ArticleParticle and fibre toxicology2020
Inhalation of printer-emitted particles impairs cardiac conduction, hemodynamics, and autonomic regulation and induces arrhythmia and electrical remodeling in rats.
Article in Particle and fibre toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effective density of inhaled environmental and engineered nanoparticles and its impact on the lung deposition and dosimetry.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2024Article
- Human exposure to metals in consumer-focused fused filament fabrication (FFF)/ 3D printing processes.The Science of the total environment · 2022Review
- Printer center nanoparticles alter the DNA repair capacity of human bronchial airway epithelial cells.NanoImpact · 2022Article
- High-Throughput Screening Platform for Nanoparticle-Mediated Alterations of DNA Repair Capacity.ACS nano · 2021Article
- Nanomaterial-mediated autophagy: coexisting hazard and health benefits in biomedicine.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2020Review
- Pilot deep RNA sequencing of worker blood samples from Singapore printing industry for occupational risk assessment.NanoImpact · 2020Article
- Integrated Transcriptomics, Metabolomics, and Lipidomics Profiling in Rat Lung, Blood, and Serum for Assessment of Laser Printer-Emitted Nanoparticle Inhalation Exposure-Induced Disease Risks.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUsing engineered nanomaterial-based toners, laser printers generate aerosols with alarming levels of nanoparticles that bear high bioactivity and potential health risks. Yet, the cardiac impacts of printer-emitted particles (PEPs) are unknown. Inhalation of particulate matter (PM) promotes cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and ultra-fine particulates (< 0.1 μm aerodynamic diameter) may bear toxicity unique from larger particles. Toxicological studies suggest that PM impairs left ventricular (LV) performance; however, such investigations have heretofore required animal restraint, anesthesia, or ex vivo preparations that can confound physiologic endpoints and/or prohibit LV mechanical assessments during exposure. To assess the acute and chronic effects of PEPs on cardiac physiology, male Sprague Dawley rats were exposed to PEPs (21 days, 5 h/day) while monitoring LV pressure (LVP) and electrocardiogram (ECG) via conscious telemetry, analyzing LVP and heart rate variability (HRV) in four-day increments from exposure days 1 to 21, as well as ECG and baroreflex sensitivity. At 2, 35, and 70 days after PEPs exposure ceased, rats received stress tests.
resultsOn day 21 of exposure, PEPs significantly (P < 0.05 vs. Air) increased LV end systolic pressure (LVESP, + 18 mmHg) and rate-pressure-product (+ 19%), and decreased HRV indicating sympathetic dominance (root means squared of successive differences [RMSSD], - 21%). Overall, PEPs decreased LV ejection time (- 9%), relaxation time (- 3%), tau (- 5%), RMSSD (- 21%), and P-wave duration (- 9%). PEPs increased QTc interval (+ 5%) and low:high frequency HRV (+ 24%; all P < 0.05 vs. Air), while tending to decrease baroreflex sensitivity and contractility index (- 15% and - 3%, P < 0.10 vs. Air). Relative to Air, at both 2 and 35 days after PEPs, ventricular arrhythmias increased, and at 70 days post-exposure LVESP increased. PEPs impaired ventricular repolarization at 2 and 35 days post-exposure, but only during stress tests. At 72 days post-exposure, PEPs increased urinary dopamine 5-fold and protein expression of ventricular repolarizing channels, K
conclusionsOur findings suggest exposure to PEPs increases cardiovascular risk by augmenting sympathetic influence, impairing ventricular performance and repolarization, and inducing hypertension and arrhythmia. PEPs may present significant health risks through adverse cardiovascular effects, especially in occupational settings, among susceptible individuals, and with long-term exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.