4.7 Article

Inhalation bioaccessibility of PAHs in PM2.5: Implications for risk assessment and toxicity prediction

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 650, Issue -, Pages 56-64

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.246

Keywords

PAHs; Inhalation bioaccessibility; Health risk; Toxicity prediction

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21577055]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [0211 14380115]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, 46 PM2.5 samples collected from Nanjing, China were analyzed for total PAH concentration, with 14 samples assessed for PAH inhalation bioaccessibility and dioxin toxicity. The concentration of 19 PAH compounds in PM2.5 ranged from 4.03 to 102 ngm(-3). When PAH inhalation bioaccessibility was assessed using simulated epithelial lung fluid, mean bioaccessibility values ranged from 3.21% (Benzo(c)fluorene) to 44.2% (Acenaphthylene). Benzo(a) pyrene concentration in 50% of the PM2.5 samples exceeded the Chinese air quality standard of 2.5 ng m(-3), however, when bioaccessibility was considered, all samples were below the criterion. Similarly, the cancer risk probability for all PM2.5 samples was > 10(-4) incidences on the basis of total PAH concentration, while only 37% of samples posed a risk > 10(-4) after incorporation of bioaccessibility. Dioxin toxicity of PM2.5-bound PAHs was also investigated by characterizing mRNA expression of cytochrome P450 superfamily members in human lung cells (A549 cell). Compared to total PAH concentration, the use of bioaccessible concentration was better at predicting dioxin toxicity of PM2.5-associated PAHs (correlation coefficient R-2 = 0.40-0.83 with p < 0.05). This study indicates that PAH inhalation bioaccessibility is an important consideration when assessing and predicting the risk posed by PM2.5 particles, which is particularly important for countries with deteriorating air quality. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available