HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free All Versions of this Article: 96/6/2109    most recent 00540.2003v1 Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Straszek, S. P. Articles by Pedersen, O. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Straszek, S. P. Articles by Pedersen, O. F.

Nasal cavity dimensions in guinea pig and rat measured by acoustic rhinometry and fluid-displacement method

Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark

Submitted 20 May 2003 ; accepted in final form 10 February 2004

The purpose of the study was to measure nasal passageway dimensions in guinea pigs and rats by use of acoustic rhinometry (AR) and by a previously described fluid-displacement method (FDM) (Straszek SP, Taagehoej F, Graff S, and Pedersen OF. J Appl Physiol 95: 635–642, 2003) to investigate the potential of AR in pharmacological research with these animals. We measured the area-distance relationships by AR of nasal cavities postmortem in five guinea pigs (Duncan Hartley, 400 g) and five rats (Wistar, 250 g) by using custom-made equipment scaled for the purpose. Nosepieces were made from plastic pipette tips and either inserted into or glued onto the nostrils. We used liquid perfluorocarbon in the fluid-displacement study, and it was carried out subsequent to the acoustic measurements. We found for guinea pigs that AR measured a mean volume of 98 mm³ (95–100 mm³) (mean and 95% confidence interval) of the first 2 cm of the cavity. FDM measured a mean volume of 146 mm³ (117–175 mm³), meaning that AR only measured 70% (50–90) of the volume by FDM. For rats, the volume from 0 to 2 cm was 58 mm³ (55–61 mm³) by AR and 73 mm³ (60–87 mm³) by FDM, resulting in AR only measuring 83% (66–100%) of volume by FDM (see Table 2). We conclude that absolute nasal cavity dimensions are underestimated by AR in guinea pigs and rats. This does not preclude that relative changes may be correctly measured. In vivo trials with AR using rats have not yet been published. The FDM is possibly the most accurate alternative to AR for measurements of the nasal cavity geometry in small laboratory animals, but it can only be used postmortem.