Nicole A H Janssen1, Aileen Yang2, Maciej Strak3, Maaike Steenhof4, Bryan Hellack5, Miriam E Gerlofs-Nijland6, Thomas Kuhlbusch7, Frank Kelly8, Roy Harrison9, Bert Brunekreef10, Gerard Hoek11, Flemming Cassee12. 1. Department for Environmental Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box, 2720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Nicole.Janssen@rivm.nl. 2. Department for Environmental Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box, 2720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80178, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Aileen.Yang@rivm.nl. 3. Department for Environmental Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box, 2720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80178, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: MStrak@ggd.amsterdam.nl. 4. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80178, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: M.Steenhof@uu.nl. 5. Air Quality & Sustainable Nanotechnology, Institute of Energy and Environmental Technology (IUTA), Bliersheimer Straße 60, 47229 Duisburg, Germany. Electronic address: Hellack@iuta.de. 6. Department for Environmental Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box, 2720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Miriam.Gerlofs@rivm.nl. 7. Air Quality & Sustainable Nanotechnology, Institute of Energy and Environmental Technology (IUTA), Bliersheimer Straße 60, 47229 Duisburg, Germany. Electronic address: tky@iuta.de. 8. MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NH, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Frank.Kelly@kcl.ac.uk. 9. Division of Environmental Health & Risk Management, School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom; Department of Environmental Sciences, Center of Excellence in Environmental Studies, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80216, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: R.M.HARRISON@bham.ac.uk. 10. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80178, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: B.Brunekreef@uu.nl. 11. Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80178, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: G.Hoek@uu.nl. 12. Department for Environmental Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), P.O. Box, 2720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands; Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80178, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Flemming.cassee@rivm.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The oxidative potential (OP) of particulate matter (PM) has been proposed as a more health relevant metric than PM mass. Different assays exist for measuring OP and little is known about how the different assays compare. AIM: To assess the OP of PM collected at different site types and to evaluate differences between locations, size fractions and correlation with PM mass and PM composition for different measurement methods for OP. METHODS: PM2.5 and PM10 was sampled at 5 sites: an underground station, a farm, 2 traffic sites and an urban background site. Three a-cellular assays; dithiothreitol (OP(DTT)), electron spin resonance (OP(ESR)) and ascorbate depletion (OP(AA)) were used to characterize the OP of PM. RESULTS: The highest OP was observed at the underground, where OP of PM10 was 30 (OP(DTT)) to >600 (OP(ESR)) times higher compared to the urban background when expressed as OP/m(3) and 2-40 times when expressed as OP/μg. For the outdoor sites, samples from the farm showed significantly lower OP(ESR) and OP(AA), whereas samples from the continuous traffic site showed the highest OP for all assays. Contrasts in OP between sites were generally larger than for PM mass and were lower for OP(DTT) compared to OP(ESR) and OP(AA). Furthermore, OP(DTT)/μg was significantly higher in PM2.5 compared to PM10, whereas the reverse was the case for OP(ESR). OP(ESR) and OP(AA) were highly correlated with traffic-related PM components (i.e. EC, Fe, Cu, PAHs), whereas OP(DTT) showed the highest correlation with PM mass and OC. CONCLUSIONS: Contrasts in OP between sites, differences in size fractions and correlation with PM composition depended on the specific OP assay used, with OP(ESR) and OP(AA) showing the most similar results. This suggests that either OP(ESR) or OP(AA) and OP(DTT) can complement each other in providing information regarding the oxidative properties of PM, which can subsequently be used to study its health effects.
BACKGROUND: The oxidative potential (OP) of particulate matter (PM) has been proposed as a more health relevant metric than PM mass. Different assays exist for measuring OP and little is known about how the different assays compare. AIM: To assess the OP of PM collected at different site types and to evaluate differences between locations, size fractions and correlation with PM mass and PM composition for different measurement methods for OP. METHODS: PM2.5 and PM10 was sampled at 5 sites: an underground station, a farm, 2 traffic sites and an urban background site. Three a-cellular assays; dithiothreitol (OP(DTT)), electron spin resonance (OP(ESR)) and ascorbate depletion (OP(AA)) were used to characterize the OP of PM. RESULTS: The highest OP was observed at the underground, where OP of PM10 was 30 (OP(DTT)) to >600 (OP(ESR)) times higher compared to the urban background when expressed as OP/m(3) and 2-40 times when expressed as OP/μg. For the outdoor sites, samples from the farm showed significantly lower OP(ESR) and OP(AA), whereas samples from the continuous traffic site showed the highest OP for all assays. Contrasts in OP between sites were generally larger than for PM mass and were lower for OP(DTT) compared to OP(ESR) and OP(AA). Furthermore, OP(DTT)/μg was significantly higher in PM2.5 compared to PM10, whereas the reverse was the case for OP(ESR). OP(ESR) and OP(AA) were highly correlated with traffic-related PM components (i.e. EC, Fe, Cu, PAHs), whereas OP(DTT) showed the highest correlation with PM mass and OC. CONCLUSIONS: Contrasts in OP between sites, differences in size fractions and correlation with PM composition depended on the specific OP assay used, with OP(ESR) and OP(AA) showing the most similar results. This suggests that either OP(ESR) or OP(AA) and OP(DTT) can complement each other in providing information regarding the oxidative properties of PM, which can subsequently be used to study its health effects.
Authors: Courtney Roper; Lisandra Santiago Delgado; Damien Barrett; Staci L Massey Simonich; Robert L Tanguay Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Courtney Roper; Allison Perez; Damien Barrett; Perry Hystad; Staci L Massey Simonich; Robyn L Tanguay Journal: Atmos Environ (1994) Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Kathleen E Berg; Laurelle R Turner; Megan L Benka-Coker; Sarah Rajkumar; Bonnie N Young; Jennifer L Peel; Maggie L Clark; John Volckens; Charles S Henry Journal: Aerosol Sci Technol Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Courtney Roper; Lauren G Chubb; Leah Cambal; Brett Tunno; Jane E Clougherty; Steven E Mischler Journal: Inhal Toxicol Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 2.724
Authors: Courtney Roper; Lauren G Chubb; Leah Cambal; Brett Tunno; Jane E Clougherty; Cheryl Fattman; Steven E Mischler Journal: Water Air Soil Pollut Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 2.520