OBJECTIVES: This study compared the protective effect of two respiratory protection devices during exposure in a pig confinement building. METHODS: Thirty-six healthy persons were exposed for 3 hours in the building, 12 without any protection, 12 with a particle-filter mask, and 12 with a mask filtering both particles and gases. Symptoms, body temperature, nasal lavage fluid, exhaled nitric oxide, and bronchial responsiveness to methacholine were assessed before and after the exposure. Pre- and postexposure urine and blood samples were collected. RESULTS: After the exposure, the participants with respirators reported fewer symptoms than those without. Wearing a mask also reduced the inflammatory response assessed with nasal lavage (cell concentration, interleukins 6 and 8) and peripheral blood (cell number). Lung function was significantly impaired only in the unprotected group; postexposure vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second showed a decrease of 3-4% from the preexposure levels (P=0.006 and P=0.002, respectively). Bronchial responsiveness (P<0.01) and body temperature (P<0.001) increased similarly in the three groups. Bronchial responsiveness to methacholine increased 2.7, 2.4, and 2.1 doubling concentration steps for those unprotected, those using a particle-filter mask, and those using a mask with particle and gas filters, respectively. The prostaglandin D2 metabolite, 9a, 11b-PGF2 increased significantly (P=0.003) only in those unprotected. CONCLUSIONS: Wearing a respirator in a pig confinement building reduces the inflammatory reaction but does not influence the increase in bronchial responsiveness, with no difference between the use of a particle-filter mask or a mask with a particle-gas filter combination.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the protective effect of two respiratory protection devices during exposure in a pig confinement building. METHODS: Thirty-six healthy persons were exposed for 3 hours in the building, 12 without any protection, 12 with a particle-filter mask, and 12 with a mask filtering both particles and gases. Symptoms, body temperature, nasal lavage fluid, exhaled nitric oxide, and bronchial responsiveness to methacholine were assessed before and after the exposure. Pre- and postexposure urine and blood samples were collected. RESULTS: After the exposure, the participants with respirators reported fewer symptoms than those without. Wearing a mask also reduced the inflammatory response assessed with nasal lavage (cell concentration, interleukins 6 and 8) and peripheral blood (cell number). Lung function was significantly impaired only in the unprotected group; postexposure vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in 1 second showed a decrease of 3-4% from the preexposure levels (P=0.006 and P=0.002, respectively). Bronchial responsiveness (P<0.01) and body temperature (P<0.001) increased similarly in the three groups. Bronchial responsiveness to methacholine increased 2.7, 2.4, and 2.1 doubling concentration steps for those unprotected, those using a particle-filter mask, and those using a mask with particle and gas filters, respectively. The prostaglandin D2 metabolite, 9a, 11b-PGF2 increased significantly (P=0.003) only in those unprotected. CONCLUSIONS: Wearing a respirator in a pig confinement building reduces the inflammatory reaction but does not influence the increase in bronchial responsiveness, with no difference between the use of a particle-filter mask or a mask with a particle-gas filter combination.
Authors: Ioannis Basinas; Torben Sigsgaard; Hans Kromhout; Dick Heederik; Inge M Wouters; Vivi Schlünssen Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Vanessa R Coffman; Devon J Hall; Nora Pisanic; David C Love; Maya Nadimpalli; Meredith McCormack; Marie Diener-West; Meghan F Davis; Christopher D Heaney Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 3.079