Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 3 OF 9

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Extrathoracic and Intrathoracic Removal of O3 in Tidal-Breathing Humans (Journal Version).
Author Gerrity, T. R. ; Weaver, R. A. ; Berntsen, J. ; House, D. E. ; O'Neil, J. J. ;
CORP Author Health Effects Research Lab., Research Triangle Park, NC. ;North Carolina Univ. at Chapel Hill. School of Public Health.
Publisher c1988
Year Published 1988
Report Number EPA/600/J-88/149;
Stock Number PB89-110548
Additional Subjects Ozone ; Toxicology ; Respiration ; Humans ; Concentration(Composition) ; Exposure ; Reprints ; Health effects ; Toxic substances
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB89-110548 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 03/14/1989
Collation 9p
Abstract
The efficiency of ozone removal from inspired air by the extrathoracic and intrathoracic airways was measured in 18 healthy, nonsmoking, young male volunteers. Removal efficiencies were measured as a function of ozone concentration (0.1, 0.2, and 0.4 ppm), mode of breathing (nose only, mouth only, and oronasal), and respiration frequency (12 and 24 bpm). Subjects were placed in a controlled environmental chamber into which ozone was introduced. A small polyethyethylene tube was then inserted into the nose of each subject with the tip positioned in the posterior pharynx. Samples of air were collected from the posterior pharynx through the tube and into a rapidly responding ozone analyzer yielding inspiratory and expiratory ozone concentrations in the posterior pharynx. The mean extrathoracic removal efficiency for all measurements was 39.6%, and the mean intrathoracic removal efficiency was 91.0%. Significantly less ozone was removed both extrathoracically and intrathoracically when subjects breathed at 24 bpm compared to 12 bpm. Ozone concentration had no effect on extrathoracic removal efficiency, but there was a significantly greater intrathoracic removal efficiency at 0.4 ppm than at 0.1 ppm.