4.7 Article

Toxicological responses in human airway epithelial cells (BEAS-2B) exposed to particulate matter emissions from gasoline fuels with varying aromatic and ethanol levels

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 706, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135732

关键词

Gasoline direct injection; Gasoline composition; BFAS-2B; Oxidative potential; Toxicological responses

资金

  1. University of California, Riverside (UCR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we assessed the toxicological potencies of particulate matter (PM) emissions from a modern vehicle equipped with a gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine when operated on eight different fuels with varying aromatic hydrocarbon and ethanol contents. Testing was conducted over the LA92 driving cycle using a chassis dynamometer with a constant volume sampling system, where particles were collected onto Teflon filters. The extracted PM constituents were analyzed for their oxidative potential using the dithiothreitol (DTT) chemical assay and exposure-induced gene expression in human airway epithelial cells (BEAS-2B). Different trends of DTT activities were seen when testing PM samples in 100% aqueous buffer solutions versus elevated fraction of methanol in aqueous buffers (50:50), indicating the effect of solubility of organic PM constituents on the measured oxidative potential. Higher aromatics content in fuels corresponded to higher DTT activities in PM. Exposure to PM exhaust upregulated the expression of HMOX-1, but downregulated the expression of IL-6, THE-alpha, CCL5 and NOS2 in BEAS-2B cells. The principal component regression analysis revealed different patterns of correlations. Aromatics content contributed to more significant PAH-mediated IL-6 downregulation, whereas ethanol content was associated with decreased downregulation of IL-6. Our findings highlighted the key role of fuel composition in modulating the toxicological responses to GDI PM emissions. (C) 2019 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