Miyamura M, Folgering H T, Binkhorst R A, Smolders F D
Pflugers Arch. 1976 Jun 29;364(1):7-15. doi: 10.1007/BF01062905.
Ventilation versus alveolar PCO2 relationships were determined by the steady-state method in 6 normal male subjects at rest and during positive and negative work at one load in both normoxic and hyperoxic condition. In 5 subjects the slopes of the VE-PACO2 lines during positive and negative work increased in normoxia as compared with rest. This effect was less evident in hyperoxia. It was also found that the slopes of the VE-PACO2 lines in positive and in negative work were about the same in both normoxic and hyperoxic conditions. Oxygen uptake and CO2 production during positive work is higher than during negative work. These results suggest that: 1) the disagreement between various authors on the change of the slope of the VE-PACO2 line may be due to the differences in the method of calculation of the slope or the method of the determination of VE-PACO2 lines; 2) the stimuli from the muscle spindles in the working muscle during exercise probably do not contribute to the increase in ventilatory response to CO2; 3) the increased slope of the normoxic VE-PACO2 line during exercise may be due to the interaction of several factors such as impulses from working muscles, chemosensitivity of central or peripheral chemoreceptors, adrenal-sympathetic pathways or temperature; 4) respiratory oscilations of PAO2 or PACO2 do not seem to influence the respiratory response to CO2.
在常氧和高氧条件下，通过稳态法测定了6名正常男性受试者在静息状态以及在一种负荷下进行正功和负功时的通气与肺泡二氧化碳分压（PCO2）之间的关系。在5名受试者中，与静息状态相比，常氧条件下正功和负功期间每分钟通气量（VE）-肺泡二氧化碳分压（PACO2）线的斜率增加。这种效应在高氧条件下不太明显。还发现，在常氧和高氧条件下，正功和负功时VE-PACO2线的斜率大致相同。正功期间的摄氧量和二氧化碳产生量高于负功期间。这些结果表明：1）不同作者关于VE-PACO2线斜率变化的分歧可能是由于斜率计算方法或VE-PACO2线测定方法的差异；2）运动期间工作肌肉中的肌梭刺激可能对二氧化碳通气反应的增加没有贡献；3）运动期间常氧VE-PACO2线斜率增加可能是由于多种因素的相互作用，如来自工作肌肉的冲动、中枢或外周化学感受器的化学敏感性、肾上腺-交感神经通路或温度；4）肺泡氧分压（PAO2）或PACO2的呼吸振荡似乎不影响对二氧化碳的呼吸反应。
