Jump to content

Talk:Lung: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 98: Line 98:
I think the page could be better improved. Couldn't there be some more color pictures in the articles? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.76.123.166|68.76.123.166]] ([[User talk:68.76.123.166|talk]]) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I think the page could be better improved. Couldn't there be some more color pictures in the articles? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.76.123.166|68.76.123.166]] ([[User talk:68.76.123.166|talk]]) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


At the top of the article it says "The lung (adjectival form: pulmonary) is the essential respiration organ in '''all''' air-breathing animals". Insects, for example, do not have lungs so perhaps it should be reworded to not say "all".
At the top of the article it says "The lung is the essential respiration organ in '''all''' air-breathing animals". However, insects, for example, do not have lungs so perhaps it should be reworded to not say "all". You may argue that "breathing" implies only the animals that have lungs, but then the whole sentence becomes redundant, and a semantic tautology. I propose something more succinct and clear along the lines of.. "The lung is an organ used for respiration in many large animals".
[[Special:Contributions/188.220.85.6|188.220.85.6]] ([[User talk:188.220.85.6|talk]]) 22:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/188.220.85.6|188.220.85.6]] ([[User talk:188.220.85.6|talk]]) 22:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


== Avian lung airflow ==
== Avian lung airflow ==

Revision as of 22:29, 12 November 2010

Template:WP1.0

An entire section needs to be added on diseases of the lung

An entire section needs to be added on diseases and traumas of the lung, especially in mammals, primates, and human beings. As of the present, this article hardly mentions lung diseases and other forms of lung damage. There is only minor mention of infection, and nome at all on black lung disease, lung cancer, emphysema, and the effects of poisons such as mustard gas and tobacco tar on the lungs of human beings and other mammals. All of these things are surely serious omissions.98.81.5.18 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal volume, capacity, vandalism

What is the difference between capacity and tidal volume of the lung? The article claims they differ by a factor of 10. AxelBoldt 16:07, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The space the lung uses for inhalation of air is just a fraction (is called the tidal volume) of the space that is availible in the lung (capacity of the lung). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.93.136.84 (talkcontribs) 16:19, 15 November 2004 (UTC)
True for Mammalian lungs, but not for Avian lungs, as far as the article Bird tells me. Speaking of which, should we describe the lungs of other classes here? Amphibia, Aves, Reptilia? -Wikibob | Talk 13:23, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
They used to be described here, the avian ones at least, but seem to have vanished. I don't have the time right now to sleuth through the article history in detail to find out why, but I've added a link for the avian one now and the others should at least be mentioned too. Bryan 16:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the missing Avian and Amphibian sections.

The loss occurred between

(vandalism was only partially repaired).

Subsequent minor vanadalism had been correctly repaired, and I found no more losses. The Reptilian section was originally empty, and I didn't look further back than July 2004.

After restoration as a check I took this bookmark of the difference between the restored version and Solitude's Revision as of 11:05, 2004 Oct 28.

I will soon move Bryan's Avian section to the restored section as a summary (if my laptop doesn't crash again).

Finally here are the sections I've restored -Wikibob | Talk 00:47, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC) :

Human lungs

See human lung.

Avian lungs

Birds have a significantly different structure to their lungs than mammals do. In addition to the lungs themselves, birds have posterior and anterior air sacs (typically nine) which control air flow through the lungs, but do not play a direct role in gas exchange. They have a flow through respiration system.

When a bird inhales, air flows in through the trachea to the posterior air sacs, while air currently within the lungs flows into the anterior air sacs. When the bird exhales, the fresh air now contained within the posterior air sacs is driven into the lungs, and the stale air now contained within the anterior air sacs is expelled through the trachea and into the atmosphere. Two complete cycles of inhalation and exhalation are, therefore, required for one breath of air to make its way through the avian respiratory system.

Avian lungs do not have alveoli, as mammalian lungs do, but instead contain millions of tiny passages known as parabronchi, connected at either ends by the dorsobronchi and ventrobronchi. Air flows through the honeycombed walls of the parabronchi and into air capillaries, where oxygen and carbon-dioxide are traded with cross-flowing blood capillaries by diffusion, a process of crosscurrent exchange.

The purpose of this complex system of air sacs is to ensure that the airflow through the avian lung is always traveling in the same direction - posterior to anterior. This is in contrast to the mammalian system, in which the direction of airflow in the lung is tidal, reversing between inhalation and exhalation. By utilizing a unidirectional flow of air, avian lungs are able to extract a greater concentration of oxygen from inhaled air. Birds are thus equipped to fly at altitudes at which mammals would succumb to hypoxia.

