Advertisement

Archives of Toxicology

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 121–127 | Cite as

Assessment of low dose effects of acute sulphur dioxide exposure on the airways using non-invasive methods

  • Monika Raulf-Heimsoth
  • Frank Hoffmeyer
  • Christoph van Thriel
  • Meinolf Blaszkewicz
  • Jürgen Bünger
  • Thomas Brüning
Organ Toxicity and Mechanisms

Abstract

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) is an important environmental and workplace air pollutant. Some studies demonstrate that subjects without adaptation respond to SO2 up to 10 ppm with irritative effects on the airways. The aim of our study was to assess irritative effects of SO2 up to 2 ppm on the airways using non-invasive methods like exhaled breath condensate (EBC), nasal lavage fluid (NALF) and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). Sixteen healthy volunteers were exposed for 4 h to SO2 in concentrations of 0 (clean air), 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 ppm in a repeated measures cross-over design. Before and after exposure, FeNO and biomarkers of airway inflammation in NALF and EBC were measured. All EBC pH values, collected after exposure, were more alkaline than before, significant only for clean air (7.05 ± 0.4 vs. 7.27 ± 0.3, P = 0.0031) and 0.5 ppm SO2 exposure (6.85 ± 0.53 vs. 7.08 ± 0.42, P = 0.0251). No dose-dependent differences before and after exposure were measured for LTB4, PGE2 and 8-isoPGF. Substance P in NALF collected after exposure tended to result in higher concentrations compared to pre-samples, without clear dose effect. Further cellular and soluble parameters measured were not significantly affected. Our results show that 4 h SO2 exposure up to 2.0 ppm did not induce significant changes in the biomarker composition of the EBC and NALF when compared with clean air or with pre-samples of the same subject. Therefore our data suggest that acute low dose SO2 exposure in not adapted subjects did not induce airway irritation or/and inflammation measured under these conditions.

Keywords

Sulphur dioxide Non-invasive methods Exhaled breath condensate Nasal lavage Airways 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participants as well as the staff of the involved working groups for conducting the experiments and the extensive chemical analyses. The exposure part of the study was funded by the BGIA—Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the assessment of the irritative effects using non-invasive methods was part of the BGFA-project NIM and funded by the DGUV (German Social Accident Insurance).

References

  1. American Thoracic Society (1995) Standardization of spirometry, 1994 update. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 152:1107–1136Google Scholar
  2. American Thoracic Society (1996) State of the art: health effects of outdoor air pollution. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 153:3–50Google Scholar
  3. Arts JH, de Heer C, Woutersen RA (2006) Local effects in the respiratory tract: relevance of subjectively measured irritation for setting occupational exposure limits. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79:283–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyce PD, Kim JY, Weissman DN, Hunt J, Christiani DC (2006) pH increase observed in exhaled breath condensate from welding fume exposure. J Occup Environ Med 48:353–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cruz MJ, Sánchez-Vidaurre S, Romero PV, Morell F, Muñoz X (2009) Impact of age on pH, 8-isoprostane, and nitrogen oxides in exhaled breath condensate. Chest 135:462–467CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferrazzoni S, Scarpa MC, Guarnieri G, Corradi M, Mutti A, Maestrelli P (2009) Exhaled nitric oxide and breath condensate pH in asthmatic reactions induced by isocyanates. Chest [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  7. Gong H Jr, Linn WS, Terrell SL, Anderson KR, Clark KW (2001) Anti-inflammatory and lung function effects of montelukast in asthmatic volunteers exposed to sulfur dioxide. Chest 119:402–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoffmeyer F, Raulf-Heimsoth M, Brüning T (2009) Exhaled breath condensate and airway inflammation. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 9:16–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Koutsokera A, Loukides S, Gourgoulians KI, Kostikas K (2008) Biomarkers in the exhaled breath condensate of healthy adults: mapping the path towards reference values. Curr Medicinal Chemistry 15:620–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety (2006) DFG Wiley–VCH-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  11. Nowak D, Jörres R, Berger J, Claussen M, Magnussen H (1997) Airway responsiveness to sulfur dioxide in an adult population sample. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 156:1151–1156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Payne DN (2003) Nitric oxide in allergic airway inflammation. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 3:133–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Pelclová D, Fenclová Z, Kacer P, Kuzma M, Navrátil T, Lebedová J (2008) Increased 8-isoprostane, a marker of oxidative stress in exhaled breath condensate in subjects with asbestos exposure. Ind Health 46:484–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Raulf-Heimsoth M, Wirtz C, Papenfuß F, Baur X (2000) Nasal lavage mediator profile and cellular composition of nasal brushing material during latex challenge tests. Clin Exp Allergy 30:110–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Riediker M, Danuser B (2007) Exhaled breath condensate pH is increased after moderate exercise. J Aerosol Med 20:13–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Roponen M, Seuri M, Nevalainen A, Randell J, Hirvonen MR (2003) Nasal lavage method in the monitoring of upper airway inflammation: seasonal and individual variation. Inhal Toxicol 15:649–661PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wagner U, Staats P, Fehmann HC, Fischer A, Welte T, Groneberg DA (2006) Analysis of airway secretions in a model of sulfur dioxide induced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). J Occup Med Toxicol 1:12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Raulf-Heimsoth
    • 1
  • Frank Hoffmeyer
    • 1
  • Christoph van Thriel
    • 2
  • Meinolf Blaszkewicz
    • 2
  • Jürgen Bünger
    • 1
  • Thomas Brüning
    • 1
  1. 1.BGFA, Research Institute of Occupational Medicine German Social Accident InsuranceRuhr University BochumBochumGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human FactorsUniversity of DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations