4.7 Article

Comparative genotoxicity of airborne particulate matter (PM2.5) using Salmonella, plants and mammalian cells

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 94, 期 -, 页码 14-20

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2013.04.014

关键词

Airborne particulate matter (PM2.5); Salmonella/microsome assay; Micronucleus test; Comet assay; Tradescantia pallida

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. CNPq
  3. FEPAM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared genotoxicity in bacteria, plants and cell cultures in areas at risk of exposure to airborne pollution. Genotoxicity of moderately polar organic extracts of PM2.5 from areas with urban airborne pollution (Site 1) and urban-industrial pollution (Site 2) was evaluated using microsuspension assays in Salmonella/microsome, micronucleus test with Tradescantia pallida (Trad-MN) with acute exposure, and in V79 (V79-MN) cells, Comet assay in V79 and human lymphocyte, besides Trad-MN in situ at Site 1. In the Salmonella/microsome assay all samples presented frameshift mutagenic activity (-/+S9), most intense at Site 2 (rev/m(3)). The presence of nitro-PAHs and hydroxylamines in PM2.5 was shown by positive mutagenic responses with YG1021 and YG1024. In tests with Trad-MN, no significant genotoxic responses were found (MN %). In V79-MN a genotoxic response was not found. The Cornet assay damages were found in the DNA at Site 1 in both cell systems. Non-detection of genotoxicity with Trad-MN at sites or in environmental samples from polluted areas detected using other biomarkers suggests the need for careful evaluation when biomonitoring genotoxic compounds using plants. The microsuspension assay in Salmonella/microsome was sensitive to detect and identify different classes of airborne mutagenic compounds present in fine particulate matter in Porto Alegre city, showing that monitoring air quality with PM2.5 using this methodology is relevant. (C) 2013 Published by Elsevier Inc.

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