Reptilian lungs

Amphibian lungs

The lungs of most frogs and other amphibians are simple balloon-like structures, with gas exchange limited to the outer surface area of the lung. This is not a very efficient arrangement, but amphibians have low metabolic demands and also frequently supplement their oxygen supply by diffusion across the moist outer skin of their bodies.

Lights

Should a mention of Lungs used in food be mentioned in this article?--Wynler | Talk 20:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Got a reference? Melchoir 04:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonrespiratory functions

Another nonrespiratory function is to filter out gas microbubbles occuring in the blood stream during Scuba diving Decompression stop. I think it is worth adding.Michagal 16:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circular redirect

There is a reference and link to circulatory lungs in the Avian Lungs section, but it redirects to Lungs --Anidnmeno 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! I've fixed it. But you can edit the page, too, you know, it's only locked from IP's and accounts less than four days old. delldot talk 22:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the study of the lungs?

A good addition to this article would be a section on the history of the study of lungs. LinaMishima (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invertibrate lungs???

The first sentence of this article implies that only vertibrates have lungs. Snail says that some kinds of snails have lungs. This needs to be clarified and/or corrected. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct, Roy. There are a group of air breathing snails called the pulmonata who have lungs. So who's going to change the article? 122.105.84.37

Shouldn't diseases and other problems/defects be mentioned in this article?

(talk) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Just to let you know someone put something like nhhhhhhjksud so I deleted it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.40.99 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleura and Pleural Cavity

I think this article should mention the pleura (membrane covering the lungs) and the pleural cavity in which the lungs are contained. I would have to do some research on this if I were to do it myself, which I'm willing to do. I thought I would mention it here first in case somebody else more knowledgable than myself could do this more quickly. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Inaccuracies

Do you think that the comment about their being three branches of the trachea might be inaccurate. I am not sure how the third branch travels through the abdomen, does anyone know?

Page Improvement

I think the page could be better improved. Couldn't there be some more color pictures in the articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.123.166 (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the article it says "The lung is the essential respiration organ in all air-breathing animals". However, insects, for example, do not have lungs so perhaps it should be reworded to not say "all". You may argue that "breathing" implies only the animals that have lungs, but then the whole sentence becomes redundant, and a semantic tautology. I propose something more succinct and clear along the lines of.. "The lung is an organ used for respiration in many large animals". 188.220.85.6 (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avian lung airflow

The third paragraph on the section on the Avian Lung states that it is a misunderstanding that it takes two breathing cycles for air to flow through the whole system, and goes on to say that air is not stored in the air sacs. The source it cites actually says: "During expiration the major part of inspired air streams from the reservoirs (caudal air sacs, thick open arrows) through the parabronchi/air capillaries into major distal airways, where it mixes with the deoxygenated respiratory gas stored in cranial air sacs during the inspiratory phase." which seems to contradict the article's mention of the air sacs not storing air. While I think this is more of a technicality (air isn't stored there forever, of course), I can find no justification on the sourced site for saying that it does not take two cycles. In fact, since it states that air moves from the reservoir of the caudal air sacs, through the parabronchi, into the cranial sacs upon expiration. This suggests that it takes more than one respiratory cycle for a single "packet" of air to circulate completely. Is there a credible source that describes this differently or is more up-to-date on avian respiration? Faunablues (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I think Faunablues’ criticism is right, and the version commented on should be changed. On page 62 of:

Bretz, W. L. and K. Schmidt-Nielsen. 1972. The movement of gas in the respiratory system of the duck. The Journal of Experimental Biology 56: 57–65. 
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/56/1/57 a table shows the number of cycles required to wash out half the gas inhaled on a particular cycle, from four different airsacs. In all cases, between 2 and 3.5 cycles are required. Unless the volumes retained in the uncompressible lung and airvessels are reasonably comparable to the airsacs, that washout table shows there is substantial gas held in most/all airsacs at the end of the exhalation phase.

Although Bretz & SchmidtNielsen ‘72 is not more recent than the source site originally referenced, it doesn’t matter as Bretz & SchmidtNielsen ‘72 has perfectly adequate authority, the originally sourced site did not endorse the original version, and I believe it’s hard to find one that does. Strangetruther (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]