Your nostrils may part ways
IF YOU SNIFF ATTENTIVELY, YOU'LL
LIKELY NOTICE THAT USUALLY ONE NOSTRIL SUCKS IN AIR FASTER THAN
THE OTHER. SCIENTISTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THIS IS OFTEN THE CASE BUT
HAVE NOT KNOWN WHAT PURPOSE THIS DIFFERENCE MIGHT SERVE.
Now a Stanford research group proposes a purpose:
The difference in airflow through the nostrils seems to allow one
nostril to better detect the odor of some substances while the other
better detects others.
The nostrils' different perceptions bear some resemblance
to specialization in the other distal senses -- sight and hearing,
says Noam Sobel, MD, who heads the Olfactory Research Project in
the lab of John Gabrieli, PhD, an associate professor of psychology
at Stanford.
Each eye sees slightly differently, improving our
depth perception, Sobel says, and each ear hears slightly differently,
enabling spatial localization of sounds. "It's a reasonable assumption
that the difference in nostril perception might be a basis for the
fundamental properties of the sense of smell, and we are just now
finding out what they are," says Sobel, a member of the group that
reported this finding in the Nov. 4, 1999, issue of Nature.
The difference in perception of the nostrils is very
subtle and probably cannot be noticed by most
people most of the time, Sobel says. The world is made up of complex,
smelly things, such as a rose that may consist of countless odor
components. To establish that there is a difference between the
nostrils, the researchers mixed equal amounts of two chemicals whose
molecules are attracted, or "sorbed," to the nostril tissue at different
rates -- octane, which smells similar to anise, and l-carvone, which
smells like peppermint.
People in the study were told the two were mixed
in different proportions for each trial and asked to guess those
proportions, using one nostril at a time.
Seventeen of the 20 subjects judged the identical
mixture to consist of a greater proportion of octane when they used
the low-airflow nostril and a greater amount of l-carvone when they
used the high-airflow one.
Furthermore, eight subjects were retested hours later
when the high and low rates of airflow switched from one of their
nostrils to the other. In seven of the eight, the odorant perception
also switched.
The researchers' theoretical explanation for the
observations is based on the interaction of airflow and chemical
sorption rates. For an odor to act on the olfactory
receptors, it first must cross a mucous membrane in the nostril,
called the mucosa, to reach olfactory receptors. Blood flow to the
tissue surrounding the nostril varies so that when it is high, the
passageway is narrowed and air flows more slowly through it. "If
you have a high-sorbant odorant in a high-airflow nostril, the molecules
of the odorant want to sorb rapidly," Sobel says. "But they are
also flowing along fast so you get a long-range distribution, or
a lot of receptors involved in the response. If you take that same
odorant and bring it in at a slow flow rate, it will sorb before
it gets very far, and so you'll have fewer receptors involved, making
a smaller response."
With a low-sorbing odorant at a high flow rate, he
says, the fact that the molecules sorb slowly probably means most
of them reach the respiratory system and throat before there is
much chance for the olfactory receptors to detect them. "If that
same low-sorbing odorant comes in slowly, it has time to sorb and
again you will have a large nasal portion involved in the response."
"The difference is not as dramatic as smelling apples
with one nostril and oranges with the other,"
he says. "It's a difference subtle enough that we had to have a
careful experiment to tease it out."
Sobel got the idea for the study while eating breakfast
with a non-scientist friend, Amnon Saltman of the Israeli Ministry
of Environmental Protection. "He was visiting me and I was telling
him about another study of ours in which we discovered that each
nostril detected an odorant at a different concentration level,
and he said, off the top of his head, 'Maybe they just smell different
things altogether.' I immediately blew it off, but I thought about
it later and finally got to thinking maybe it could be, and then
I figured out how it might work." KATHLEEN O'TOOLE
|