Talk:Lung volumes

"The average pair of women's lung can hold only about 4.5 litres of air; when comparing to men's lung which can hold up to about 5 litres of air" - This is not a suitable way to open the article. Besides, the difference in lung capacity between males and females is already mentioned in the second paragraph; it is completely unsuitable as a first sentence. Owen× ☎ 04:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I believe there is a misleading comment in this section of the article. As it stands, the article states that "there is less oxygen in the air at altitude". However, this comment is misleading, as there is still, to my knowledge, the same proportion of oxygen versus other gases in the atmosphere at all altitudes (at least within the troposphere); the air just becomes less dense as you go up. So, while the comment is technically correct, it is still misleading, as it suggests it is only oxygen that decreases in amount, when in reality the lower density would lower the amount of all gases entering the lungs.

I hope this issue can be cleared up easily. I'd do it myself, but I'm too busy to find a source for my statements. (I know them from my high school curriculum.) Keith Davies Lehwald 00:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

What happens to lung capacity under pressure? Under water, for divers, for instance, does ERV+RV and TV decrease? (assume shallow 10 m dive, with air mixture)

I don't think so. The higher pressure outside is more-or-less matched by pressure inside. If the pressure inside remained at one atmosphere, the diver would find it very difficult to breathe. --Ihope127 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the article is seems as though there are two definitions of FRC. Near the top it says it is ERV + RV and near the end of the article it says it is IRV + RV. Which is the correct one? 64.81.186.50 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Erik Henne 7 December 2006Reply

Whoops, seems that you indeed use L in some places of the world. Feel free to revert my changes if you wish :) --SLi 22:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Another value that can be calculated is the "Respiratory quotient". RQ = rate of CO2 production/rate of O2 consumption. RQ can vary with diet and exercise, but under typical conditions, RQ = 0.8.

Only approximately 7.5% of lung air is changed over on one breath at rest.

Could someone cite and further explain the relationship between those two points. if 20% of the air is taken away then how is the change only 7.5%? 216.84.45.194 15:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Volumes don't match: according to the table in 'Measurement and values' (changed to Values) TLC = 6 liters and TLC = IRV + TV + ERV + RV As well according to the table:

• IRV = 3.6
• TV = 0.5
• ERV = 1.2
• RV = 1.2

thus TLC = 6.5 liters

Regarding the table in the Values section, sometime previous to this date the IRV was changed to 3.0, so the TLC would be 5.9 liters, and it is still listed as 6 liters. At least it's quite a bit closer, if not precise. As I am no expert, I have no clue as to what should be altered to bring this to precision. As it is, we must question all the values and seek the help of an expert.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

PS. Hope you all have the happiest of holidays this season!  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 

PPS. An expert on the subject has been asked to help on the Medicine Project talk page.  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax) 

The first thing to do is to review the sources. It looks like the values in the table are derived from Palsson in Tissue Engineering. I am not familiar with that publication. In my opinion, there are several publications that are both more accessible and equally if not more authoritative/reliable.

Physiology textbooks that have these criteria include Ganong's Review of Medical Physiology (my personal favourite physiology text), Guyton & Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology, and West's Respiratory Physiology. My favourite respiratory text is Fishman's Pulmonary Diseases and Disorders, which has a list of physiological values in the back.

Spirometric values are relatively easy to find, such as this guideline from the British Thoracic Society. However this will only describe FEV₁ and FVC.

I shall look through the various texts that I have and I'll find one with all of the required information, while remaining as accessible as possible. It may take me a few days. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

These values vary with the age and height of the person. For males the values below are averages for a healthy, 70 kg (154 lb) adult male;^[1] for females the data listed are estimates obtained by reducing the male values by 22.5%:^[2]

