| Literature DB >> 34462630 |
Steven J Campbell1,2, Kate Wolfer1, Battist Utinger1, Joe Westwood2, Zhi-Hui Zhang1,2, Nicolas Bukowiecki1, Sarah S Steimer2, Tuan V Vu3, Jingsha Xu3, Nicholas Straw4, Steven Thomson3, Atallah Elzein5, Yele Sun6, Di Liu3,6, Linjie Li6, Pingqing Fu7, Alastair C Lewis5,8, Roy M Harrison3, William J Bloss3, Miranda Loh9, Mark R Miller4, Zongbo Shi3, Markus Kalberer1,2.
Abstract
Epidemiological studies have consistently linked exposure to PM2.5 with adverse health effects. The oxidative potential (OP) of aerosol particles has been widely suggested as a measure of their potential toxicity. Several acellular chemical assays are now readily employed to measure OP; however, uncertainty remains regarding the atmospheric conditions and specific chemical components of PM2.5 that drive OP. A limited number of studies have simultaneously utilised multiple OP assays with a wide range of concurrent measurements and investigated the seasonality of PM2.5 OP. In this work, filter samples were collected in winter 2016 and summer 2017 during the atmospheric pollution and human health in a Chinese megacity campaign (APHH-Beijing), and PM2.5 OP was analysed using four acellular methods: ascorbic acid (AA), dithiothreitol (DTT), 2,7-dichlorofluorescin/hydrogen peroxidase (DCFH) and electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy (EPR). Each assay reflects different oxidising properties of PM2.5, including particle-bound reactive oxygen species (DCFH), superoxide radical production (EPR) and catalytic redox chemistry (DTT/AA), and a combination of these four assays provided a detailed overall picture of the oxidising properties of PM2.5 at a central site in Beijing. Positive correlations of OP (normalised per volume of air) of all four assays with overall PM2.5 mass were observed, with stronger correlations in winter compared to summer. In contrast, when OP assay values were normalised for particle mass, days with higher PM2.5 mass concentrations (μgm-3) were found to have lower mass-normalised OP values as measured by AA and DTT. This finding supports that total PM2.5 mass concentrations alone may not always be the best indicator for particle toxicity. Univariate analysis of OP values and an extensive range of additional measurements, 107 in total, including PM2.5 composition, gas-phase composition and meteorological data, provided detailed insight into the chemical components and atmospheric processes that determine PM2.5 OP variability. Multivariate statistical analyses highlighted associations of OP assay responses with varying chemical components in PM2.5 for both mass- and volume-normalised data. AA and DTT assays were well predicted by a small set of measurements in multiple linear regression (MLR) models and indicated fossil fuel combustion, vehicle emissions and biogenic secondary organic aerosol (SOA) as influential particle sources in the assay response. Mass MLR models of OP associated with compositional source profiles predicted OP almost as well as volume MLR models, illustrating the influence of mass composition on both particle-level OP and total volume OP. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that different assays cover different chemical spaces, and through comparison of mass- and volume-normalised data we demonstrate that mass-normalised OP provides a more nuanced picture of compositional drivers and sources of OP compared to volume-normalised analysis. This study constitutes one of the most extensive and comprehensive composition datasets currently available and provides a unique opportunity to explore chemical variations in PM2.5 and how they affect both PM2.5 OP and the concentrations of particle-bound reactive oxygen species.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34462630 PMCID: PMC7611584 DOI: 10.5194/acp-21-5549-2021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Atmos Chem Phys ISSN: 1680-7316 Impact factor: 6.133
Figure 1Time-averaged (24 h) volume-normalised AAv (red bars) and PM2.5 mass (blue dots), analysed from 24 h high-volume filters, for both winter 2016 (8 November–8 December 2016) and summer 2017 (21 May–24 June 2017) (Shi et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2020a). Substantially higher average PM2.5 mass concentrations (μgm−3) and AAv were observed in the winter season compared to the summer (see Table S1 for summary). DCFHv, DTTv and EPRv 24 h averaged datasets can be found in Figs. S8–S10 respectively.
Figure 2Comparison of PM2.5 OPv during winter 2016 (blue) and summer 2017 (orange) vs. PM2.5 mass (μgm−3). (a) AAv, (b) DCFHv, (c) DTTv and (d) EPRv. Each data point represents a 24 h average for OP measurements and PM2.5 mass. Corresponding R s and linear fit equations are included. For AAv, DCFHv and DTTv, error bars represent the standard deviation observed over three repeat measurements for each filter sample, and in some cases the error is smaller than the data point. Uncertainty values are unavailable for EPRv measurements.
Figure 3Summer and winter 24 h averaged mass-normalised OPm (a) DCFHm (nmol H2O2 μg−1), (b) EPRm (counts μg−1), (c) AAm (μMDHAμg−1) and (d) DTTm (pmol min−1 μg−1). Box plots indicate the median, 25% and 75% percentiles, and the data range. Data points are colour coded with respect to the 24 h average PM2.5 mass (μgm−3), with a separate colour scale for winter and summer PM2.5 masses given the difference in total PM2.5 masses observed between the seasons.
Correlation of volume-normalised (OPv, top panel) and mass-normalised (OPm, bottom panel) assay responses in the winter (upper right values, regular font) and summer (lower left values, italic font) campaign. It should be noted that assay responses expressed as mass-normalised (OP per μg) are correlated with mass-normalised additional particle-phase composition measurements (i.e. μg or ng per μg PM2.5).
| OPv Rs | AAv | DCFHv | EPRv | DTTv |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AAv |
| |||
| DCFHv |
|
| ||
| EPRv |
|
|
| |
| DTTv |
| |||
| OPm Rs | AAm | DCFHm | EPRm | DTTm |
| AAm | −0.29 | 0.22 |
| |
| DCFHm |
| −0.08 | −0.15 | |
| EPRm |
|
| 0.27 | |
| DTTm |
|
|
|
Bold font indicates Rs ≥ 0.5; * p< 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4Stacked bar plots of total concentrations for mass-normalised data.
OC: organic carbon; EC: elemental carbon; PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; SOA: secondary organic aerosol. “Metals” is the summed concentrations of Al, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Cd, Sb, Ba, Pb; “biomass burning” is the summed concentrations of palmitic acid, stearic acid and cholesterol; “PAH” is the summed concentrations of naphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene and benzo(ghi)perylene; “n-alkane” is the summed concentrations of C24, C25, C26, C27, C28, C29, C30, C31, C32, C33 and C34; “cooking markers” is the summed concentrations of palmitic acid, stearic acid and cholesterol; “vehicle markers” is the summed concentrations of 17a(H)-22,29,30-trisnorhopane (C27a) and 17b(H),21a(H)-norhopane (C30ba); “SOA” is the summed concentrations of 2-methylthreitol, 2-methylerythritol, 2-methylglyceric acid, cis-2-methyl-1,3,4-trihydroxy-1-butene, 3-methyl-2,3,4-trihydroxy-1-butene, trans-2-methyl-1,3,4-trihydroxy-1-butene, C5-alkene triols, 2-methyltetrols, 3-hydroxyglutaric acid, cis-pinonic acid, acid, MBTCA, β-caryophyllinic acid, glutaric acid derivative, 3-acetylpentanedioic acid, 3-acetylhexanedioic acid, 3-isopropylpentanedioic acid and 2,3-dihydroxy-4-oxopentanoic acid. Dates marked in red indicate partial or total day haze events as described in Shi et al. (2019). Measurement uncertainty values were unavailable for most data types, and for selected dates in the upper plots, the sum of the total mass measurements is slightly more than 1 (i.e. more than 1 μg per μg); for these dates, the data have been proportionately scaled. It should be noted that the OC measurement in the upper plots incorporates the variety of organic carbon species represented in the lower plots.
Figure 5Heat maps demonstrating the correlation of OP, expressed as volume-normalised OPv (a) and mass-normalised OPm (b) vs. a range of additional measurements conducted during the APHH campaign. Red indicates positive correlation; blue indicates inverse correlation. For OPm, particle-phase components are also mass-normalised (μg per μg PM2.5), and for OPv the components are volume-normalised (μg or ng per m3).
Figure 6Principal component analysis score plot of all data. (a) Coloured by AAm response; (b) coloured by EPRm response; (c) coloured by DTTm response; (d) coloured by DCFHm response. Both principal component 1 and principal component 2 demonstrate variance associated with AA and DTT response, and there is greater variation associated with the winter response than the summer response (highlighted in panel a). PC 1 R 2 X 35.90 %, Q 2 29.28 %; PC 2 R 2 X 19.34 %, Q 2 23.73 %; the model included six principal components, with a cumulative R 2 X of 68.2 % and Q 2 of 50.5 %.
Figure 7Principal component analysis loadings plot for all data points. Points are coloured by measurement category; fully labelled loadings are provided in Fig. S14. The plot is annotated with the same orientation as the score plot to indicate the direction of visualised trends for selected assays and for season from the latent variable origin as shown in Fig. 6. In PC 1, the winter classification is driven by increased gas radicals, n-alkanes, PAH, vehicle markers, biomass burning markers, total OC and selected metals and SOA markers; the summer classification is driven by increased temperature and photolysis, ozone (the single gas species in this section of the plot), selected SOA markers and metals, and selected VOCs. In PC 2, high AAm and DTTm response is associated with increased SOA, transition metals, cooking markers, n-alkanes and PAH concentrations in samples; low AAm and DTTm response associated with low VOCs, gases and selected meteorological parameters (relative humidity).
Performance assessment of PLSR models for all assays, for both mass-normalised and volume-normalised data. Models are considered to perform well when both cumulative (i.e. across all latent variables included in the model) R 2 and Q 2 values are high, or at a minimum where Q 2 values are within 10% of the R 2 value, indicating that the variance is well accounted for in model cross-validation. Permutation tests were rejected for robustness if any single random permutation model performance surpassed the performance of the real cross-validated model; on this basis, the winter DCFHm and summer DTTv models were rejected (highlighted with *), although fewer than three random models outperformed the real model, and none of the permuted model Q 2 values outperformed those of the real model.
| Mass(μgμg1) | Volume (μgm3) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assay | Season | Optimal LVs | Cumulative R2 | Cumulative Q2 | Permutation test pass | Optimal LVs | Cumulative R2 | Cumulative Q2 | Permutation test pass |
| EPR | winter | 1 | 43.2 | 19.3 | no | 2 | 83.9 | 75.2 | yes |
| summer | 1 | 11.3 | −10.0 | no | 1 | 52.0 | 3.7 | no | |
| AA | winter | 1 | 81.4 | 78.2 | yes | 2 | 94.1 | 87.9 | yes |
| summer | 2 | 79.3 | 49.7 | yes | 1 | 41.8 | 22.6 | no | |
| DTT | winter | 2 | 76.0 | 62.0 | yes | 2 | 86.8 | 67.0 | yes |
| summer | 1 | 47.4 | 31.6 | no | 1 | 66.2 | 50.9 | no* | |
| DCFH | winter | 2 | 71.9 | 50.4 | no* | 2 | 67.0 | 55.2 | yes |
| summer | 1 | 28.2 | −6.6 | no | 1 | 86.0 | 66.7 | yes | |
Figure 8PLSR score plot for AAm assay. Model performance parameters given in Table 2. (a) Winter samples; (b) summer samples. Points coloured by overall AA assay response for both seasons. Red bar indicates 2× SD for all scores; orange dotted line indicates 1× SD for all scores. Models which have only one latent variable have the x axis replaced by date for easier visualisation.
Figure 9PLSR score plot for DTTm assay. Model performance parameters given in Table 2. (a) Winter samples; (b) summer samples. Points coloured by overall DTT assay response for both seasons.
Characteristic loadings most influential in PLSR models of OPm as defined by ordered variable importance in projection for each model. Upward arrows indicate positive correlation with the assay measurement, downward arrows for inverse correlation and * for p < 0.05 in Spearman correlation of the feature with the assay in the univariate analysis.
| EPRm winter | AAm winter | DTTm winter | DCFHm winter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feature | VIP | feature | VIP | feature | VIP | feature | VIP |
| indeno(1,2,3-cd)-pyrene* | 2.12 ↑ | 1.44 ↑ | SO2* | 1.46 ↓ | NH4 + | 2.16 ↑ | |
| acenaphthylene | 2.02 ↑ | Cl−* | 1.42 ↑ | Ca2+* | 1.40 ↑ | chrysene* | 1.61 ↓ |
| benzo(ghi)-perylene* | 2.01 ↑ | total OC* | 1.33 ↑ | Fe* | 1.37 ↑ | benzo(b)-fluoranthene* | 1.59 ↓ |
| benzo(a)pyrene* | 2.01 ↑ | MOOOA* | 1.30 ↑ | fluorene | 1.34 ↑ | RH8* | 1.59 ↑ |
| fluorene | 1.82 ↑ | pyrene* | 1.30 ↑ | acetaldehyde* | 1.33 ↓ | benzo(a)anthracene* | 1.58 ↓ |
| benzo(a)-anthracene* | 1.81 ↑ | 2-methylthreitol | 1.29 ↑ | phenanthrene* | 1.33 ↑ | pyrene* | 1.58 ↓ |
| dibenzo(a,h)-anthracene* | 1.80 ↑ | ORG* | 1.29 ↑ | acetone* | 1.33 ↓ | LOOOA* | 1.57 ↑ |
| phenanthrene* | 1.77 ↑ | benzo(k)-fluoranthene* | 1.29 ↑ | Cl−* | 1.31 ↑ | fluoranthene* | 1.56 ↓ |
| chrysene* | 1.66 ↑ | 3-methyl-2,3,4-trihydroxy-1-butene* | 1.28 ↑ | benzene* | 1.31 ↓ | RH120*/RH240* | 1.55 ↑ 1.55 ↑ |
| naphthalene* | 1.62 ↑ | fluoranthene* | 1.27 ↑ | toluene* | 1.30 ↓ | K+* | 1.51 ↑ |
| EPRm summer | AAm summer | DTTm summer | DCFHm summer | ||||
| feature | VIP | feature | VIP | feature | VIP | feature | VIP |
| LOOOA | 2.59 ↑ | ORG* | 1.80 ↑ | OH | 1.58 ↑ | cis-pinonic acid* | 2.38 ↓ |
| T8/T120/T240 | 2.28/2.15/ 2.08 ↑ | 1.62 ↑ | dibenzo(a,h)-anthracene* | 1.51 ↑ | C31* | 1.76 ↓ | |
| O3 | 2.00 ↑ | MOOOA* | 1.58 ↑ | C26* | 1.48 ↑ | pinic acid* | 1.74 ↓ |
| RO2* | 1.76 ↑ | cholesterol | 1.58 ↓ | benzo(a)-pyrene* | 1.48 ↑ | acetonitrile* | 1.69 ↑ |
| galactosan* | 1.74 ↓ | naphthalene* | 1.57 ↑ | total OC* | 1.46 ↑ | 3-methyl-2,3,4-trihydroxy-1-butene | 1.65 ↓ |
| K+ | 1.70 ↑ | palmitic acid* | 1.49 ↑ | C30* | 1.46 ↑ | benzo(ghi)-perylene | 1.62 ↓ |
| 17a(H)-22,29,30-trisnorhopane (C27a) | 1.55 ↓ | RH8 | 1.39 ↓ | C28* | 1.43 ↑ | C32 | 1.61 ↓ |
| 1.55 ↑ | stearic acid* | 1.39 ↑ | benzo(ghi)-perylene* | 1.41 ↑ | dibenzo(a,h)-anthracene* | 1.61 ↓ | |
| Ba | 1.47 ↓ | benzo(ghi)-perylene* | 1.36 ↑ | C33* | 1.40 ↑ | acetaldehyde* | 1.61 ↑ |
| RH8 | 1.46 ↓ | benzo(a)-pyrene* | 1.34 ↑ | C29* | 1.39 ↑ | isoprene* | 1.61 ↓ |
R2 values for optimised subset multiple linear regression models of relevant source contributions. R 2 values greater than 0.7 are highlighted in bold. Full model performance indicators are provided in Sect. S11 of the Supplement, including all model terms, residuals, coefficients and p values.
| EPR | AA | DTT | DCFH | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| source model | winter | summer | winter | summer | winter | summer | winter | summer | |
| (μgμg−1) | vehicle emissions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.62 |
| biomass burning | 0.41 | 0.29 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.41 | 0.58 | 0.31 | |
| coal/fossil fuel combustion |
| 0.56 |
| 0.61 |
| 0.68 |
|
| |
| cooking markers | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.66 | 0.20 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.08 | 0.24 | |
| dust | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| 0.47 |
| 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.26 | |
| biogenic SOA | 0.55 | 0.35 |
|
|
| 0.61 | 0.55 |
| |
| (μgm−3) | vehicle emissions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| biomass burning |
| 0.23 |
| 0.24 |
| 0.62 |
| 0.53 | |
| coal/fossil fuel combustion |
| 0.69 |
| 0.62 |
|
|
|
| |
| cooking markers | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.22 | 0.10 | 0.44 | 0.11 | 0.49 | |
| dust |
| 0.21 |
| 0.30 |
| 0.54 |
| 0.63 | |
| biogenic SOA |
| 0.36 |
| 0.59 |
| 0.63 |
|
| |