3.8 Article

Sudden temperature changes and respiratory symptoms - An experimental approach

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RHINOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 383-387

Publisher

OCEAN SIDE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.2500/ajr.2007.21.3023

Keywords

air-conditioning; allergy; atmosphere exposure chamber; environmental exposure; occupational health; rhinitis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Exposure to air-conditioning systems and allergic phenotypes are consistent risk factors to develop indoor air quality (IAQ) respiratory complaints. The aim of this study was to compare the role of allergic rhinitis on respiratory complaints in individuals exposed to sudden temperature changes. Methods: To address this question, a case-control challenge study was performed in a laboratory of thermal comfort evaluation with twin isolated chambers set at 14 degrees C/57.2 degrees F (cold) and 26 degrees C/78.8 degrees F (hot) temperatures. A groups of 32 patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (rhinitis group) and 16 control subjects (control group) were exposed for 30 minutes, three times alternately in the chambers. Symptoms were reported using an analog visual scale and nasal and pulmonary peak flow measurements were taken during baseline at hot and cold temperatures and after the challenge. Results: The rhinitis group reported increased itching and stinging eyes when compared with the baseline during exposure to hot and cold temperatures and they also reported increased breathlessness during hot air exposure. In addition, there was a significant decrease in expiratory flow rates in this group during exposure to hot and cold temperatures that persisted for 24 hours after challenge. Conclusion: This study suggests that individuals with allergic rhinitis have a lower threshold than controls to develop respiratory and ocular symptoms after air-conditioning-induced sudden temperature changes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available