J Physiol Wellcome Trust-funded researchers
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract
Right arrow Full Text
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Data Collection for: Journal of Physiology (2002), 542.2, pp. 549-557

Proton accumulation plays a role in the amplitude, but not in the time for the onset, of the vascular response to anodal current-induced vasodilatation

Protocols were designed to test the influence of alternate anionic and cationic buffers on the amplitude and time for the onset of anodal current-induced vasodilatation. We used four different vehicles: (a) deionised water, (b) sodium bicarbonate (250 mM in deionised water), (c) sodium acetate (250 mM in deionised water) and (d) sodium chloride (125 mM in deionised water), on eight subjects and performed 5 min anodal current applications. LDFrest was 6.9 ± 3.0, 7.6 ± 3.3, 7.5 ± 2.0, 6.1 ± 3.4 %MVD for (a), (b), (c) and (d), respectively. LDFpeak was 15.8 ± 14.3 %MVD for (b) (P < 0.05 vs. all other solutions). It was 49.8 ± 26.4 %MVD for (c) and 69.8 ± 40.9 %MVD for (d), not significantly different from (a): 65.8 ± 36.5 %MVD. Estimation of the time for the onset of vasodilatation showed no change with the different solutions. In anodal iontophoresis, bicarbonate solution vehicles should probably be preferred to deionised water to decrease the amplitude of the 'non-specific' response to current application. The cause for the delay of vasodilatation is still unsolved.

Download PDF.

Prepared by: Durand et al., 15 July 2002.



This Article
Right arrow Abstract
Right arrow Full Text
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS