P Brand1, J Bertram2, A Chaker3, R A Jörres4, A Kronseder4, T Kraus2, M Gube2. 1. Institute for Occupational and Social Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. pbrand@ukaachen.de. 2. Institute for Occupational and Social Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. 3. Department of Otolaryngology, Klinikum rechts der Isar and Center of Allergy and Environment (ZAUM), Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. 4. Institute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several epidemiological studies indicate that inhaled nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at low concentrations have been statistically associated with adverse health effects. However, these results are not reflected by exposure studies in humans. The aim of the study was to assess the acute functional and cellular responses to different NO2 concentrations in healthy human subjects with various techniques. METHODS: Twenty-five subjects were exposed for 3 h to NO2 concentrations 0, 0.1, 0.5, and 1.5 ppm in a randomized crossover study design during 4 consecutive weeks. In each subject, lung function, diffusion capacity and exhaled nitric oxide were measured and inflammation markers were assessed in blood, nasal secretions, induced sputum and exhaled breath condensate. RESULTS: From all lung function indices under consideration, only intrathoracic gas volume was borderline significantly increased after 0.5 ppm (p = 0.048) compared to 0.1 ppm NO2. Regarding the cellular effect parameters, the macrophage concentration in induced sputum decreased with increasing NO2 concentration, although these changes were only borderline significant (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results do not suggest a considerable acute adverse response in human subjects after 3 h of exposure to NO2 in the NO2 concentration range investigated in this study.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Several epidemiological studies indicate that inhaled nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at low concentrations have been statistically associated with adverse health effects. However, these results are not reflected by exposure studies in humans. The aim of the study was to assess the acute functional and cellular responses to different NO2 concentrations in healthy human subjects with various techniques. METHODS: Twenty-five subjects were exposed for 3 h to NO2 concentrations 0, 0.1, 0.5, and 1.5 ppm in a randomized crossover study design during 4 consecutive weeks. In each subject, lung function, diffusion capacity and exhaled nitric oxide were measured and inflammation markers were assessed in blood, nasal secretions, induced sputum and exhaled breath condensate. RESULTS: From all lung function indices under consideration, only intrathoracic gas volume was borderline significantly increased after 0.5 ppm (p = 0.048) compared to 0.1 ppm NO2. Regarding the cellular effect parameters, the macrophage concentration in induced sputum decreased with increasing NO2 concentration, although these changes were only borderline significant (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results do not suggest a considerable acute adverse response in human subjects after 3 h of exposure to NO2 in the NO2 concentration range investigated in this study.
Entities:
Keywords:
Exposure; Human subjects; Nitrogen dioxide; Systemic effects; Topic effects
Authors: P Brand; P Havlicek; M Steiners; K Holzinger; U Reisgen; T Kraus; M Gube Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2012-02-05 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Bo L K Chawes; Matthew J Edwards; Betty Shamji; Christoph Walker; Grant C Nicholson; Andrew J Tan; Nilofar V Følsgaard; Klaus Bønnelykke; Hans Bisgaard; Trevor T Hansel Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: P Brand; K Bischof; L Siry; J Bertram; T Schettgen; U Reisgen; T Kraus; M Gube Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2012-02-05 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: C Solomon; D L Christian; L L Chen; B S Welch; M T Kleinman; E Dunham; D J Erle; J R Balmes Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Mark W Frampton; Joseph Boscia; Norbert J Roberts; Mitra Azadniv; Alfonso Torres; Christopher Cox; Paul E Morrow; Joan Nichols; David Chalupa; Lauren M Frasier; F Raymond Gibb; Donna M Speers; Ying Tsai; Mark J Utell Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Jennifer L Peel; Paige E Tolbert; Mitchel Klein; Kristi Busico Metzger; W Dana Flanders; Knox Todd; James A Mulholland; P Barry Ryan; Howard Frumkin Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: T Sandström; N Stjernberg; A Eklund; M C Ledin; L Bjermer; B Kolmodin-Hedman; K Lindström; L Rosenhall; T Angström Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 1991-03 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Louise Gren; Katrin Dierschke; Fredrik Mattsson; Eva Assarsson; Annette M Krais; Monica Kåredal; Karin Lovén; Jakob Löndahl; Joakim Pagels; Bo Strandberg; Martin Tunér; Yiyi Xu; Per Wollmer; Maria Albin; Jörn Nielsen; Anders Gudmundsson; Aneta Wierzbicka Journal: Part Fibre Toxicol Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 9.400