4.7 Review

Analytical methods for assessing metal bioaccessibility in airborne particulate matter: A scoping review

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 877, 期 -, 页码 9-18

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2015.01.024

关键词

Airborne particulate matter; Bioaccessibility; Metals; Simulated lung fluids; In vitro methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In contrast to the existence of standardized methods to assess metal bioaccessibility via the gastrointestinal route, there are no widely-accepted, established in vitro testing protocols to measure elemental solubility in the human lung. This may be attributed, in part, to the difficulty associated with simulating the lung's complex in vivo conditions. The purpose of this review is two-fold: (1) to determine how the bioaccessibility of metals associated with ambient particulate matter (PM) in the human lung has been assessed in the literature, and (2) examine the suitability and biological relevance of applied methods for the measurement of metal bioaccessibility employed to date. The review revealed that limited attention has been paid to the development and application of biologically-relevant in vitro methods to measure elemental solubility in ambient PM as a proxy for bioaccessibility in the human lung. Few studies (n = 14) used synthetic lung fluids to simulate in vivo conditions, with only half extracting samples at a biologically-relevant temperature of 37 degrees C. There was limited evidence suggesting that the use of water is less effective as a leaching agent compared to simulated lung fluids. In sum, this scoping review highlights a critical need to develop standardized methods for the systematic assessment of elemental bioaccessibility via the respiratory route. Priority should be placed on the validation of biologically-relevant methods, including the use of leaching agents and extraction parameters used, which allow for testing to be conducted in a reliable, yet cost efficient, manner. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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