Cited by 185Inhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryOccupational and environmental lung diseasesNanoparticles: synthesis and applications

Correlation between particle size, in vivo particle persistence, and lung injury

Open access
Oberdorster, Gunter, Ferin, Juraj, Lehnert, Bruce E.·1994·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Dosimetry parameters such as deposition, clearance, retention, and translocation and dissolution of inhaled particles in and to different lung compartments may be important for the persistence of particles in the lung and may correlate with adverse pulmonary effects.We investigated such correlations using a model involving TiO2 particles of two particle sizes (20 nm diameter, ultrafine; 250 nm diameter, fine) of the same crystalline structure (anatase).A 12-week inhalation experiment in rats resulted in a similar mass deposition of the two particle types in the lower respiratory tract.The ultrafine particles elicited a persistently high inflammatory reaction in the lungs of the animals compared to the larger-sized particles.In the postexposure period (up to 1 year) retention in the alveolar space per se was not different between fine and ultrafine TiO2.However, the following differences between the particle types were noted: a significantly different total pulmonary retention, both quantitatively (significantly prolonged retention of the ultrafine TiO2) and qualitatively (increased translocation to the pulmonary interstitium and persistence there of the ultrafine TiO2); greater epithelial effects (Type II cell proliferation; occlusion of pores of Kohn) and the beginning of interstitial fibrotic foci with ultrafine TiO2; signifi- cant sustained impairment of alveolar macrophage function after ultrafine TiO2 exposure as measured by the clearance of test particles.A correla- tion between particle surface area and effects was observed.A comparison of the adverse reactions with dosimetric parameters of TiO2 in different lung compartments in the postexposure period showed a correlation of the persistence of effects in both the alveolar and interstitial space with the persistence of particles in the respective compartment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3432080

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oberdorster, G., Ferin, J., & Lehnert, B. E.
Affiliations
Los Alamos National Laboratory (US)
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1994-10
Volume
102
Pages
173
ISSN
0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4231420553
Cited by
185
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Inhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Occupational and environmental lung diseases
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
Keywords
ultrafine particles, particle size, titanium dioxide, anatase, pulmonary retention, particle clearance, particle translocation, lung injury, lung inflammation, alveolar macrophages, interstitial fibrosis, particle surface area, particle dosimetry, inhalation exposure, rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review