4.0 Article

Heterogeneities in inflammatory and cytotoxic responses of RAW 264.7 macrophage cell line to urban air coarse, fine, and ultrafine particles from six European sampling campaigns

期刊

INHALATION TOXICOLOGY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 213-225

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08958370601067863

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the cytotoxic and inflammatory activities of size-segregated particulate samples (particulate matter, PM) from contrasting air pollution situations in Europe. Coarse (PM10-2.5), fine (PM2.5-0.2), and ultrafine (PM0.2) particulate samples were collected with a modified Harvard high-volume cascade impactor (HVCI). Mouse RAW 264.7 macrophages were exposed to the samples for 24 h. Selected inflammatory mediators, nitric oxide (NO) and cytokines (tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF alpha], interleukin 6 [IL-6], macrophage inflammatory protein-2 [MIP-2]), were measured together with cytotoxicity (MTT test), and analysis of apoptosis and cell cycle (propidium iodide staining). The PM10-2.5 samples had a much higher inflammatory activity than the PM2.5-0.2 and PM0.2 samples, but the PM2.5-0.2 samples showed the largest differences in inflammatory activity, and the PM0.2 samples in cytotoxicity, between the sampling campaigns. The PM2.5-0.2 samples from traffic environments in springtime Barcelona and summertime Athens had the highest inflammatory activities, which may be related to the high photochemical activity in the atmosphere during the sampling campaigns. The PM0.2 sample from wintertime Prague with proven impacts from local coal and biomass combustion had very high cytotoxic and apoptotic activities and caused a distinct cell cycle arrest. Thus, particulate size, sources, and atmospheric transformation processes affect the toxicity profile of urban air particulate matter. These factors may explain some of the heterogeneity observed in particulate exposure-response relationships of human health effects in epidemiological studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据