Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2021 Apr 16;43(11):4367–4378. doi: 10.1007/s10653-021-00927-w

Ecotoxicity testing of airborne particulate matter—comparison of sample preparation techniques for the Vibrio fischeri assay

Nora Kováts 1,✉, Katalin Hubai 1, Tsend-Ayush Sainnokhoi 1,2, András Hoffer 3, Gábor Teke 4
PMCID: PMC8528798  PMID: 33864174

Abstract

The bioassay based on the bioluminescence inhibition of the marine bacterium Vibrio fischeri has been the most widely used test for the assessment of airborne particulate matter ecotoxicity. Most studies available use an extract of the solid sample, either made with water or organic solvents. As an alternative, a whole-aerosol test is also available where test bacteria are in actual contact with contaminated particles. In our study, different extraction procedures were compared to this direct contact test based on the V. fischeri assay and analytical measurements. The lowest PAH content and the highest EC50 were determined in water extract, while the highest PAH amount and lowest EC50 were measured in dichloromethane, hexane, and dimethyl-sulphoxide extracts. EC50 of the direct contact test was comparable to that of the methanol extract. Our results suggest that the sensitivity of the direct contact test equals to that of extraction procedures using organic solvents, moreover, it is mimicking an environmentally realistic exposure route.

Keywords: Airborne particulate matter, Diesel exhaust, Vibrio fischeri, Direct contact test

Introduction

Airborne particulate matter (PM) is grouped as coarse, fine, and ultrafine particles (UFPs) with aerodynamic diameters of 2.5–10 μm (PM10), < 2.5 μm (PM2.5), and < 0.1 μm (PM0.1), respectively. These particles consist of a complex cocktail of potentially toxic compounds (Gualtieri et al., 2009). Potentially, toxic chemicals associated with PM emissions include for example heavy metals (Guo et al., 2021) or polyaromatic hydrocarbons (Liu et al., 2014; Najmeddin & Keshavarzi, 2019). While PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations are often monitored (Huang et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2020), the risk of UFP fraction has been recognised quite recently. Smaller particles bind relatively higher amount of hazardous chemicals as they have specific surface area (Mbengue et al., 2015) and therefore pose higher ecological risk (Landkocz et al., 2017). These particles penetrate deep into the respiratory system and elucidate adverse health effects even at low concentrations (Ali et al., 2019). In addition to chemicals, potentially hazardous and/or pathogenic biological agents might also be carried by particulates such as viruses (Zoran et al., 2020) or bacteria (Xu et al., 2019).

Chemical analysis is often coupled with ecotoxicological tests, which quantify the overall toxic effect on selected test organisms and provide information about the bioavailability of the toxicants (Kessler et al., 2012). As such, actual ecological risk of the sample in question can be estimated (Klimkowicz-Pawlas et al., 2019).

While human health effects or airborne contaminants have been widely discussed (e.g. Dastoorpoor et al., 2019; Kelly & Fussell, 2015; Khaefi et al., 2017; Naghizadeh et al., 2019), much less information is available regarding the effects on the non-human biota.

When ecosystem-level impacts are to be addressed, a battery of bioassays should be employed (de Sá Salomao et al., 2020), involving test species which represent important structural and/or functional elements (guilds) of the recipient ecosystem and show different response (Alvarenga et al., 2008; Luo et al., 2020).

Wang et al. (1998) used a test battery involving the Photobacterium phosphoreum luminescent bacterium assay, Dunaliella tertiolecta (a dinoflagellate green alga), Brassica chinensis (Chinese white cabbage), and Lolium perenne (rye grass) to take a comparative study on the water extract of urban dust samples from Hong Kong and London. While no significant correlation was found between the tests, the luminescent bacteria assay showed good correlation with Pb and Zn, and D. tertiolecta with the exchangeable Pb content. In the study of Barbosa et al. (2013), the potential hazard of size fractionated biomass ashes was evaluated. Test species involved marine (the bacterium Vibrio fischeri, the micro-crustacean Artemia franciscana and the microalgae Phaeodactylum tricornutum) and freshwater (the micro-crustacean Daphnia magna and the microalgae Selenastrum capricornutum) organisms. In this study, V. fischeri proved the most sensitive species.

Single-species tests have been used to study the chronic effects and mode of action of PM2.5 on the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans model species (Chung et al., 2019, 2020).

The bioassay based on the bioluminescence inhibition of the marine bacterium V. fischeri has proven an ideal tool for screening potential ecotoxicity of atmospheric PM (Roig et al., 2013), due to numerous reasons. This test has reported sensitivity to toxic compounds typically found in PM samples such as PAHs and heavy metals (Palma et al., 2014). Toxic compounds will cause the inhibition of the NAD(P)H: FMN oxidoreductase and luciferase enzyme system, which is reflected in the rapid decrease of light emittance of the bacterium. This decrease is proportional to the strength of the toxicant, giving an easy-to-quantify end point. The assay is recommended for the initial screening of samples with unknown toxic potential (Menz et al., 2013). Test results are also predictive for acute toxicity in other organisms (Weltens et al., 2014).

Several commercial systems are in use which are based on this phenomenon (reviewed by Kokkali & van Delft, 2014). The test organisms (V. fischeri strains) are available in liquid-dried or freeze-dried kits, avoiding the laborious task of maintaining a stock culture. Also, the test is automatised, as such, human errors can be minimised. The test is relatively easy-to-perform and requires a short exposure (with a maximum exposure of 30 min, a sample can be evaluated). Considering all these benefits, the test has been widely recommended to measure the toxicity of water, soil, or sediment samples (American Society for Testing & Materials, 1995).

Additional benefit of the assay is that low sample quantity is needed which is extremely important if airborne particulate matter is to be analysed. Airborne emissions are generally collected on a filter, which limits the quantity of the sample.

The test has been successfully employed in diverse environmental matrices (reviewed by Abbas et al. 2018; Girotti et al. 2008; Ma et al. 2014). V. fischeri was already used in the 1960’s to evaluate air quality (Serat et al., 1965, 1967). Since then, a wide range of bioluminescence-based tests and biosensors have been designed for air pollution assessment (reviewed by Kováts & Horváth, 2016).

The original protocol (Bulich & Isenberg, 1981), which is followed by the ISO 11348 water quality—Determination of the inhibitory effect of water samples on the light emission of Vibrio fischeri (Luminescent bacteria test) international standard, uses an aqueous sample. As such, for solid samples, an extract has to be prepared.

