4.1 Article

Source contributions to the mutagenicity of urban particulate air pollution

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 399-410

Publisher

AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOC
DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2005.10464633

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [P30 ES002109, P30-ES02109] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using organic compounds as tracers, a chemical mass balance model was employed to investigate the relationship between the mutagenicity of the urban organic aerosol sources and the mutagenicity of the atmospheric samples. The fine particle organic mass concentration present in the 1993 annual average Los Angeles-area composite sample was apportioned among eight emission source types. The largest source contributions to fine particulate organic compound mass concentration were identified as smoke from meat cooking, diesel-powered vehicle exhaust, wood smoke, and paved road dust. However, the largest source contributions to the mutagenicity of the atmospheric sample were natural gas combustion and diesel-powered vehicles. In both the human cell and bacterial assay systems, the combined mutagenicity of the composite of primary source effluents predicted to be present in the atmosphere was statistically indistinguishable from the mutagenicity of the actual atmospheric sample composite. Known primary emissions sources appear to be capable of emitting mutagenic organic matter to the urban atmosphere in amounts sufficient to account for the observed mutagenicity of the ambient samples. The error bounds on this analysis, however, are wide enough to admit to the possible importance of additional mutagenic organics that are formed by atmospheric reaction (e.g., 2-nitrofluoranthene has been identified as an important human cell mutagen in the atmospheric composite studied here, accounting for similar to 1 % of the total sample mutagenic potency).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available