Concentration, chemical composition and toxicological responses of the ultrafine fraction of urban air particles in PM 1

Mo Yang,Qi-Zhen Wu,Yun-Ting Zhang,Ari Leskinen,Mika Komppula,Henri Hakkarainen,Marjut Roponen,Shu-Li Xu,Li-Zi Lin,Ru-Qing Liu,Li-Wen Hu,Bo-Yi Yang,Xiao-Wen Zeng,Guang-Hui Dong,Pasi Jalava
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107661
IF: 11.8
2022-11-28
Environment International
Abstract:Epidemiological and toxicological evidence show that PM 1 is a key driver of PM 2.5 . However, the particle sizes that play the major damaging role in PM 1 is unclear. Our aims were to 1) explore the concentration and chemical composition of ultrafine particles in PM 1 ; 2) evaluate and compare the differences in toxicity of PM 1-0.2 and PM 0.2 to different airway cell models. We collected PM 1-0.2 and PM 0.2 in Guangzhou in December 2017, monitored and detected their concentrations, size, and components. A549, THP-1 mono-cultures and A549/THP-1 co-cultured cells were exposed to PM 1-0.2 and PM 0.2 , and evaluated for toxicological responses. PM 0.2 contributed to15% PM 1 mass and 87.67% to particle number (PN). Most of PM 0.2 was PM 0.1 (exceed 75%). Structure of particles in PM 0.2 were mostly spherical, whereas in PM 1-0.2 they were more diverse. Within the same mass unit, PM 0.2 contained more chemical components than PM 1-0.2 ; within the same volume, a higher mass of components was found in PM 1-0.2 . IL-6 and IL-8 were secreted by co-cultured cells in higher manner compared to mono cell cultures. PM 0.2 -induced higher toxicological responses compared to PM 1-0.2 . Our findings suggest that high PN concentration and toxicity of ultrafine or PM 1 cannot be ignored. Mono -cell culture may underestimate the true PM toxicity.
environmental sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?