4.0 Article

Comparison of airway deposition distributions of particles in healthy and diseased workers in an Egyptian industrial site

期刊

INHALATION TOXICOLOGY
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 147-159

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08958378.2017.1326990

关键词

Numerical modeling; stochastic lung model; aerosol inhalation; particle deposition distribution; occupational lung diseases; silicosis; bronchitis; emphysema

资金

  1. Faculty of Science, Minia University, Egypt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study is the prediction and comparison of airway deposition patterns of an industrial aerosol in healthy workers and workers suffering from silicosis. Mass concentrations and related size distributions of particulate matter were measured in the industrial area of Samalut in Minia, Egypt. A novel stochastic lung deposition model, simulating the symptoms of silicosis by chronic bronchial (Br) obstruction and emphysema in the acinar (Ac) region, was applied to compute mass deposition fractions, deposition density, deposition rate and deposition density rate distributions in healthy and diseased workers. In the case of healthy workers, both mass deposition fractions and deposition rates are highest in the first half of the Ac region of the lung, while the corresponding deposition density and deposition density rate distributions exhibit a maximum in the large Br airways. In the case of diseased lungs, bullous emphysema causes a large deposition peak in the region of the bronchioli respiratorii. Regional mass deposition fractions adopt maximum values in the extrathoracic region, except during mouth breathing for bullous emphysema, where Ac deposition can be the most prominent. In general, lung deposition is significantly higher in diseased than in healthy lungs. Indeed, workers suffering from silicosis receive significantly higher Ac doses than healthy workers exposed to the same aerosol. Thus, this illness may progress faster if a diseased worker remains in a strongly polluted area.

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

4.0
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