4.8 Article

Cytotoxic Free Radicals on Air-Borne Soot Particles Generated by Burning Wood or Low-Maturity Coals

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 54, 期 9, 页码 5608-5618

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b06395

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41571446, 41877126, 91543204, 91643204]
  2. CAS Youth Innovation Promotion Association [2016380]
  3. Shaanxi Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars [2019JC-18]
  4. National Key R&D program of China [2016YFA0203103]
  5. One Hundred Talents program of Shaanxi Province [SXBR9171]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The traditional cook stove is a major contributor to combustion-derived soot particles, which contain various chemical species that may cause a significant impact to human health and ecosystems. However, properties and toxicity associated with environmentally persistent free radicals (EPFRs) in such emissions are not well known. This paper investigated the characteristics and cytotoxicity of soot-associated EPFRs discharged from Chinese household stoves. Our results showed that the concentrations of EPFRs were related to fuel types, and they were higher in wood-burning soot (8.9-10.5 X 10(16) spins/g) than in coal-burning soot (3.9-9.7 X 10(16) spins/g). Meanwhile, EPFR concentrations in soot decreased with an increase of coal maturity. The soot EPFRs, especially reactive fractions, readily induced the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Potential health effects of soot EPFRs were also examined using normal human bronchial epithelial cell line 16HBE as a model. Soot particles were internalized by 16HBE cells inducing cytotoxicity. The main toxicity inducers were identified to be reactive EPFR species, which generated ROS inside human cells. Our findings provided valuable insights into potential contributions of soot EPFRs associated with different types of fuel to health problems. This information will support regulations to end or limit current stove usage in numerous households.

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

4.8
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