Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 May 1;236(3):270-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2009.02.006. Epub 2009 Feb 20.

Longitudinal distribution of ozone absorption in the lung: comparison of cigarette smokers and nonsmokers

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Longitudinal distribution of ozone absorption in the lung: comparison of cigarette smokers and nonsmokers

Melissa L Bates et al. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. .

Abstract

In nonsmokers, ozone (O(3)) is removed primarily by the epithelial lining fluid (ELF) of the conducting airways. We hypothesized that cigarette smokers, whose ELF antioxidant capacity may be limited by smoking, would remove less O(3) from their conducting airways than nonsmokers. We recruited 29 nonsmokers (17M, 12F) and 30 smokers (19M, 11F, 4+/-4 pack-years) with similar anthropometric characteristics and measured the longitudinal distribution of O(3) using the bolus inhalation method. We also assessed the physiological effect of this transient exposure regimen using forced spirometry and capnography. Contrary to our hypothesis, the penetration volume at which 50% of a bolus was absorbed was not different between smokers and nonsmokers (97.1+/-5.4 mL versus 97.9+/-5.8 mL, p=0.92). However, smokers did experience an increase in the slope of the alveolar plateau of the capnogram (S(N)) (8.1+/-3.2%, p=0.02) and a small decrease in FEV(1) (-1.3+/-0.6%, p=0.03), whereas nonsmokers did not (DeltaFEV(1) -0.1+/-0.5% and DeltaS(N) -0.2+/-2.5%, p>0.10). Thus, smokers are more sensitive to inhaled O(3) boluses than nonsmokers, despite a similar internal dose distribution.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types