Measurement	Value (Male/Female)	Calculation	Description
Total lung capacity (TLC)	= 6.0 / 4.7 L	TLC = IRV + Vt + ERV + RV	The volume of air contained in the lung at the end of maximal inspiration. The total volume of the lung. Values of between 80% and 120% of average value are considered normal.[3]
Vital capacity (VC)	= 4.6 / 3.6 L	VC = IRV + Vt + ERV	The amount of air that can be forced out of the lungs after a maximal inspiration. Emphasis on completeness of expiration. The maximum volume of air that can be voluntarily moved in and out of the respiratory system.[4]
Forced vital capacity (FVC)	= 4.8 / 3.7 L	measured	The amount of air that can be maximally forced out of the lungs after a maximal inspiration. Emphasis on speed.[5][6]
Tidal volume (Vt)	= 500 / 390 mL	measured	The amount of air breathed in or out during normal respiration. The volume of air an individual is normally breathing in and out.
Residual volume (RV)	= 1.2 / 0.93 L	measured	The amount of air left in the lungs after a maximal exhalation. The amount of air that is always in the lungs and can never be expired (i.e.: the amount of air that stays in the lungs after maximum expiration). Values between 75% and 125% of average value are considered normal.[3]
Expiratory reserve volume (ERV)	= 1.2 / 0.93 L	measured	The amount of additional air that can be pushed out after the end expiratory level of normal breathing. (At the end of a normal breath, the lungs contain the residual volume plus the expiratory reserve volume, or around 2.4 litres. If one then goes on and exhales as much as possible, only the residual volume of 1.2 litres remains).
Inspiratory reserve volume (IRV)	= 3.0 / 2.3 L	measured or IRV=VC-(Vt+ERV)	The additional air that can be inhaled after a normal tidal breath in. The maximum volume of air that can be inspired in addition to the tidal volume.
Functional residual capacity (FRC)	= 2.4 / 1.9 L	FRC = ERV + RV	The amount of air left in the lungs after a tidal breath out. The amount of air that stays in the lungs during normal breathing. Values of between 80% and 120% of average value are considered normal.[3]
Inspiratory capacity (IC)	= 3.5 / 2.7 L	IC = Vt + IRV	The maximal volume that can be inspired following a normal expiration.
Anatomical dead space	= 150 / 120 mL	measured	The volume of the conducting airways. Measured with Fowler method.[7]
Physiologic dead volume	= 155 / 120 mL	${\displaystyle V_{\mathrm {T} }\,{\frac {P_{\mathrm {A\,CO_{2}} }-P_{\mathrm {E\,CO_{2}} }}{P_{\mathrm {A\,CO_{2}} }}}}$	The anatomic dead space plus the alveolar dead space.

i noticed most of the measurements are either in Litres or Millilitres i was wondering wat temperature and pressure these were recorded at, as if these variables change the true consumption of atmoshphere changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.194.243 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

In http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070419113731AAz33un a pseudonymous poster "Matt A" (who claims to have a degree in respiratory science and be a registered respiratory therapist) claims that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) caused by smoking results in *increases* in total lung capacity (TLC) and residual volume (RV), but decreases in functional capacity. That smoking increases TLC is confirmed by, for example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8966368&dopt=Abstract , the abstract to which mentions in passing that they are using large TLC as an operational definition of emphysema caused by smoking. (That paper is entitled "Alcohol consumption modifies the total lung capacity in smokers", and it's by Strom et al., in Respiration, 1996;63(2):66-72.)

I don't feel that I'm qualified to edit the facts of this Wikipedia article, but in light of this somewhat paradoxical effect, perhaps the "heavy smokers" item being in the "decreases lung capacity" column is somewhat misleading?

Kragen Sitaker 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree on the point above. From my own measurements as a medical student, and form several literature sources (used a long time ago) I know for sure that smoking doesn't lower the total volume of the lungs. It does severely affect the capacity to extract oxygen from the air, but that's something different. I've seen indications that smoking during adolescence even leads to higher lung volumes due to a compensation effect. But I have no proof on this statement. When nobody objects I will chance the content within a few weeks. --Frodo Muijzer (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC):Reply

who has the largest lung capacity on record? Does any one know the answer to this particular question?

The largest total lung capacity recorded was that of British rower Peter Reed, with a volume of 11.68 l. is listed in the article, no citation is given. Demantos 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, most search results, like this say 9.38 l for him. And his record category appears to be "biggest lungs on a British athlete", rather than "world's biggest lungs". Quite impressive nontheless, as even with athletes, slightly above 8 seems to be the upper limit; and most spirometers measure only up to 7. I once met a free diver at a party, who said his lung capacity was 8.2 l, and that the record for a Finnish diver was 8.8 l. I wonder how people with gigantism fare on this one... --Anshelm '77 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Each of these terms has a specific meaning. There are four volumes that are distinct and that do not overlap. These four volumes can be combined to form the capacities. While it is quite easy to fall into the trap of sloppy language, it will lead to endless confusion. Docdave (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The comments from the TOP of this talk page have been moved to this section. I am not certain which comment that editor Vihsadas is in agreement with.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the poster below. If I new how to post that a piece of information is in dispute, I would post that on the part that states that lung volume is affected by altitude. In fact, it is ventilation, and hematocrit that are affected by high altitude. Even though the air is less dense, The body will compensate by regulating the pressure of the chest wall, pleural pressure, and lung pressure, thereby causing the lung volume to be regulated.

