Advertisement

Sample Collection and Preparation Methods Affecting Mutagenicity and Cytotoxicity of Coal Fly Ash

  • Judy L. Mumford
  • Joellen Lewtas
Chapter
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 27)

Abstract

Reports by several investigators describing the biological activity of coal fly ash have presented a variety of results which in some cases (Fisher et al., 1979; Clark and Hobbs, 1980; Kubitschek et al., 1980; Mumford and Lewtas, in press) are conflicting. The biological activity of coal fly ash may differ because of one or or more of the following factors: (1) the samples studied were from different sources; (2) the samples were prepared for bioassay differently; (3) the sampling method differed, and, therefore, collected samples were different in chemical or physical properties which affect the biological activity. Several variables involved in coal fly ash studies — source, sample collection and preparation methods, bioassay method — are undoubtedly responsible for the diversity of biological effects observed. The objectives of this study were to examine the sample preparation and collection factors which may affect the observed biological activity caused by coal fly ash and to evaluate the mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) fly ash from experimental and commercial units. The bioassays used in this study were the Ames Salmonella plate incorporation test for mutagenicity and the rabbit alveolar macrophage (RAM) system for cytotoxicity.

Keywords

Extractable Mass Coal Combustion Product Collection Temperature Rabbit Alveolar Macrophage Conventional Combustion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ames, B.W., J.M. McCann, andE. Yamasaki. 1975. Methods for detecting carcinogens and mutagens with the Salmonella/mammalian microsome mutagenicity test. Mutation Res. 31:347–364.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, R.C., and CH. Hobbs. 1980. Mutagenicity of effluents from an experimental fluidized bed coal combustor. Environ. Mutagen. 2:101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Claxton, L.D., J. Huisingh, and M. Waters. 1979. The testing of environmental samples for mutagenicity and carcinogenicity using microbial assay systems. In: Symposium Proceedings: Textile Industry Technology, December 1978, Williamsburg, VA. F.A. Ayers, compiler. EPA-600/2–79–104. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research Triangle Park, NC. pp. 231–238.Google Scholar
  4. Fennelly, P.F., H. Klemm, and R.R. Hall. 1977. Coal burns cleaner in a fluid bed. Environ. Sci. Technol. 11:244–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fisher, G.L., C.E. Chrisp, and O.G. Raabe. 1979. Physical factors affecting the mutagenicity of fly ash from a coal-fired power plant. Science 204:879–881.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kindya, R.J., R.R. Hall, G. Hunt, W. Piispanen, and P. Fennelly. 1980. Environmental Assessment: Source Test and Evaluation Report -- Exxon Miniplant Pressurized Fluidized-Bed Combustor with Sorbent Regeneration. GCA Corporation: Bedford, MA. pp. 8–25.Google Scholar
  7. Kubitschek, H.E., and D.M. Williams. 1980. Mutagenicity of fly ash from a fluidized-bed combustor during start-up and steady operating conditions. Mutation Res. 77:287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kubitschek, H.E., D.M. Williams, and F.R. Kirchner. 1980. Biological monitoring of fluidized-bed combustion operations I. Increased mutagenicity during periods of incomplete combustion. In: Short-Term Bioassays in the Analysis of Complex Environmental Mixtures II. M.D. Waters, S.S. Sandhu, J. L. Huisingh, L. Claxton, and S. Nesnow, eds. Plenum Press: New York. pp. 411–420.Google Scholar
  9. Mumford, J.L., and J. Lewtas. In press. Mutagenicity and cytotoxicity of coal fly ash from fluidized-bed and conventional combustion. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health.Google Scholar
  10. Rosenkranz, H.S., E.C. McCoy, D.R. Sanders, M. Butler, D.K. Kiriazides, R. Mermelstein. 1980. Nitropyrenes: isolation, identification, and reduction of mutagenic impurities in carbon black and toners. Science 209:1039–1043.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schuetzle, D., F.S.C. Lee, and J.T. Prater. 1981. The identification of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) derivatives in mutagenic fractions of diesel particulate extract. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 9:93–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tejada, S.B., R.B. Zweidinger, and J.E. Sigsby. 1982. Analysis of nitroaromatics in diesel and gasoline car emissions. Paper presented at Society of Automotive Engineers Passenger Car Meeting, June 7–10, 1982. Troy, MI. Paper ≠820775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Young, C.W., P.H. Anderson, R.J. Kindya, R.R. Hall, J.M. Robinson, and P.F. Fennelly. 1981. Environmental Assessment: Source Test and Evaluation Report -- Georgetown University Fluidized-Bed Boiler. GCA-TR-81–76-G. GCA/Technology Division, GCA Corporation: Bedford, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judy L. Mumford
    • 1
  • Joellen Lewtas
    • 1
  1. 1.Genetic Toxicology Division, Health Effects Research LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations