↓ Skip to main content

A review of the experimental evidence on the toxicokinetics of carbon monoxide: the potential role of pathophysiology among susceptible groups

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A review of the experimental evidence on the toxicokinetics of carbon monoxide: the potential role of pathophysiology among susceptible groups
Published in
Environmental Health, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12940-018-0357-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prabjit Barn, Luisa Giles, Marie-Eve Héroux, Tom Kosatsky

Abstract

Acute high level carbon monoxide (CO) exposure can cause immediate cardio-respiratory arrest in anyone, but the effects of lower level exposures in susceptible persons are less well known. The percentage of CO-bound hemoglobin in blood (carboxyhemoglobin; COHb) is a marker of exposure and potential health outcomes. Indoor air quality guidelines developed by the World Health Organization and Health Canada, among others, are set so that CO exposure does not lead to COHb levels above 2.0%, a target based on experimental evidence on toxicodynamic relationships between COHb and cardiac performance among persons with cardiovascular disease (CVD). The guidelines do not consider the role of pathophysiological influences on toxicokinetic relationships. Physiological deficits that contribute to increased CO uptake, decreased CO elimination, and increased COHb formation can alter relationships between CO exposures and resulting COHb levels, and consequently, the severity of outcomes. Following three fatalities attributed to CO in a long-term care facility (LTCF), we queried whether pathologies other than CVD could alter CO-COHb relationships. Our primary objective was to inform susceptibility-specific modeling that accounts for physiological deficits that may alter CO-COHb relationships, ultimately to better inform CO management in LTCFs. We reviewed experimental studies investigating relationships between CO, COHb, and outcomes related to health or physiological outcomes among healthy persons, persons with CVD, and six additional physiologically susceptible groups considered relevant to LTCF residents: persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), anemia, cerebrovascular disease (CBD), heart failure, multiple co-morbidities, and persons of older age (≥ 60 years). We identified 54 studies published since 1946. Six studies investigated toxicokinetics among healthy persons, and the remaining investigated toxicodynamics, mainly among healthy persons and persons with CVD. We identified one study each of CO dynamics in persons with COPD, anemia and persons of older age, and no studies of persons with CBD, heart failure, or multiple co-morbidities. Considerable heterogeneity existed for exposure scenarios and outcomes investigated. Limited experimental human evidence on the effects of physiological deficits relevant to CO kinetics exists to support indoor air CO guidelines. Both experimentation and modeling are needed to assess how physiological deficits influence the CO-COHb relationship, particularly at sub-acute exposures relevant to indoor environments. Such evidence would better inform indoor air quality guidelines and CO management in indoor settings where susceptible groups are housed.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 6 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 43 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Chemistry 3 3%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 46 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2018.
All research outputs
#15,490,822
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#1,151
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,129
of 437,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#19
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.