VOC sampling locations table for Ground Zero area, Jan 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Table 13. Experiment B; Diffusing Capacity of the Lung for mice in this outbred strain may be susceptible to Carbon Monoxide “ bronchoconstrictive effects of WTC PM. Treatment Day after Subjects Subjects Average 4. DLCO measurements. DLCO was determined 1, Group Treatment 1-4 5-8 n=2 3, and 6 days after exposure on 4 mice from each group Air 1 -3.761 -4.185 -3.973 placed together in the test chamber. Since there were 8 WTC3 1 -3.715 -3.981 -3.848 mice per group per time point, only two tests of DLCO Air 3 -4.102 -3.826 -3.964 were conducted within each group, and no statistical comparison was possible between Air and WTC3 mice. WTC3 3 -3.818 -4.078 -3.948 Examination of the data showed little apparent difference Air 6 -3.528 -4.162 -3.845 in DLCO at different times in the two groups (Table 13). WTC3 6 -3.487 -3.809 -3.648 5. Responsiveness to methacholine aerosoL Analysis “ Diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide was determined ofbaseline PenH values (immediately before Meh aerosol) 1, 3, or 6 days after exposure on four mice from each treatment between the two groups showed a significant difference group placed together in a single bell jar. Values shown are slopes depending on day, but not due to treatment (day 6 of chamber [CO] vs. time (ppm/min), after subtraction ofvalue from empty chamber. baselines were lower in both groups; P = 0.0007; Table 14). Responsiveness to increasing concentrations of Meh aerosol was assessed and quantified as described in the begin the measurement of breathing parameters (~20 Methods section (Table 14). Unlike Experiment A, the minutes) may have caused us to miss some changes. PenH results could be modeled with linear equations (Figure 12). was increased by an average of 30% after exposure to air Significant interactions of treatment, day, and Meh and by an average of 60% after exposure to WTC3 (P = concentration were detected (P = 0.01), implying that the 0.20). Although this difference was not significant, results depended upon a combination of factors. Slopes of examination ofthe changes in individual mice showed that the Day and Treatment combinations were significantly PenH increased in all 12 mice exposed to WTC3, but only different (P = 0.0001). Analysis of the data showed that 8 of 12 mice exposed to Air (Figure 11). Furthermore one equation could be used to describe the data for Air some of the increases in WTC3-exposed mice were quite Day 6 and for WTC3 Day 1 (Figure 12). The slope of this large. These data indicate the possibility that individual line was significantly different from and less than that of

Table 14. Experiment B: Baseline PenH and Responsiveness to Methacholine Aerosol “ Treatment Day after Baseline Dose Meh (mg/ml) and PenH AUC (PenH - sec) Group Treatment PenH 0 4 8 16 32 64 Air 1 0.80 -1.5 20.0 61.5 262.0 945.9 1940.7 0.04 10.8 15.3 41.7 71.4 227.1 597.3 WTC3 1 0.68 21.8 18.8 88.9 227.2 697.8 492.3 0.05 7.9 20.8 12.7 50.0 175.4 104.0 Air 3 0.76 -13.7 50.4 238.4 384.9 1188.1 2031.4 0.05 9.8 20.9 68.7 77.4 172.5 178.8 WTC3 3 0.86 -11.4 15.2 37.8 198.6 679.1 1293.3 0.07 9.7 8.3 12.6 108.8 317.2 356.6 Air 6 0.61 -3.5 -7.6 35.5 106.5 70.1 786.6 0.05 3.8 12.4 11.7 43.6 59.5 269.9 WTC3 6 0.58 2.0 31.1 72.0 276.7 1030.4 1935.6 0.04 2.9 9.0 20.4 97.1 252.8 385.1

* Values shown are means (in bold) and SEM immediately below means (n=8 per group). Baseline PenH (enhanced pause; unitless) was measured immediately before methacholine aerosol challenge. No significant differences were found between treatment groups, but there was a significant difference in day, with day 6 values being significantly lower than other days (solid line box; P = 0.0007). Methacholine aerosol (Meh) was administered (see Methods for details) at the indicated doses, and the airway response was calculated as the area under the curve (AUC) of the PenH response over time in seconds. See Figure 12 for description of statistical analysis of PenH AUC data.

27

NYC-WTC_000149170