4.6 Article

Aircraft noise exposure affects rat behavior, plasma norepinephrine levels, and cell morphology of the temporal lobe

Journal

JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY-SCIENCE B
Volume 12, Issue 12, Pages 969-975

Publisher

ZHEJIANG UNIV
DOI: 10.1631/jzus.B1000439

Keywords

Aircraft noise; Open field test; Norepinephrine; Neuron; Synapse

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [1060408]
  2. National Public Benefit Research Foundation of China [200809142]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to investigate the physiological effects of airport noise exposure on organisms, in this study, we exposed Sprague-Dawley rats in soundproof chambers to previously recorded aircraft-related noise for 65 d. For comparison, we also used unexposed control rats. Noise was arranged according to aircraft flight schedules and was adjusted to its weighted equivalent continuous perceived noise levels (L (wecpn) ) of 75 and 80 dB for the two experimental groups. We examined rat behaviors through an open field test and measured the concentrations of plasma norepinephrine (NE) by high performance liquid chromatography-fluorimetric detection (HPLC-FLD). We also examined the morphologies of neurons and synapses in the temporal lobe by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Our results showed that rats exposed to airport noise of 80 dB had significantly lower line crossing number (P < 0.05) and significantly longer center area duration (P < 0.05) than control animals. After 29 d of airport noise exposure, the concentration of plasma NE of exposed rats was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). We also determined that the neuron and synapsis of the temporal lobe of rats showed signs of damage after aircraft noise of 80 dB exposure for 65 d. In conclusion, exposing rats to long-term aircraft noise affects their behaviors, plasma NE levels, and cell morphology of the temporal lobe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available