Title |
Biological effects of inhaled nitrogen dioxide in healthy human subjects
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, May 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00420-016-1139-1 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
P. Brand, J. Bertram, A. Chaker, R. A. Jörres, A. Kronseder, T. Kraus, M. Gube |
Abstract |
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. 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. 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). 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. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 22 | 29% |
United States | 3 | 4% |
Austria | 2 | 3% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
Spain | 1 | 1% |
Italy | 1 | 1% |
Maldives | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 41 | 55% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 57 | 76% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 13 | 17% |
Scientists | 4 | 5% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
Researcher | 6 | 17% |
Other | 5 | 14% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
Other | 5 | 14% |
Unknown | 9 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 17% |
Environmental Science | 4 | 11% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 11% |
Engineering | 3 | 8% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
Other | 6 | 17% |
Unknown | 11 | 31% |