VOC sampling locations table for Ground Zero area, Jan 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

based on scientific judgement and experience with the group), airway responsiveness to methacholine (Meh) typical variability of collected data (except the first part of aerosol was determined on day 1. Mice were then killed, experiment A, where n = 12; see Results - Experiment A - and lungs were removed and fixed for histopathological BAL parameters for explanation). Endpoints were assessment. Airway hyperresponsiveness to nonspecific analyzed in a total of 388 mice in all 3 experiments. In bronchoconstrictive agents such as Meh is a primary general, the endpoints were chosen to assess pulmonary feature of asthma (Sears, 1997) as well as reactive airways function impairment, lung injury and inflammation, and dysfunction syndrome (RADS) which develops after high- pathological manifestations of respiratory tract injury. level occupational exposure to irritant gases, fumes, or Experiments utilizing oropharyngeal aspiration (A and C) smoke (Gautrin et al., 1999). Induction of this condition were emphasized over inhalation experiments (B) for by PM in nonallergic normal mice can be considered as a several reasons: 1) the quantities of samples available for marker of respiratory tract injury. study were generally limited, and aspiration requires much 2. Experiment B. Two groups of female CD-I mice less material (10-100 mg) than inhalation (10 gpreferred); were exposed in nose-only inhalation exposure tubes one 2) aspiration delivers a precise quantity of PM to the lung time to a PM2 5 sample (WTC3) or air only for 5 hr (n = 48 at a specific time point, while the inhaled dose is more per exposure group; total experiment B: n = 96). This difficult to predict or quantify; 3) inhalation exposure WTC3 sample was derived from a sieved but not studies are labor intensive and therefore fewer previously fractionated PM53 sample of WTC3 by comparative analyses of the WTC PM2 5 could be aerodynamic size-separation during exposure. Although accomplished in the available time frame compared with some irritant responses are transitory and therefore would studies utilizing oropharyngeal aspiration, and 4) be best measured during exposure (Costa and Schelegle, oropharyngeal aspiration (equivalent to intratracheal 1999), we do not currently possess the recently developed instillation) is specifically recommended in evaluation of technology (e.g. Buxeo Electronics, Sharon, CT or CH panels of test materials for their relative potential to Technologies, Westwood, NJ) which allows some produce toxicity (Driscoll et al., 2000). respiratory parameters to be measured during nose-only 1. Experiment A. In 5 sub-experiments, groups of exposures. Therefore, breathing parameters were female CD-I mice were exposed to pooled WTC PMj , compared just before and after inhalation exposure (n = 12 sample X (10, 31.6, or 100 pg), MSH (100 pg), ROFA per group). On days 1, 3, and 6 after the exposure, 16 (10 or 100 pg), or saline vehicle control by oropharyngeal mice from each group were assessed for DLCO and BAL aspiration on day zero. The dose of 31.6 pg represents the parameters (n = 8) or responsiveness to Meh aerosol and half-log difference between 10 and 100 pg (i.e. 10' ^ = limg and nasal histopathology (n = 8). 31.6). The high dose of 100 pg was selected based on our 5. Experiment C. In 2 sub-experiments, groups of experience that at this dose nearly all PM samples will female CD-I mice were exposed by oropharyngeal induce at least a mild inflammatory or physiological aspiration to 100 pg of PM from one of 7 individual WTC response; any sample that does not induce any response at sample sites, to 100 pg of NIST 1649a (referred to as all at this dose can be judged to possess low toxicity. NIST hereafter), or to saline vehicle only. In sub­ Doses higher than 100 pg in the mouse may be of experiment Cl, mice were exposed to WTC8, WTC 13, questionable relevance due to the potential for artifactual WTCF, NIST, or saline. In sub-experiment C2, mice were local inflammatory responses in response to bolus exposed to WTCll, WTCB, WTCC, WTCE, or saline. administration (Driscoll et al., 2000). Four mice per On days 1 and 3, mice were assessed for responsiveness to sample group were tested within each sub-experiment (n Meh aerosol, BAL parameters, and lung histopathology (n = 28 per sub-experiment; total experiment A: n = 140). = 8 per group per time point, except saline sub-experiment In sub-experiments Al, A2, and A5 (total n = 12 mice C2: n = 4 per time point; total sub-experiment C1: n = 80, per sample group), airway responses to aspiration of the total sub-experiment C2: n = 72, total experiment C: n = PM samples was assessed by comparison of breathing 152). parameters just before and after aspiration (see method below). On day 1, diffusing capacity of the lung for H. Oropharyngeal Aspiration of PM Samples. carbon monoxide (DLCO) was assessed, and mice were A Sartorius model AC211S analytical balance then killed and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid cells, (Edgewood, NY; audited by Research Triangle Institute, proteins, and enzymes were recovered and quantified to Research Triangle Park, NC) was used to weigh PM assess lung injury and inflammation. samples for oropharyngeal aspiration. The operation of In sub-experiments A3 and A4 (n = 8 mice per sample the balance was tested by weighing calibrated weights

9

NYC-WTC_000149152