RESPIRATORY COMPENSATION MECHANISMS IN THE UPPER AND LOWER RESPIRATORY TRACTS OF AN ANIMAL MODEL AFTER SUBCHRONIC INHALATION EXPOSURE TO FORMALDEHYDE: IMPLICATIONS FOR TOXICOLOGY RISK ASSESSMENT (DEPOSITION, DOSE RECEIVED, RESPONSE)

The potential for significant human populations to experience long-term inhalation of formaldehyde and reports of symptomatology due to this exposure has led to a considerable interest in the toxicologic assessment of risk from subchronic formaldehyde exposures using animal models. Since formaldehyde inhalation depresses certain respiratory parameters in addition to its other forms of toxicity, there is a potential for the alteration of the actual dose received by the exposed individual (and the resulting toxicity) due to this respiratory effect. The respiratory responses to formaldehyde inhalation and the subsequent pattern of deposition were therefore investigated in animals that had received subchronic exposure to the compound, and the potential for changes in the formaldehyde dose received due to long-term inhalation evaluated. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed to either 0, 0.5, 3, or 15 ppm formaldehyde for 6 hours/day, 5 days/week for up to 6 months. The patterns of respiratory response, deposition and the compensation mechanisms involved were then determined in a series of formaldehyde test challenges to both the upper and to the lower respiratory tracts in separate groups of subchronically exposed animals and age-specific controls (four concentration groups, two time points). In both the control and pre-exposed animals, there was a characteristic recovery of respiratory parameters initially depressed by formaldehyde inhalation to at or approaching pre-exposure levels within 10 minutes of the initiation of exposure. Also, formaldehyde deposition was found to remain very high in the upper and lower tracts after long-term exposure. Therefore, there was probably little subsequent effect on the dose received by the exposed individual that was attributable to the repeated exposures. There was a diminished initial minute volume response in test challenges of both the upper and lower tracts of animals that had received at least 16 weeks of exposure to 15 ppm, with compensatory increases in tidal volume in the upper tract and respiratory rate in the lower tract. However, this dose-related effect was probably not relevant to human risk estimation because this formaldehyde dose is in excess of that experienced by human populations. ^

Is sensitization to stimulants time dependent and mediated via NMDA receptors?

Chronic administration of psychomotor stimulants has been reported to produce behavioral sensitization to its effects on motor activity. This adaptation may be related to the pathophysiology of recurrent psychiatric disorders. Since disturbances in circadian rhythms are also found in many of these disorders, the relationship between sensitization and chronobiological factors became of interest. Therefore, a computerized monitoring system investigated the following: whether repeated exposure to methylphenidate (MPD) and amphetamine (AMP) could produce sensitization to its locomotor effects in the rat; whether sensitization to MPD and AMP was dependent on the circadian time of drug administration; whether the baseline levels of locomotor activity would be effected by repeated exposure to MPD and AMP; whether the expression of a sensitized response could be affected by the photoperiod; and whether MK-801, a non-competitive NMDA antagonist, could disrupt the development of sensitization to MPD. Dawley rats were housed in test cages and motor activity was recorded continuously for 16 days. The first 2 days served as baseline for each rat, and on day 3 each rat received a saline injection. The locomotor response to 0.6, 2.5, or 10 mg/kg of MPD was tested on day 4, followed by five days of single injections of 2.5 mg/kg MPD (days 5–9). After five days without injection (days 10–14) rats were re-challenged (day 15) with the same doses they received on day 4. There were three separate dose groups ran at four different times of administration, 08:00, 14:00, 20:00, or 02:00 (i.e. 12 groups). The same protocol was conducted with AMP with the doses of 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2 mg/kg given on day 4 and 15, and 0.6 mg/kg AMP as the repeated dose on days 5 to 9. In the second set of experiments only sensitization to MPD was investigated. The expression of the sensitized response was dose-dependent and mainly observed with challenge of the lower dose groups. The development of sensitization to MPD and ANT was differentially time-dependent. For MPD, the most robust sensitization occurred during the light phase, with no sensitization during the middle of the dark phase. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) ^