| Literature DB >> 25426080 |
Andreas Fahlman1, Stephen H Loring2, Shawn P Johnson3, Martin Haulena4, Andrew W Trites5, Vanessa A Fravel3, William G Van Bonn6.
Abstract
We examined structural properties of the marine mammal respiratory system, and tested Scholander's hypothesis that the chest is highly compliant by measuring the mechanical properties of the respiratory system in five species of pinniped under anesthesia (Pacific harbor seal, Phoca vitulina; northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris; northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus; California sea lion, Zalophus californianus; and Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus). We found that the chest wall compliance (CCW) of all five species was greater than lung compliance (airways and alveoli, CL) as predicted by Scholander, which suggests that the chest provides little protection against alveolar collapse or lung squeeze. We also found that specific respiratory compliance was significantly greater in wild animals than in animals raised in an aquatic facility. While differences in ages between the two groups may affect this incidental finding, it is also possible that lung conditioning in free-living animals may increase pulmonary compliance and reduce the risk of lung squeeze during diving. Overall, our data indicate that compliance of excised pinniped lungs provide a good estimate of total respiratory compliance.Entities:
Keywords: diving physiology; excised lung; lung mechanics; minimum air volume; total lung capacity
Year: 2014 PMID: 25426080 PMCID: PMC4226140 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2014.00433
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Animal identification number (Animal ID), facility (The Marine Mammal Center, TMMC; Open Water Research Station, OWRS), group (Ph=phocid, Ot=otariid), sex (F-female, M-male), species (Pv = .
| F97SI | OWRS | Ot | F | Ej | 228 | 228 | 0.362 | – | – | 19.9 | |
| F97HA | OWRS | Ot | F | Ej | 172 | 200 | 0.168 | – | – | 15.4 | |
| F00BO | OWRS | Ot | F | Ej | 160 | 209 | 0.417 | – | – | 14.4 | |
| F00YA | OWRS | Ot | F | Ej | 206 | 232 | 0.220 | – | – | 18.2 | |
| F03WI | OWRS | Ot | F | Ej | 171 | 221 | 0.432 | – | – | 15.3 | |
| F03RO | OWRS | Ot | F | Ej | 161 | 211 | 0.107 | – | – | 14.5 | |
| CSL10244 | TMMC | Ot | M | Zc | 126 | 166 | 0.924 | – | – | 11.6 | |
| CSL10301 | TMMC | Ot | F | Zc | 12 | 84 | – | – | 0.056 | 1.3 | |
| CSL10320 | TMMC | Ot | M | Zc | 18 | 106 | – | 0.205 | – | 1.9 | |
| CSL10325 | TMMC | Ot | M | Zc | 107 | 116 | – | – | 0.258 | 9.9 | |
| CSL10328 | TMMC | Ot | M | Zc | 75 | 146 | – | – | 0.197 | 7.2 | |
| CSL10638 | TMMC | Ot | M | Zc | 49 | 133 | 0.154 | 0.171 | – | 4.8 | |
| CSL10650 | TMMC | Ot | M | Zc | 17 | 121 | 0.128 | – | 1.8 | ||
| CSL10653 | TMMC | Ot | M | Zc | 39 | 140 | 0.295 | 0.247 | – | 3.9 | |
| NFS266 | TMMC | Ot | F | Cu | 53 | 125 | 0.575 | – | – | 5.2 | |
| HS2250 | TMMC | Ph | F | Pv | 8 | 45 | – | – | 0.021 | 0.9 | |
| HS2258 | TMMC | Ph | M | Pv | 10 | 83 | 0.112 | – | – | 1.1 | |
| HS2266 | TMMC | Ph | F | Pv | 10 | 81 | 0.116 | – | 0.087 | 1.1 | |
| ES3354 | TMMC | Ph | F | Ma | 50 | 124 | 0.300 | – | – | 4.9 | |
| ES3418 | TMMC | Ph | F | Ma | 42 | 129 | 0.140 | – | – | 4.2 | |
P.
Figure 1Relationship between transpulmonary (airway pressure minus esophageal pressure) or chest wall pressure (esophageal pressure minus ambient pressure) and inspired volume expressed as a percent of estimated total lung capacity (Fahlman et al., .
Figure 2Average specific lung compliance [the lung compliance divided by the estimated residual volume (RV), where RV was assumed equal to the Minimum Air Volume which was an average 7% of total lung capacity in excised lungs (TLC = 0.135 × Mb.
Figure 3Average specific chest compliance [the lung compliance divided by the estimated residual volume (RV), where RV was assumed equal to the Minimum Air Volume which was an average 7% of total lung capacity in excised lungs (Fahlman et al., .
Figure 4Relationship between transpulmonary (airway pressure minus esophageal pressure) and inspired volume expressed as a percent of estimated total lung capacity (Fahlman et al., .
Figure 5Relationship between transpulmonary (airway pressure minus esophageal pressure) and inspired volume expressed as a percent of estimated total lung capacity (TLC = 0.135 × Mb.