Silva et al. (2015) detected significant toxicity in aqueous extract of ash samples produced by forest fires. Wang et al. (2016) also used aqueous extract to assess seasonal differences in urban atmospheric fine particulate matter (PM2.5) collected in Beijing (China). Roig et al. (2013) performed aqueous extraction of air filters by means of a mild acid microwave digestion in a study covering various areas of Catalonia (Spain). Good correlation was found between toxicity and chemical parameters. Aammi et al. (2017) applied extraction with dimethyl-sulphoxide (DMSO) and ultra-pure water in parallel for characterisation of urban (Istanbul, Turkey) PM2.5–10 samples. While the toxicity levels were below the limit of detection for the majority of the samples, DMSO extracts indicated the seasonal difference in the ecotoxicity of urban samples. In the study of Romano et al. (2020) conducted on PM10 samples collected at a coastal site of the Central Mediterranean, V. fischeri tests were carried out from the aqueous extract of the samples. Ecotoxicity results showed good correlation with Dithiothreitol (DTT) results which indicate oxidative potential. One major mode of action of PM-bound toxic chemicals is to cause oxidative stress (Bekki et al., 2016) and V. fischeri bacteria have proven sensitive to this stressor (Zhang et al., 2019).

In addition to water extracts, different organic solvents have been in use. Extraction with acetone and hexane was applied in the study of Evagelopoulos et al. (2009) to assess the ecotoxicity of urban (industrial) coarse (2.5–10  µm) and fine (< 2.5 µm) particulate matter. Isidori et al. (2003) applied cyclohexane for extraction to assess spatial pattern of urban air pollution in Caserta (South Italy) while Triolo et al. (2008) applied extraction with acetone and hexane to monitor the impact of PM emitted by the industrial settlement of Milazzo (Italy) on agriculture. In the study of Chang et al. (2013), samples were extracted by n-hexane or dichloromethane/n-hexane mixtures to compare the toxicity of fly ash after incinerating plastic solid waste (PSW) and organic liquid waste (OLW). Verma et al. (2012) compared the ROS (reactive oxygen species)-generating potential of water- and methanol-soluble fraction of urban fine aerosols (PM2.5).

Several studies are available which characterised the ecotoxicity of vehicle emissions using the V. fischeri assay. Lin and Chao (2002) used dichloromethane (DCM) and a mixed solvent containing n-hexane and DCM to assess the influence of methanol-containing additive on biological characteristics of diesel exhaust emissions. Similarly, DCM was applied as a solvent in the study of Vouitsis et al. (2009) when PM emitted from light-duty vehicles in different driving cycles was analysed.

Different sample processing procedures, however, make only intrastudy comparison possible as range and concentration of the toxic compounds in the extract will strongly depend on the solvent applied, influencing resulting ecotoxicity (e.g. Corrêa et al., 2017; Verma et al., 2013).

In order to avoid the problem raised by the nature of solvent and extraction procedure applied, direct contact tests might be necessary. In direct contact tests, test organisms are in contact with toxic particles. The Microtox® Solid Phase Basic Test was developed for solid-phase (sediment and soil) testing (Brouwer et al., 1990) and was later proposed as a standard protocol. Stock suspension of the solid sample is prepared, which contains test bacteria. After the exposure period, the solid particles are removed by filtration and toxicity of the water fraction is measured. However, false (lower) light emission reading might occur, as a given portion of the bacteria is supposed to be lost due to their adhesion onto the particles (Ringwood et al., 1997). In order to eliminate or reduce this kind of error, several improvements have been made (Yeo et al., 2015). Burga Pérez et al. (2012), e.g. suggested the Microtox leachate phase assay (MLPA), where amount of bacteria lost is measured using flow cytometry and allows differentiating real ecotoxic and fixation effect.

This assay was used by Ledda et al. (2013) to evaluate professional exposure to basaltic rock dust in the region of the volcano Etna (Italy) and by Goix et al. (2014) to assess the ecotoxicity of fine and ultrafine metallic particles released into the atmosphere.

A specific ‘whole-aerosol test’ was developed by Kováts et al. (2012). The test is based on the kinetic version of the V. fischeri bioluminescence bioassay which was especially tailored to carry out toxicity measurements in case of coloured or turbid samples (Lappalainen et al., 1999, 2001). The protocol is available as an ISO standard, too (ISO 21338:2010: Water quality—Kinetic determination of the inhibitory effects of sediment, other solids and coloured samples on the light emission of Vibrio fischeri /kinetic luminescent bacteria test/). The kinetic nature of the test implies that light output is continuously recorded for the first 30 s. This kinetic diagram immediately shows if the sample is toxic and can be already used for preliminary assessment (Mortimer et al., 2008). Jarque et al. (2016) used the 30-s kinetic bioassay to evaluate the toxicity of environmental samples. Inhibition is calculated after the preset exposure comparing the initial and final readings, independently from the control.

The ‘whole-aerosol test’ uses a suspension where filter spots are ground in an agate mortar then mixed with high-purity water (MilliQ) by continuous stirring. As such, test bacteria are in fact direct contact with particles. When comparing this assay with the toxicity of aqueous extract gained from the same aerosol samples, it was able to eliminate false toxicity readings caused in case of non-toxic but coloured and turbid samples, such as the extract of summer aerosol (Kováts et al., 2012). It has been used to assess the ecotoxicity of emission of diesel-powered light- and heavy-duty vehicles (Ács et al., 2013; Kováts et al., 2013) as well as urban and rural PM samples (Turóczy et al., 2013).

Our hypothesis implies that extraction procedures, especially those which apply organic solvents, will not represent natural exposure pathways, moreover, organic solvents may extract that fraction of particle-bound contaminants which would not be normally biologically available (DelValls et al., 2004).

The main objective of the study was to compare toxicity results gained by using different extracts and the direct contact version, answering basically two questions: (1) Are there any significant differences in the ecotoxicity of samples prepared by different extraction procedures, also comparing these extracts to the direct contact test? (2) Can the direct contact test be regarded as a good representative of bioassays assessing particulate matter ecotoxicity?

Material and methods

Sampling and sample preparation

PM10 samples from the exhausts of a diesel-powered jeep (Euro 4 environmental standard, age 13 years, odometer reading: 256,887 km) were collected with a high-vol sampler (Kálmán System, KS-303) on quartz filter at a flow rate of 32 m3h−1 for 10 min at idling in a closed premise about 1 m from the tailpipes. The filter was divided into 6 equal parts and processed as described in selected studies with minor modifications:

  1. Extraction with methanol (Verma et al., 2012)

  2. Dichloromethane (DCM) (Vouitsis et al., 2009)

  3. Dimethyl-sulphoxide (DMSO) (Aammi et al., 2017)

  4. Hexane (Chang et al., 2013)

  5. Water (Wang et al., 1998)

  6. Direct contact test (Kováts et al., 2012).

  7. Extraction with methanol: One-sixth of sample filter was cut into pieces and then ultrasonically extracted with methanol for 15 min in an ultrasonic bath. The sample was filtered using Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) 0.45 µm pore size filter to remove insoluble materials. Methanol extract was evaporated in nitrogen stream at 40 °C to 1 ml. The extracted sample was diluted before analysis. About 250 µl of extracted sample was added to 14.75 ml DMSO.

  8. Extraction with dichloromethane (DCM): One-sixth of filter sample was extracted in 300 ml DCM for 24 h and then evaporated to reduce volume to 1 ml at 40 °C with nitrogen stream. The 1 ml extract was changed with 1 ml DMSO. The diluted extraction was kept in freezer until measurement. 250 µl of original extracted sample was filled up to 15 ml with DMSO.

  9. Extraction with dimethyl-sulphoxide (DMSO): One-sixth of filter sample was cut into volume of 15 ml plastic tubes with 2% DMSO and extracted for 15 min in a sonication bath and then centrifuged to separate soluble components from the insoluble ones at 2500 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant was filtered using PTFE 0.45 pore size filter to remove the insoluble parts. The extract was kept in freezer until analysis. Prior to testing, 11.75 ml DMSO was added to 3.75 ml of extracted sample.

  10. Extraction with hexane: One-sixth of sample filter was extracted in 300 ml hexane using a Soxhlet apparatus, the supernatant was evaporated at 40 °C with nitrogen stream to 1 ml. Prior to measurement, 250 µl of initial extracted sample was added to volume of 14.75 ml of DMSO.

  11. Extraction with de-ionised water: One-sixth of the filter was cut into pieces, placed in a beaker and ultrasonically extracted in 20 ml de-ionised water. Prior to measurement, 1.25 ml of initial extracted sample was diluted with 13.75 ml de-ionised water.

  12. Direct contact test: the filter sample was ground in an agate mortar then transferred into a pre-cleaned 4 ml vial with a PTFE-coated spatula. Suspension was prepared adding 2 ml high-purity (MilliQ) water. The suspension was finally diluted to 15 ml.

Ecotoxicity testing

All samples were processed according to ISO 21338:2010: Water quality—Kinetic determination of the inhibitory effects of sediment, other solids and coloured samples on the light emission of Vibrio fischeri (kinetic luminescent bacteria test). Prior to measurement, freeze-dried test bacteria (NRRL-B-11177 strain, supplier Hach Lange Co.) were rehydrated with the reconstitution solution and incubated at 15 °C for 15 min.

Serial dilutions (1:1) for each sample were directly prepared in 2% w/v NaCl (pH7.0 ± 0.2) in 96-well microplate. For the assay, the Ascent Luminometer (Thermo Scientific) was used which is equipped with computer-controlled injectors. After the sample was added to the suspension made of rehydrated bacteria, bioluminescence intensity was continuously recorded for the first 30 s. Luminescence intensity was read again after the preset exposure time (30 min). EC50 was calculated from the light inhibition percentages by the Aboatox software provided with the Ascent Luminometer.

Analytical measurements

Analytical measurements were performed in the testing laboratory at the Laboratory of the ELGOSCAR-2000 Environmental Technology and Water Management Ltd. accredited by the National Accreditation Authority, registration number NAH-1-1278/2015.

The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) content was determined by gas chromatographic–mass spectrometry (Agilent 6890GC 5973E MSD GC–MS) according to MSZ (Hungarian Standard) 1484-6:2003. For quality control, the glassware was thoroughly cleaned before use, washing with non-ionic detergent and rinsing with ultrapure water. A PAH standard mixture were obtained from Restek Corporation, (U.S., 110 Benner Circle, Bellefonte, PA 16823.). Linearity of the calibration curve was checked in accordance with the accreditation standard.

Results and discussion

Table 1 gives the comparative values as expressed in the form of EC50 (the percentage of the original sample causing 50% of luminescence inhibition).

Table 1.

Ecotoxicity of different extract vs. the direct contact test

Sample Methanol Hexane DCM DMSO Direct contact Water
EC50 12.53 6.79 6.39 9.92 11.97 78.31
Open in a new tab

The hexane and DCM extracts were the most toxic, EC50s fell very close to each other (6.79 and 6.39%, respectively). EC50 of the direct contact test was somewhat higher, similarly to that of the methanol extract (11.97 and 12.53%, respectively). Water extract showed considerably lower toxicity, with EC50 of 78.31%. In order to evaluate the impact of the bioavailable contaminant fraction of sediments, Baran et al. (2019) also applied the V. fischeri test and categorised toxicity as non-toxic (percentage effect ≤ 20%); slightly toxic ≤ 50%; toxic ≥ 50% and highly toxic samples (percentage effect = 100%). According to this classification, extract prepared with organic solvents gave highly toxic results as maximum inhibition in the concentrated sample was 100% while water extract gave non-toxic outcome, with maximum inhibition of 14.5%.

Figure 1 shows the light output diagrams of different extracts as continuously recorded during the first 30 secs of the measurement. Naturally, these results are difficult to quantify exactly but give a preliminary estimation of the toxicity of the samples. These diagrams are showing a similar pattern as the calculated EC50s: water extract is far less toxic than any of the other samples.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Kinetic diagram of the samples. Well1: control. Well2: highest, Well12: lowest concentrations. Light output is recorded in the first 30 s interval. In the control, light output remains even but in the actual samples light emittance is reduced, showing a concentration-dependent pattern. Each sample is analysed using two replicates (indicated by two rows in the diagram)

The chemical characterization of the extracts suggests that there are differences in the composition and amount of PAHs which can cause the variances in EC50 results. The PAH concentration without naphthalene is consistent with the results of toxicological measurements. The lowest PAH content and the highest EC50 were determined in the water extract, higher PAH concentration and lower EC50 were measured in methanol extract. The highest PAH amount and lowest EC50 values were measured in DCM, hexane and DMSO extracts.

Another important difference between extracts prepared with water and organic solvents is the profile of PAH isomers. In the aqueous extract, light molecular weight (LMW) PAHs are dominant, the only 4-ring PAH is fluoranthene with a low, 0.02 µg/mg concentration. On the other hand, diesel emissions contain higher molecular weight (HMW) 5- and 6-ring PAHs being responsible for carcinogenic effect (Islam et al., 2019; Kuo et al., 2012) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Chemical characterization of extracts

Sample Water Methanol DMSO Hexane DCM
Naphthalene (µg/mg) 7.340 5.430 7.478 5.004 5.728
2-metil—naphthalene (µg/mg) 0.190 0.142 0.291 0.130 0.147
1-metil—naphthalene (µg/mg) 0.090 0.063 0.166 0.058 0.066
Acenaphthylene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.008 0.012 0.006 0.004
Acenaphthene (µg/mg) 0.050 0.005 0.329 0.003 0.003
Fluorene (µg/mg) 0.010 0.008 0.013 0.011 0.008
Phenanthrene (µg/mg) 0.080 0.182 0.290 0.249 0.271
Anthracene (µg/mg) 0.014 0.016 0.034 0.026 0.033
Fluoranthene (µg/mg) 0.020 0.122 0.431 0.255 0.305
Pyrene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.165 0.523 0.366 0.450
Benz (a) anthracene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.017 0.120 0.075 0.082
Chrysene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.009 0.110 0.041 0.075
Benz (b) fluoranthene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.006 0.115 0.069 0.048
Benz (5) fluoranthene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.020 0.055 0.043 0.031
Benz (e) pyrene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.004 0.068 0.044 0.029
Benz (a) pyrene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.006 0.042 0.026 0.031
Indeno (1.2.3-cd) pyrene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.004 0.002
Dibenz (a. h) anthracene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000
Benz (g. h. i) perylene (µg/mg) 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001
Total naphthalene 7.620 5.635 7.935 5.192 5.941
Total PAHs 0.174 0.568 2.151 1.219 1.372
Total PAHs + naphthalene 7.794 6.203 10.086 6.411 7.313
Open in a new tab

Bold values are total PAH concentrations without naphthalene

The fact that aqueous extract would pose relatively lower toxicity is in line with other studies. Verma et al. (2012) measured ROS-generating potential of PM by the DTT assay. Response was significantly higher for the methanol extract. Płaza et al. (2005) compared the efficiency of bioremediation processes on selected biopiles. Microtox assays were carried out in DMSO/H2O and DCM/DMSO soil extracts, the latter showing considerably higher toxicity for all samples. Aqueous elutriates are generally supposed to underestimate the quantity and effect of bioavailable contaminants (Selivanovskaya et al., 2010).

Bioaccessibility is considered an important factor when potential impacts are to be evaluated (Thums et al., 2008; Turner, 2011) or regulatory frameworks for assessment protocols are addressed (Kim et al., 2015). Several studies have supported the strong influence of bioavailability of particulate-bound compounds on ecotoxic impact (Čvančarová et al., 2013; Jan et al., 2018; Sah et al., 2019; Varshney et al., 2016).

Comparing direct contact tests with elutriates, contact biotests are definitely suggested to determine the bioavailable fractions of substances and exposure pathways (Ivask et al., 2001). Tositti et al. (2018) applied the direct contact test version of the bioluminescent bacteria assay on PM10 samples and found significant correlation between chemical analysis and bioluminescence inhibition.

Unfortunately, there are very few studies available comparing the toxicity of different extracts and whole-medium using the same test organism. When risk assessment of solid media (sediment, soil, compost, etc.) is undertaken, the majority of the studies employ a whole battery of bioassays to represent the expected response of a simplified ecosystem (Juvonen et al., 2000). Lors et al. (2011) compared solid and liquid-phase bioassays using ecoscores derived from a wide range of bioassays for the assessment of contaminated soils and concluded that solid-phase tests had higher sensitivity. In a study of Tuikka et al. (2011), however, a wide range of direct contact tests was used to characterise sediment toxicity, including the kinetic V. fischeri assay. This assay proved sensitive for discriminating the contaminated sediments.

In some studies, however, different phases of the same sediment or soil sample were evaluated by the V. fischeri bioassay. Davoren et al. (2005) used the Microtox and Solid Phase Microtox tests to rank estuarine sediment samples. The solid phase test detected measurable toxicity for all samples, while liquid phase tests were much less sensitive: no toxicity was detected for elutriate samples and pore water samples were toxic only in one case. Similar results are given by Klimkowicz-Pawlas et al. (2019) when elutriates were tested by Microtox 81.9% Screening test and SPT-Microtox was used for testing solid samples. The solid phase Microtox® assay was more sensitive than saline extract Microtox assay in the study of Acheson et al. (2004) when soils contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were investigated.

Gonzalez-Merchan et al. (2014) characterised the solid phase (whole sediment) and interstitial water phase of sediments from stormwater retention basins using the same Microtox protocols. In case of all samples, the solid phase test detected significantly higher ecotoxicity. Similar results were gained when ecotoxicity of a restored wetland was evaluated (Paulovits et al., 2012). Three different phases were tested using the kinetic luminescent bacteria test (ISO 21338:2010): whole sediment, pore water and elutriate. For every sampling site, direct tests showed considerably higher toxicity than elutriates, and no toxicity was detected in the pore water samples. Leitgib et al. (2007) applied bacterial assays (the V. fischeri bioluminescence inhibition and the Azomonas agilis dehydrogenase activity tests) for soil toxicity assessment, evaluating both direct contact and water extract toxicity. Direct contact tests showed higher impact for the majority of the samples.

Hursthouse and Kowalczyk (2009) discuss that when assessing the fate and effect of toxic pollutants, one of the major uncertainties lies in how to represent real-world conditions during experiments. Direct contact test seem better representatives considering the nature of exposure used.

Comparing organic solvents, DCM is generally applied to extract PAHs (Masood et al., 2018). It was also used in the study of Soriano et al. (2020) to assess genotoxic and mutagenic potential of soluble organic material extracted from PM emission of a diesel engine run on different alternative and/or renewable fuels and in the study of Morakinyo et al. (2020) to evaluate carcinogenic and mutagenic risks of PM2.5-bound PAHs. Jing et al. (2019) measured the residual toxicity of eight common extraction solvents in a study evaluating PM2.5 related biotoxicity in Shanghai. They found that luminescence intensity was unaffected when methanol, 1/1 N-hexane/dichloromethane, N-hexane and dichloromethane were used but the commonly used solvent, dimethyl-sulphoxide caused slight light inhibition. Based on the results of the study, considering both residual toxicity and the polarity of extraction solvents, N-hexane/dichloromethane, methanol, and ultrapure water were suggested for the extraction PM2.5. samples for the bioluminescent bacterium test.

As concluding remarks, we can say that while these studies refer to soil or sediment evaluation, our study is the first to compare the toxicity of different elutriates to a direct contact test. The benefit of the ‘whole-aerosol’ testing procedure is that test bacteria are in fact direct contact with particles. As such, the direct contact protocol intends to mimic environmentally realistic exposure route (exposed cells/organisms physically meet contaminated particles). Our results prove that its sensitivity equals the conventional ISO 11348 standard in cases when extracts are prepared with the application of ‘aggressive’ organic solvents such as methanol, DCM or hexane. The sample preparation protocol is repeatable, fulfilling basic quality assurance criteria, as such, interstudy comparisons can be carried out.

However, the ISO 11348 standard and sample preparation techniques based on this protocol have been much more widely used than the kinetic version of the V. fischeri bioluminescence inhibition assay. Altogether, based on extraction efficiency, luminescence inhibition and residual toxicity, DCM and methanol seem the most potent organic solvent for preparing PM samples. Considering the outcome of both analytical and ecotoxicological measurements, the direct contact test might be interchangeable with results gained for these extracts, taking into consideration the availability of laboratory equipment and/or protocols.

Author contributions

NK contributed to the design of the study, was responsible for funding acquisition and project administration, drafted the initial manuscript. KH, TAS, AH, and GT decided upon the data collection methods and were also responsible for the data analysis decisions. NK and KH critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Pannonia. The work was supported by the BIONANO_GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00017 project.

Data availability

Data generated during the study are included in the manuscript.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Aammi S, Karaca F, Petek M. A toxicological and genotoxicological indexing study of ambient aerosols (PM2.5–10) using in vitro bioassays. Chemosphere. 2017;174:490–498. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.01.141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbas M, Adil M, Ehtisham-ul-Haque S, Munir B, Yameen M, Ghaffar A, Shar GA, Tahir MA, Iqbal M. Vibrio fischeri bioluminescence inhibition assay for ecotoxicity assessment: A review. Science of the Total Environment. 2018;626:1295–1309. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Acheson CM, Zhou Q, Shan Y, Sayles GD, Kupferle MJ. Comparing the solid phase and saline extract Microtox® assays for two polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-contaminated soils. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 2004;23(2):245–251. doi: 10.1897/02-618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ács A, Kovács A, Ferincz Á, Turóczi B, Gelencsér A, Kiss G, Kováts N. Characterisation of exhaust particulates from diesel-powered light-duty vehicles. Central European Journal of Chemistry. 2013;11(12):1954–1958. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ali MU, Liu G, Yousaf B, Ullah H, Abbas Q, Munir MAM. A systematic review on global pollution status of particulate matter-associated potential toxic elements and health perspectives in urban environment. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2019;41:1131–1162. doi: 10.1007/s10653-018-0203-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Alvarenga P, Palma P, Gonçalves AP, Fernandes RM, de Varennes A, Vallini G, Duarte E, Cunha-Queda AC. Evaluation of tests to assess the quality of mine-contaminated soils. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2008;30:95–99. doi: 10.1007/s10653-008-9147-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). (1995). Standard test methods for assessing the microbial detoxification of chemically contaminated water and soil using a toxicity test with a luminescent marine bacterium, D5660-95. In: Annual Book of ASTM standards, Philadelphia, PA.
  8. Baran A, Tarnawski M, Koniarz T, Szara M. Content of nutrients, trace elements, and ecotoxicity of sediment cores from Roznów reservoir (Southern Poland) Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2019;41:2929–2948. doi: 10.1007/s10653-019-00363-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Barbosa R, Dias D, Lapa N, Lopes H, Mendes B. Chemical and ecotoxicological properties of size fractionated biomass ashes. Fuel Processing Technology. 2013;109:124–132. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2012.09.048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bekki K, Ito T, Yoshida Y, He C, Arashidani K, He M, Sun G, Zeng Y, Sone H, Kunugita N, Ichinose T. PM2.5 collected in China causes inflammatory and oxidative stress responses in macrophages through the multiple pathways. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2016;45:362–369. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2016.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brouwer H, Murphy T, McArdle L. A sediment contact bioassay with Photobacterium phosphoreum. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1990;9:1353–1358. doi: 10.1897/1552-8618(1990)9[1353:ASBWPP]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bulich AA, Isenberg DL. Use of the luminescent bacterial system for the rapid assessment of aquatic toxicity. ISA Transactions. 1981;20(1):29–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Burga Pérez KF, Charlatchka R, Sahli L, Férard JF. New methodological improvements in the Microtox® solid phase assay. Chemosphere. 2012;86:105–110. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.08.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chang SC, Wang YF, You SJ, Kuo YM, Tsai CH, Wang LC, Hsu PY. Toxicity evaluation of fly ash by Microtox®. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 2013;13:1002–1008. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2012.10.0267. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chung MC, Tsai MH, Que DE, Bongo SJ, Hsu WL, Tayo LT, Lin YH, Lin SL, Gou YY, Hsu YC, Hou WC, Huang KL, Chao HR. Fine particulate matter-induced toxic effects in an animal model of Caenorhabditis elegans. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 2019;19:1068–1078. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2019.03.0127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chung MC, Huang KL, Avelino JL, Tayo LT, Lin CC, Tsai MH, Lin SL, Mansor WNW, Su CK, Huang ST. Toxic assessment of heavily traffic-related fine particulate matter using an in-vivo Wild-type Caenorhabditis elegans model. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 2020;20:1974–1986. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2020.05.0192. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Corrêa AXR, Testolin RC, Torres MM, Cotelle S, Schwartz JJ, Millet M, Radetski CM. Ecotoxicity assessment of particulate matter emitted from heavy-duty diesel-powered vehicles: Influence of leaching conditions. Environmental Science and Pollution. 2017;24(10):9399–9406. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-8521-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Čvančarová M, Křesinová Z, Cajthaml T. Influence of the bioaccessible fraction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons on the ecotoxicity of historically contaminated soils. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2013;254–255:116–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.03.060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dastoorpoor M, Sekhavatpour Z, Masoumi K, Mohammadi MJ, Aghababaeian H, Khanjani N, Hashemzadeh B, Vahedian M. Air pollution and hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases in Ahvaz. Iran. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;652:1318–1330. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Davoren M, Shúilleabháinn SN, O’ Halloran J, Hartl MGJ, Sheehan D, O’Brien NM, Van Pelt FNAM, Mothersill C. A test battery approach for the ecotoxicological evaluation of estuarine sediments. Ecotoxicology. 2005;14:741–755. doi: 10.1007/s10646-005-0022-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. de SáSalomao AL, Hauser-Davis RA, Marques M. Critical knowledge gaps and relevant variables requiring consideration when performing aquatic ecotoxicity assays. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2020;203:110941. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. DelValls TA, Andres A, Belzunce MJ, Buceta JL, Casado-Martinez MC, Castro R, Riba I, Viguri JR, Blasco J. Chemical and ecotoxicological guidelines for managing disposalof dredged material. Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2004;23(10–11):819–828. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2004.07.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Evagelopoulos, V., Zoras, S., Samaras, P., Triantafyllou, A. G., Albanis, T. A., & Kassomenos, P. (2009). Toxicity of fine and coarse atmospheric particles using Vibrio fischeri. 2" . In: International Conference on Environmental Management, Engineering, Planning and Economics (CEMEPE 2009) and SECOTOX Conference.
  24. Girotti S, Ferri EN, Fumo MG, Maiolini E. Monitoring of environmental pollutants by bioluminescent bacteria. AnalyticaChimicaActa. 2008;608:2–29. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2007.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Goix S, Lévêque T, Xiong TT, Schreck E, Baeza-Squiban A, Geret F, et al. Environmental and health impacts of fine and ultrafine metallic particles: Assessment of threat scores. Environmental Research. 2014;133:185–194. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.05.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gonzalez-Merchan C, Perrodin Y, Sébastian C, Bazin C, Winiarski T, Barraud S. Ecotoxicological characterisation of sediments from stormwater retention basins. Water Science and Technology. 2014;69(5):1045–1051. doi: 10.2166/wst.2014.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gualtieri M, Mantecca P, Corvaja V, Longhin E, Perrone MG, et al. Winter fine particulate matter from Milan induces morphological and functional alterations in human pulmonary epithelial cells (A549) Toxicology Letters. 2009;188:52–62. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Guo G, Zhang D, Wang Y. Characteristics of heavy metals in size-fractionated atmospheric particulate matters and associated health risk assessment based on the respiratory deposition. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s10653-020-00706-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hursthouse A, Kowalczyk G. Transport and dynamics of toxic pollutants in the natural environment and their effect on human health: Research gaps and challenge. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2009;31:165–187. doi: 10.1007/s10653-008-9213-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Huang Y, Wang L, Zhang S, Zhang M, Wang J, Cheng X, Li T, He M, Ni S. Source apportionment and health risk assessment of air pollution particles in eastern district of Chengdu. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2020;42:2251–2263. doi: 10.1007/s10653-019-00495-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Isidori M, Ferrara M, Lavorgna M, Nardelli A, Parrella A. In situ monitoring of urban air in Southern Italy with the tradescantia micronucleus bioassay and semipermeable membrane devices (SPMDs) Chemosphere. 2003;52:121–126. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(03)00183-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Islam N, Rabha S, Silva LFO, Saikia BK. Air quality and PM 10-associated poly-aromatic hydrocarbons around the railway traffic area: Statistical and air mass trajectory approaches. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2019;41:2039–2053. doi: 10.1007/s10653-019-00256-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ivask A, Hakkila K, Virta M. Detection of organomercurials with whole-cell bacterial sensors. Analytical Chemistry. 2001;73(21):5168–5171. doi: 10.1021/ac010550v. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Jan R, Roy R, Yadav S, Satsangi PG. Chemical fractionation and health risk assessment of particulate matter-bound metals in Pune, India. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2018;40:255–270. doi: 10.1007/s10653-016-9900-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Jarque S, Masner P, Klánová J, Prokeš R, Bláha L. Bioluminescent Vibrio fischeri Assays in the Assessment of Seasonal and Spatial Patterns in Toxicity of Contaminated River Sediments. Frontiers in. Microbiology. 2016;7:1738. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jing W, Liu Q, Wang M, Zhang X, Chen J, Sui G, Wang L. A method for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) biotoxicity assay using luminescent bacterium. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2019;170:796–803. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.12.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Juvonen R, Martikainen E, Schultz E, Joutti A, Ahtiainen J, Lehtokari MA. Battery of toxicity tests as indicators of decontamination in composting oily waste. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2000;47:156–166. doi: 10.1006/eesa.2000.1943. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kelly FJ, Fussell JC. Air pollution and public health: Emerging hazards and improved understanding of risk. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2015;37:631–649. doi: 10.1007/s10653-015-9720-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kessler N, Schauer JJ, Yagur-Kroll S, Melamed S, Tirosh O, Belkin S, Erel Y. A bacterial bioreporter panel to assay the cytotoxicity of atmospheric particulate matter. Atmospheric Environment. 2012;63:94–101. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.09.048. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Khaefi M, Geravandi S, Hassani G, Yari AR, Soltani F, Dobaradaran S, Moogahi S, Mohammadi MJ, Mahboubi M, Alavi N, Farhadi M, Khaniabadi OY. Association of particulate matter impact on prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Ahvaz, Southwest Iran during 2009–2013. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 2017;17:230–237. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2015.11.0628. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim RY, Yoon JK, Kim TS, Yang JE, Owens G, Kim KR. Bioavailability of heavy metals in soils: Definitions and practical implementation—A critical review. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2015;37:1041–1061. doi: 10.1007/s10653-015-9695-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Klimkowicz-Pawlas A, Maliszewska-Kordybach B, Smreczak B. Triad-based screening risk assessment of the agricultural area exposed to the long-term PAHs contamination. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2019;41:1369–1385. doi: 10.1007/s10653-018-0220-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kokkali V, van Delft W. Overview of commercially available bioassays for assessing chemical toxicity in aqueous samples. Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2014;61:133–155. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2014.08.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kováts N, Kovács A, Ács A, Ferincz Á, Turóczy B, Gelencsér A. Development of a whole-aerosol test protocol. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2012;33:284–287. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2011.12.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Kováts N, Ács A, Ferincz Á, Kovács A, Horváth E, et al. Ecotoxicity and genotoxicity assessment of exhaust particulates from diesel-powered buses. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2013;10:8707–8713. doi: 10.1007/s10661-013-3206-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kováts N, Horváth E. Bioluminescence-based assays for assessing eco- and genotoxicity of airborne emissions. Luminescence. 2016;31(4):918–923. doi: 10.1002/bio.3102. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kuo CY, Chen H-C, Cheng F-C, Huang L-R, Chien P-S, Wang J-W. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in household dust near diesel transport routes. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2012;34:77–87. doi: 10.1007/s10653-011-9392-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Landkocz Y, Ledoux F, André V, Cazier F, Genevray P, Dewaele D, Martin PJ, Lepers C, Verdin A, Courcot L, Boushina S, Sichel F, Gualtieri M, Shirali P, Courcot D, Billet S. Fine and ultrafine atmospheric particulate matter at a multi-influenced urban site: Physicochemical characterization, mutagenicity and cytotoxicity. Environmental Pollution. 2017;221:130–140. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.11.054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lappalainen J, Juvonen R, Vaajasaari K, Karp M. A new flash method for measuring the toxicity of solid and colored samples. Chemosphere. 1999;3:1069–1083. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(98)00352-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Lappalainen J, Juvonen R, Nurmi J, Karp M. Automated color correction method for Vibrio fischeri toxicity test. Comparison of standard and kinetic assays. Chemosphere. 2001;45:635–641. doi: 10.1016/S0045-6535(00)00579-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ledda C, Rapisarda V, Bracci M, Proietti L, Zuccarello M, et al. Professional exposure to basaltic rock dust: Assessment by the Vibrio fischeri ecotoxicological test. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology. 2013;8:23. doi: 10.1186/1745-6673-8-23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Leitgib L, Kálmán J, Gruiz K. Comparison of bioassays by testing whole soil and their water extract from contaminated sites. Chemosphere. 2007;66:428–434. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.06.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Lin TC, Chao MR. Assessing the influence of methanol-containing additive on biological characteristics of diesel exhaust emissions using Microtox and Mutatox assays. Science of the Total Environment. 2002;284:61–74. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(01)00866-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Liu X, Peng L, Bai H, Mu L, Song C. Occurrence and particle-size distributions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the ambient air of coking plant. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2014;36:531–542. doi: 10.1007/s10653-013-9579-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lors C, Pong J-F, Aldayam MM, Damidot D. Comparison of solid and liquid-phase bioassays using ecoscores to assess contaminated soils. Environmental Pollution. 2011;159:2974–2981. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2011.04.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Luo H, Zeng Y, Cheng Y, He D, Pan X. Recent advances in municipal landfill leachate: A review focusing on its characteristics, treatment, and toxicity assessment. Science of the Total Environment. 2020;703:135468. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ma XY, Wang XC, Ngo HH, Guo W, Wu MN, Wang N. Bioassay based luminescent bacteria: Interferences, improvements, and applications. Science of the Total Environment. 2014;468–469:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Masood N, Halimoon N, Aris AZ, Zakaria MP, Vaezzadeh V, Magam SM, Mustafa S, Ali MM, Keshavarzifard M, Alkhadher SAA, Bong CW, Alsalahi MA. Seasonal variability of anthropogenic indices of PAHs in sediment from the Kuala Selangor River, west coast Peninsular Malaysia. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2018;40:2551–2572. doi: 10.1007/s10653-018-0122-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Mbengue S, Alleman LY, Flament P. Bioaccessibility of trace elements in fine and ultrafine atmospheric particles in an industrial environment. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2015;37:875–889. doi: 10.1007/s10653-015-9756-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Menz J, Schneider M, Kümmerer K. Toxicity testing with luminescent bacteria—Characterization of an automated method for the combined assessment of acute and chronic effects. Chemosphere. 2013;93:990–996. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.05.067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Morakinyo OM, Mukhola MS, Mokgobu MI. Concentration levels and carcinogenic and mutagenic risks of PM2.5-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in an urban–industrial area in South Africa. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2020;42:2163–2178. doi: 10.1007/s10653-019-00493-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Mortimer M, Kasemets K, Heinlaan M, Kurvet I, Kahru A. High throughput kinetic bioluminescence inhibition assay for study of toxic effects of nanoparticles. Toxicology in Vitro. 2008;22:1402–1417. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2008.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Naghizadeh A, Sharifzadeh G, Tabatabaei F, Afzali A, Yari AR, Geravandi S, Mohammadi MJ. Assessment of carbon monoxide concentration in indoor/outdoor air of Sarayan city, Khorasan Province of Iran. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2019;41:1875–1880. doi: 10.1007/s10653-018-0226-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Najmeddin A, Keshavarzi B. Health risk assessment and source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons associated with PM10 and road deposited dust in Ahvaz metropolis of Iran. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2019;41:1267–1290. doi: 10.1007/s10653-018-0209-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Palma P, Ledo L, Soares S, Barbosa IR, Alvarenga P. Integrated environmental assessment of freshwater sediments: A chemical and ecotoxicological approach at the Alqueva reservoir. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2014;36:209–223. doi: 10.1007/s10653-013-9559-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Paulovits G, Kováts N, Ács A, Ferincz Á, Kovács A, et al. Ecotoxicological characterisation of sedimentation in the Kis-Balaton Water Protection System. ActaBiologicaHungarica. 2012;63:268–276. doi: 10.1556/ABiol.63.2012.2.8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Płaza G, Nałęcz-Jawecki G, Ulfig K, Brigmon RL. The application of bioassays as indicators of petroleum-contaminated soil remediation. Chemosphere. 2005;59:289–296. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.11.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Ringwood AH, Delorenzo ME, Ross PE, Holland AF. Interpretation of Microtox solid-phase toxicity tests: The effects of sediment composition. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 1997;16:1135–1140. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620160607. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Roig N, Sierra J, Rovira J, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL, Nadal M. In vitro tests to assess toxic effects of airborne PM10 samples. Correlation with metals and chlorinated dioxins and furans. Science of the Total Environment. 2013;443:791–797. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.11.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Romano S, Perrone MR, Becagli S, Pietrogrande MC, Russo M, Caricato R, Lionetto MG. Ecotoxicity, genotoxicity, and oxidative potential tests of atmospheric PM10 particles. Atmospheric Environment. 2020;221:117085. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117085. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Sah D, Verma PK, Kumari KM, Lakhani A. Chemical fractionation of heavy metals in fine particulate matter and their health risk assessment through inhalation exposure pathway. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2019;41:1445–1458. doi: 10.1007/s10653-018-0223-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Selivanovskaya S, Galitskaya P, Schnell S, Hung Y-T. A comparison of microbial contact bioassay with conventional elutriate assays for evaluation of wastes hazard. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management. 2010;6(1/2):183–196. doi: 10.1504/IJEWM.2010.033992. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Serat WF, Budinger FE, Jr, Mueller PK. Evaluation of biological effects of air pollutants by use of luminescent bacteria. Journal of Bacteriology. 1965;90:832–833. doi: 10.1128/jb.90.3.832-833.1965. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Serat WF, Budinger FE, Jr, Mueller PK. Toxicity evaluation of air pollutants by use of luminescent bacteria. Atmospheric Environment. 1967;1:21–32. doi: 10.1016/0004-6981(67)90105-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Silva V, Pereira JL, Campos I, Keizer JJ, Gonçalves F, Abrantes N. Toxicity assessment of aqueous extracts of ash from forest fires. CATENA. 2015;135:401–408. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2014.06.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Soriano JA, García-Contreras R, de la Fuente J, Armas O, Orozco-Jiménez LY, Agudelo JR. Genotoxicity and mutagenicity of particulate matter emitted from diesel, gas to liquid, biodiesel, and farnesane fuels: A toxicological risk assessment. Fuel. 2020;282:118763. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118763. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Thums CR, Farago ME, Thornton I. Bioavailability of trace metals in brownfield soils in an urban area in the UK. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2008;30:549–563. doi: 10.1007/s10653-008-9185-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Tositti L, Brattich E, Parmeggiani S, Bolelli L, Ferri E, Girotti S. Airborne particulate matter biotoxicity estimated by chemometric analysis on bacterial luminescence data. Science of the Total Environment. 2018;640–641:1512–1520. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Triolo L, Binazzi A, Cagnetti P, Carconi P, Correnti A, De Luca E, Di Bonito R, Grandoni G, Mastrantonio M, Rosa S, Schimberni S, Uccelli R, Zappa G. Air pollution impact assessment on agroecosystem and human health characterisation in the area surrounding the industrial settlement of Milazzo (Italy): A multidisciplinary approach. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2008;140:191–209. doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-9859-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Tuikka AI, Schmitt C, Höss S, Bandow N, von der Ohe PC, de Zwart D, de Deckere E, Streck G, Mothes S, van Hattum B, Kocan A, Brix R, Brack W, Barceló D, Sormunen AJ, Kukkonen JVK. Toxicity assessment of sediments from three European river basins using a sediment contact test battery. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2011;74:123–131. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.08.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Turner A. Oral bioaccessibility of trace metals in household dust: A review. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2011;33:331–341. doi: 10.1007/s10653-011-9386-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Turóczi B, Hoffer A, Tóth Á, Kováts N, Ács A, Ferincz Á, Kovács A, Gelencsér A. Comparative assessment of ecotoxicity of urban aerosol. Athmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 2013;12:7365–7370. doi: 10.5194/acp-12-7365-2012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Varshney P, Saini R, Taneja A. Trace element concentration in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and their bioavailability in different microenvironments in Agra, India: A case study. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2016;38(2):593–605. doi: 10.1007/s10653-015-9745-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Verma V, Rico-Martinez R, Kotra N, King L, Liu J, Snell TW, Weber RJ. Contribution of water-soluble and insoluble components and their hydrophobic/hydrophilic subfractions to the reactive oxygen species-generating potential of fine ambient aerosols. Environmental Science and Technology. 2012;46:11384–11392. doi: 10.1021/es302484r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Verma V, Rico-Martinez R, Kotra N, Rennolds C, Liu J, Snell TW, Weber RJ. Estimating the toxicity of ambient fine aerosols using freshwater rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus (Rotifera: Monogononta) Environmental Pollution. 2013;182:379–384. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.07.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Vouitsis E, Ntziachristos L, Pistikopoulos P, Samaras Z, Chrysikou L, Samara C, Papadimitriou C, Samaras P, Sakellaropoulos G. An investigation on the physical, chemical and ecotoxicological characteristics of particulate matter emitted from light-duty vehicles. Environmental Pollution. 2009;157:2320–2327. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2009.03.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Wang WH, Wong MH, Leharne S, Fisher B. Fractionation and biotoxicity of heavy metals in urban dusts collected from Hong Kong and London. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 1998;20:185–198. doi: 10.1023/A:1006530300522. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Wang W, Shi C, Yan Y, Yang Y, Zhou B. Eco-toxicological bioassay of atmospheric fine particulate matter (PM2.5) with Photobacterium phosphoreum T3. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2016;133:226–234. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2016.07.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Weltens R, Deprez K, Michiels L. Validation of Microtox as a first screening tool for waste classification. Waste Management. 2014;34:2427–2433. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Xu C, Wei M, Chen J, Zhu C, Li J, Xu X, Wang W, Zhang Q, Ding A, Kan H, Zhao Z, Mellouki A. Profile of inhalable bacteria in PM2.5 at Mt. Tai, China: Abundance, community, and influence of air mass trajectories. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2019;168:110–119. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.10.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Yeo S, Park J, Ahn J, Han J. Proposed method for controlling turbid particles in solid-phase bioluminescent toxicity measurement. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2015;187:347. doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-4559-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Yu H, Feng J, Su X, Li Y, Sun J. A seriously air pollution area affected by anthropogenic in the central China: Temporal–spatial distribution and potential sources. Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 2020;42:3199–3211. doi: 10.1007/s10653-020-00558-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Zhang Y, Guo X, Si X, Yang R, Zhou J, Quan X. Environmentally persistent free radical generation on contaminated soil and their potential biotoxicity to luminous bacteria. Science of the Total Environment. 2019;687:348–354. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Zoran MA, Savastru RS, Savastru DM, Tautan MT. Assessing the relationship between surface levels of PM2.5 and PM10 particulate matter impact on COVID-19 in Milan, Italy. Science of the Total Environment. 2020;738:139825. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data generated during the study are included in the manuscript.

Articles from Environmental Geochemistry and Health are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES