4.5 Article

Deviations from Haber's Law for Multiple Measures of Acute Lung Injury in Chlorine-Exposed Mice

期刊

TOXICOLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 118, 期 2, 页码 696-703

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq264

关键词

pulmonary edema; inflammation; airway hyperreactivity

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health Office of the Director
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [U01 ES015673]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chlorine gas is considered a chemical threat agent that can cause acute lung injury. Studies in the early 20th century on war gases led Haber to postulate that the dose of an inhaled chemical expressed as the product of gas concentration and exposure time leads to a constant toxicological effect (Haber's Law). In the present work, mice were exposed to a constant dose of chlorine (100 ppm-h) delivered using different combinations of concentration and time (800 ppm/7.5 min, 400 ppm/15 min, 200 ppm/30 min, and 100 ppm/60 min). Significant effects of exposure protocol on survival evaluated 6 h after exposure were observed, ranging from 0% for the 7.5-min exposure to 100% for the 30- and 60-min exposures. Multiple parameters indicative of lung injury were examined to determine if any aspects of lung injury were differentially affected by the exposure protocols. Most parameters (pulmonary edema, neutrophil influx, and levels of protein, immunoglobulin M, and the chemokine KC [Cxcl1] in lavage fluid) indicated that lung injury was most pronounced for the 15-min exposure and least for the 60-min exposure. In contrast, changes in pulmonary function at baseline and in response to inhaled methacholine were similar following the three exposure regimens. The results indicate that the extent of lung injury following chlorine inhalation depends not only on total dose but also on the specifics of exposure concentration and time, and they suggest that evaluation of countermeasures against chlorine-induced lung injury should be performed using multiple types of exposure scenarios.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据