4.7 Article

Seasonal variations in chemical composition and in vitro biological effects of fine PM from Milan

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 78, 期 11, 页码 1368-1377

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.12.071

关键词

PM1; PM2.5; Chemical composition; Health effects; Cytotoxicity

资金

  1. Municipality of Milan for research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fine particulate matter (PM1 and PM2.5) was collected in Milan over the summer (August-September) and winter (January-March) seasons of 2007/2008. Particles were analyzed for their chemical composition (inorganic ions, elements and PAHs) and the effects produced on the human lung carcinoma epithelial cell line A549. In vitro tests were performed to assess cell viability with MTT assay, cytokine release (IL-6 and IL-8) with ELISA, and DNA damage with COMET assay. Results were investigated by bivariate analysis and multivariate data analysis (Principal Component Analysis, PCA) to investigate the relationship between PM chemical composition and the biological effects produced by cell exposure to 12 mu g cm(-2). The different seasonal chemical composition of PM showed to influence some biological properties. Summer PM samples had a high mass contribution of SO4= (13 +/- 2%) and were enriched in some elements, like Al, As, Cr, Cu. and Zn, compared to winter PM samples. Cell viability reduction was two times higher for summer PM samples in comparison with winter ones (27 +/- 5% and 14 +/- 5%, respectively), and the highest correlation coefficients between cell viability reduction and single chemical components were with As (R-2 = 0.57) and SO4= (R-2 = 0.47). PM1 affected cell viability reduction and induced IL-8 release, and these events were interrelated (R-2 = 0.95), and apparently connected with the same chemical compounds. PM2.5 fraction, which was enriched in Ca++ and Mg++ (from soil dust), and Al, Fe, Zn, Ba Mn, produced cell viability reduction and DNA damage (R-2 = 0.73). (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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