective responses to IPA may be mediated by responses to its odor.