Advertisement

The Mutagenic Potential of Diesel and Biodiesel Exhausts

  • Peter M. Eckl
  • P. Leikermoser
  • M. Wörgetter
  • H. Prankl
  • F. Wurst

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Chromosomal Aberration Mitotic Index Diesel Exhaust Mutagenic Potential Volatile Fraction 
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. 1.
    Pedersen T.C. and Siak J.-S., J. Appl Toxicol. 1, 54 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schuetzle D., Lee F.S.C., Prater T.J. and Tejada S.B., Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 9, 93 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li A.P., Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 75, 55 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li A.P. and Royer R.E., Mutation Res. 103, 349 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thilly W.G., Longwell H., and Andon B.M., Environ. Health Perspect. 48, 129 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McClellan R.O., Ann. Rev. Pharmacol Toxicol 27, 279 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rasmussen R.E., J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 40, 1391 (1990).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karube T., Kim Y.W., Kawamura K., Odagiri Y., Katayama H. and Takemoto K., Nippon Eiseigaku. Zasshi. 46, 646 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song J. and Ye S.H., Biomed. Environ. Sci. 8, 240 (1995).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ishinishi N., Koizumi A., McClellan R.O. and Stoeber W., Carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of diesel engine exhaust ( Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1986 ).Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    White H., Vostal J.J., Kaplan H.L. and MacKenzie W.F., J. Appl. Toxicol. 3, 332 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mauderly L., Banas D.A., Griffith W.C., Hahn F.F., Henderson R.F. and McClellan R.O., Fundam. Appl. Toxicol., 30, 233 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raffle P., Br. J. Ind. Med. 14, 73 (1975).Google Scholar
  15. 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. 16.
    Howe G.R., Fräser D., Lindsay J., Presnal B. and Yu S.Z., J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 70, 1015 (1983).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schenker M.B., Smith T., Munos A., Woske S. and Speizer F.E., Br. J. Ind. Med. 41, 320 (1984).Google Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    Silverman D.T., Hoover R.N., Mason T.J., and Swanson G.M., Cancer Res. 46, 2113 (1986).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gustavsson P., Plato N., Lidstrom E.B. and Hogstedt C., Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 16, 348 (1990).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Muscat J.E. and Wynder E.L., Environ. Health Perspect. 103, 812 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iyer V., Harris R.E. and Wynder E.L., Eur. J. Epidemiol. 6, 49 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stalder K., Gerhard V., Krahl J. and Munack A., Landtechnik 5, 266 (1995).Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 25.
    Eekl P.M., Strom S.C., Michalopoulos G. and Jirtle R.L., Carcinogenesis 8, 1077 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alati T., Eckl P. and Jirtle R.L., Rad. Res. 119, 565 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eckl P.M, Alati T. and Jirtle R.L., Carcinogenesis 12, 643 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eckl P.M, Anderson-Camahan L. and Jirtle R.L., Sci. Total Environ. 135, 111 (1993).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eckl P.M, Sci. Total Environ. 159, 81 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stöß W., Thesis, University of Salzburg, Austria (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eckl P. and Stöß W., in (24), pp. 109–119 (1994).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wurst F., Boos R., Prey T., Scheidl K. and Wörgetter M., Forschungsberichte der Bundesanstalt für Landtechnik, Wieselburg 22 (1990).Google Scholar
  33. 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. 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. 35.
    Müller K., Kasper P. and Müller L., Mutation Res. 292, 213 (1993).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eckl P.M. and Raffelsberger I., Mutation Res., in press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fenech M., Mutation Res. 285, 35 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eckl P.M., J. Cell. Physiol. 154, 601 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang Y.Y., Rappaport S.M., Sawyer R.F., Talcott R.E. and Wie E.T., Cancer Lett. 5, 39 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    DeFlora S., Nature 271, 455 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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. 42.
    Heinrich U., in (24), pp. 19–29 (1994).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Richter H., in (24), pp.36–46 (1994).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Widmann B., in (24), pp. 72–93 (1994).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter M. Eckl
    • 1
  • P. Leikermoser
    • 1
  • M. Wörgetter
    • 2
  • H. Prankl
    • 2
  • F. Wurst
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Genetics and General BiologyUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria
  2. 2.BLT WieselburgWieselburgAustria
  3. 3.FTU Forschungsgesellschaft Technischer Umweltschutz Ges.m.b.H.WienAustria

Personalised recommendations