ERJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Permissions
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Muller-Wening, D
Right arrow Articles by Neuhauss, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Muller-Wening, D
Right arrow Articles by Neuhauss, M
Eur Respir J 1998; 12: 569-572
Copyright © ERS Journals Ltd 1998


Clinical Trial

Protective effect of respiratory devices in farmers with occupational asthma

D Muller-Wening and M Neuhauss

To the authors' knowledge there have been no previous reports on the protection afforded by powered filtering respirators in farmers with occupational asthma attributed to the inhalation of organic dust. In order to investigate this question, 26 farmers with occupational asthma were challenged with an exposure to work-related dusts for up to 60 min. This resulted in highly significant increases in airway resistance (Raw), thoracic gas volume (TGV) and specific airway resistance (sRaw) compared to baseline values. After a mean period of 21 weeks the farmers were subjected to a second challenge, this time wearing a protective respiratory device (RD) with a P2 filter. Significant increases in Raw, TGV and sRaw were again observed, but on average these were 50-80% smaller than the increases seen when RDs were not worn. These differences were found to be statistically significant. This shows that the use of a respiratory device in farmers suffering from occupational asthma reduces the development of bronchial obstruction but does not prevent it. The use of this kind of respiratory device cannot substitute for the proper management of asthma since the devices do not offer complete protection.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
R. C. van Heemst, I. Sander, J. Rooyackers, L. de Jong, R. S. Djamin, J. G. Aerts, and H. N. A. Belderbos
Hypersensitivity pneumonitis caused by occupational exposure to phytase
Eur. Respir. J., June 1, 2009; 33(6): 1507 - 1509.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Occup. Environ. Med.Home page
P J Nicholson, P Cullinan, A J Newman Taylor, P S Burge, and C Boyle
Evidence based guidelines for the prevention, identification, and management of occupational asthma
Occup. Environ. Med., May 1, 2005; 62(5): 290 - 299.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ChestHome page
L. C. Grammer, K. E. Harris, and P. R. Yarnold
Effect of Respiratory Protective Devices on Development of Antibody and Occupational Asthma to an Acid Anhydride*
Chest, April 1, 2002; 121(4): 1317 - 1322.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the European Respiratory Society.