The Effect of Oleoresin Capsicum "Pepper" Spray Inhalation
on Respiratory Function

Chan TC; Vilke GM; Clausen J; Clark RF; Schmidt P; Snowden T; Neuman T.
The effect of oleoresin capsicum "pepper" spray inhalation on respiratory function.
J Forensic Sci, Mar 2002, 47(2) p299-304

For some reason, I cannot access the entirety of this article's content via the Journal's Internet site. And, I'm not willing to pay forty bucks ($40) to get a hard copy of it from Medline, because I strongly suspect that this article is simply a REPEAT of the 2001 Chan et al paper published by the National Institute of Justice in their December, 2001, "Research in Brief" series:
Pepper Spray's Effects on a Suspect's Ability to Breathe
Which is also available online in a PDF form:
Pepper Spray's Effects on a Suspect's Ability to Breathe

Why do I strongly suspect this is simply a REPEAT of the December 2001 Chan et al National Institute of Justice paper? Because it is "penned" by exactly the same authors!

SOOOO, Here is this article's ABSTRACT:

We performed a randomized, cross-over controlled trial to assess the effect of Oleoresin capsicum (OC) spray inhalation on respiratory function by itself and combined with restraint. Thirty-five subjects were exposed to OC or placebo spray, followed by 10 min of sitting or prone maximal restraint position (PMRP). Spirometry, oximetry, and end-tidal CO2 levels were collected at baseline and throughout the 10 min. Data were compared between groups (ANOVA) and with predefined normal values. In the sitting position, OC did not result in any significant changes in mean percent predicted forced vital capacity (%predFVC), percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (%predFEV1), oxygen, or CO2 levels. In PMRP, mean %predFVC and %predFEV1 fell 14.4 and 16.5% for placebo and 16.2 and 19.1% for OC, but were not significantly different by exposure. There was no evidence of hypoxemia or hypercapnia in either groups. OC exposure did not result in abnormal spirometry, hypoxemia, or hypoventilation when compared to placebo in either sitting or PMRP.

According to this ABSTRACT, Chan et al have persisted in electing to interpret the DECLINE of functions measured in the "prone maximal restraint position" during controlled clinical experiments performed on entirely healthy individuals as not being "significant" to REAL LIFE INCIDENTS. Thus, yet again, Chan et al have provided absolutely NO information valuable to the risk-assessment of events associated with the REAL LIFE application of force or restraint.

Furthermore, if this 2002 article IS a REPEAT of the 2001 Chan et al paper published by the
National Institute of Justice in their December, 2001, "Research in Brief" series:
the following QUOTES from that paper EQUALLY apply to THIS PAPER:

Limitations of this study. This study was performed on human subjects in a clinical laboratory and did not attempt to replicate all the conditions that may be encountered in the field. Field subjects are often in a state of extreme agitation and "excited delirium" as a result of underlying psychiatric disease or intoxication from recreational drugs. Subjects are often involved in violent physical struggles before, during, and after the use of OC spray or positional restraint. There has been speculation that subjects in the field undergo extreme levels of exertion leading to exhaustion that may affect pulmonary function. Although previous studies have attempted to replicate exertion and struggle, it is unlikely that all conditions that occur in the field – particularly the physiological and psychological effects of stress and trauma – can be reproduced in the laboratory.
Moreover, as this study focused on inhalation exposure, all subjects wore goggles to reduce OC exposure to the eyes, which causes irritation and pain. Ocular OC exposure may exacerbate the physiological stress of field subjects but was not assessed in this study. In addition, restrained subjects were placed on a medical examination table rather than on a hard surface, as often occurs in field settings.
This study attempted to replicate OC exposure in the field as much as possible in the laboratory setting. In doing so, exact capsaicin dosing was not standardized. Rather, subjects, whose heads were placed in a 5' x 3' x 5' exposure box, received a standard 1-second spray directed from 5 feet away as dictated by both manufacturer recommendations and local police policies regarding the use of OC. Spraying from less than 5 feet away does not allow for adequate aerosolization of OC and is likely to reduce the amount of inhalation exposure.
This study did not examine repeated OC spray exposures, which commonly occur in the field setting. Researchers used an aerosol form of OC spray, rather than the liquid or foam forms that are also used by law enforcement agencies, because the aerosol form was more likely to be inhaled than other forms and was thus more appropriate for a study on the respiratory effects of OC.
Finally, it is important to emphasize the limited nature of the additional analyses performed on the subgroups of subjects who were overweight or had potential respiratory abnormalities. These groups were small in number and the analysis in this study lacked sufficient statistical power to make any definite conclusive findings.

Lastly, here is the AUTHOR INFORMATION
from the December 2001 Chan et al National Institute of Justice paper –
the AUTHOR INFORMATION for all of THIS article's authors:

Email Your COMMENTS to:

SOOOO, There you Go!
If you are divinely inspired to obtain the entirety of this article, search its title on MEDLINE, and pay $40 for the hard copy. THEN, PLZ either Email me the PDF file, or scan & Email me the hard copy, so that I can post it in this Library! LOL


To Return To Wherever You Came From

OR Use the Following Links:

Return to the Restraint Asphyxia LIBRARY

Go to the Restraint Asphyxia Newz Directory


Email Charly at:
(Those are hyphens/dashes between the "c" and "d" and "miller")