Vihsadas 18:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new to talk pages but as far as I've learned throughout multiple exercise science and physiology courses, Lung Capacity is almost entirely genetic. (Height, age, gender all play roles along with just an individual genetic basis.) I have never read ANYWHERE that living at higher altitudes increases lung capacity nor being an athlete. I know as a fact that living at higher altitudes increases the volume of BLOOD in your body (and hemoglobin concentration), allowing people to make better use of the oxygen available, but never have I heard altitude affects lung capacity at all. Also, athletes tend to be able to breathe less and have a lower heart rate because of increased stroke volume of the heart, and increased max VO2 (muscle efficiency at using oxygen in the bloodstream). I checked through the sources listed (except for the book) and none of them say ANYTHING about altitudes or being athletic affecting MAXIMUM LUNG CAPACITY. In fact, one source says "age, gender, height" and nothing else. As for the highest lung capacity ever recorded being an athlete (as an argument against), cause and effect. Does he have a huge lung capacity because he's an athlete, or is he a great athlete because he has a huge lung capacity?

As far as I know, the alveolar and arteral oxygen partial pressure are the same which are both 100mmHg. Human lung is able to let incoming blood reach oxygen partial pressure equalibrium with alveolus within the first one third of the path with contact with alveolar air. Source: Essential erspiratory physiology, J. West.

You're correct that the alveolar and arterial oxygen tensions are usually very close, although there is typically a small gradient which increases with age (see alveolar-arterial gradient, which incidentally could use some love). I also agree that our presentation of the effects of altitude on lung volumes is confusing, somewhat dubious, and (most importantly) unsourced. Maybe we can find a good source and go from there? MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Residual volume" redirects to this article, but nowhere in the article does it explain what, exactly, residual volume is. I'm not sure where this explanation should go, but here is a short description of the subject. If there is already an article that discusses residual volume, then the redirect should be pointed there.

216.99.210.236 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Michael P.Reply

I find this article bewildering.

In part this is because some sentences are made hard to understand because of poor grammar, eg "Tidal breathing is normal, resting breathing; the tidal volume is the volume of air that is inhaled or exhaled in a single such breath.". Replacing the semi-colon with a full-stop would give: "Tidal breathing is normal, resting breathing. The tidal volume is the volume of air that is inhaled or exhaled in a single such breath." which I assume is closer to the intended meaning.

However the main reason for bewilderment and frustration is that no model is decribed in the article of the various lung capacities and terms used. There is no straightforward, clear and simple explanation of what is being referred to. The article instead addresses itself immediately to more detailed discussion and provides a side-bar list of abbreviations which does not suffice. To understand the subject the article concerns, the reader needs to assemble their own model.

As the only place the terms used are defined is in a list of abbreviations, the only means of constructing this model is to search the article for references to the terms in question one at a time; to locate them in the text associated with the list of abbreviations; and to make a note of their meaning. Once the key terms and definitions have been so deduced a model of their use can be assembled (by the reader) and with this model the figures given (and explanation of variations between demographics etc) can then be understood (or not, I didn't have time to complete the necessary work).

IMO the article ought to begin by setting out the terms used so as to describe the model and should only then proceed to more detailed discussion. LookingGlass (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is a slightly better article at ask dr wiki - Lung volumes but while the explantion seems clear there the arithmetic doesn't add up correctly for the values given LookingGlass (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lung capacity/volume is the same whether you are a wind player or a drummer. Lung Capacity-Wind Players should be merged to Lung volumes on that basis Fiddle Faddle 17:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason to put "of air" after expressing a volumetric measurement? e.g. "The average total lung capacity of an adult human male is about 6 litres of air." Shouldn't the sentence just end with "Litres" ? 64.211.58.60 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think "about 6 litres of air" is better for the average reader (even though it might be redundant etc).-73.61.15.12 (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• How much does a Breath of Air weigh?

(maybe we should do something to feature this question and answer, since currently google search is surprisingly unhelpful)

basic simple answer -- about a gram

A Litre of air weighs about 1.25 grams (1.2-1.3 Kg per cubic metre). Let's find a way to include this in the article, so that curious readers can figure out how much a Breath weighs (half Litre ordinary tidal breath would be just over half a gram; full 5L max vital breath would be just over 6 grams, less than a quarter ounce).-73.61.15.12 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply