The Mutagenic Potential of Diesel and Biodiesel Exhausts
There is a large body of literature on the association of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity with the use of fossil diesel fuel. For RME (methyl ester of rape oil), on the other hand, there are only a few data available on the mutagenicity of the particle fraction as determined by the Ames-test, which has indicated that RME exhausts are less mutagenic than diesel exhausts. Therefore, we collected samples of the particle and volatile fraction of both diesel and RME exhausts at different engine powers and evaluated the mutagenic potential in metabolically competent rat hepatocytes (endpoints tested: cytotoxicity, mitotic index, induction of micronuclei, chromosomal aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges). In parallel, we determined the mutagenic potential of these samples in the Ames-test (strains: TA 98 and TA 100).
Diesel and RME exhausts were compared in terms of: a) concentration dependence of the cyto- and genotoxic effects and b) mutagenic potential of particle extracts and condensates (volatile fraction) at a sample volume corresponding to one liter of exhaust gas. The results obtained differed with respect to the test system applied: While the results of the Ames-test point to a higher mutagenic potential of diesel exhausts, the hepatocyte assay results indicate both RME and diesel exhaust have high mutagenic potentials. In some cases, i.e. particle extracts collected at idle motion, diesel exhaust induced significantly elevated levels of chromosomal aberrations compared to RME. On the other hand, condensates of diesel exhausts collected at idle motion induced lower levels of chromosomal aberrations. These differences appear to be due to the different cytotoxic potential of the samples, which varied from sampling to sampling, but were generally more pronounced in diesel exhausts.
The potential health risk associated with the use of RME may be lower compared to diesel because diesel exhausts exhibit a higher cytotoxicity and they are more mutagenic in the Ames-test. However, the mutagenic potentials of RME and diesel exhaust in the hepatocyte assay are similar. Because particle emission is significantly lower for RME, their particle associated carcinogenic potential may be lower than that of diesel exhaust.
KeywordsChromosomal Aberration Mitotic Index Diesel Exhaust Mutagenic Potential Volatile Fraction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 7.Rasmussen R.E., J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 40, 1391 (1990).Google Scholar
- 9.Song J. and Ye S.H., Biomed. Environ. Sci. 8, 240 (1995).Google Scholar
- 10.Ishinishi N., Koizumi A., McClellan R.O. and Stoeber W., Carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of diesel engine exhaust ( Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1986 ).Google Scholar
- 11.Cross F.T., Palmer R.K., Pilipy R.E., Busch R.H. and Stuart B.O., Pac. Northwest Lab. Rep. 2744 (1978).Google Scholar
- 14.Raffle P., Br. J. Ind. Med. 14, 73 (1975).Google Scholar
- 15.Wong O., Morgan R.W., Keifets L., Larson S.R. and Whorton M.D., Br. J. Ind. Med. 42, 435 (1985).Google Scholar
- 16.Howe G.R., Fräser D., Lindsay J., Presnal B. and Yu S.Z., J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 70, 1015 (1983).Google Scholar
- 17.Schenker M.B., Smith T., Munos A., Woske S. and Speizer F.E., Br. J. Ind. Med. 41, 320 (1984).Google Scholar
- 18.Garshick E., Munoz A., Schenker M.B., Woskie S., Smith T. and Speizer F.E., Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 133, A264 (1986).Google Scholar
- 19.Silverman D.T., Hoover R.N., Mason T.J., and Swanson G.M., Cancer Res. 46, 2113 (1986).Google Scholar
- 20.Gustavsson P., Plato N., Lidstrom E.B. and Hogstedt C., Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 16, 348 (1990).Google Scholar
- 23.Stalder K., Gerhard V., Krahl J. and Munack A., Landtechnik 5, 266 (1995).Google Scholar
- 24.Stalder K., Gerhard V. and Krahl J., Emissionen von Pflanzenölkraftstoßen und ihre Umweltwirkungen, Rimpar bei Würzburg, (CARMEN e.V., Rimpar bei Würzburg) pp. 30–35 (1994).Google Scholar
- 28.Eckl P.M, Anderson-Camahan L. and Jirtle R.L., Sci. Total Environ. 135, 111 (1993).Google Scholar
- 30.Stöß W., Thesis, University of Salzburg, Austria (1991)Google Scholar
- 31.Eckl P. and Stöß W., in (24), pp. 109–119 (1994).Google Scholar
- 32.Wurst F., Boos R., Prey T., Scheidl K. and Wörgetter M., Forschungsberichte der Bundesanstalt für Landtechnik, Wieselburg 22 (1990).Google Scholar
- 33.Maron D.M. and Ames B.M., in Handbook of Mutagenicity Test Procedures, Kilbey B.J., Legator M., Nichols W., Ramel C., Eds. ( Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1983 ), pp. 93–141.Google Scholar
- 34.Michalopoulos G., Cianciulli D., Novotny A.R., Kligerman A.D., Strom S.C. and Jirtle R.L., Cancer Res. 42, 4673 (1982).Google Scholar
- 35.Müller K., Kasper P. and Müller L., Mutation Res. 292, 213 (1993).Google Scholar
- 36.Eckl P.M. and Raffelsberger I., Mutation Res., in press.Google Scholar
- 41.Heinrich U., Pott F. and Rittinghausen S., Carcinogenic and mutagenic effects of diesel engine exhaust (Developments in Toxicology and Environmental Science), Ishinishi, N. et al., Eds. ( Elsevier, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, 1986 ), pp. 441–457.Google Scholar
- 42.Heinrich U., in (24), pp. 19–29 (1994).Google Scholar
- 43.Richter H., in (24), pp.36–46 (1994).Google Scholar
- 44.Widmann B., in (24), pp. 72–93 (1994).Google Scholar