The Integration of Bioassay and Physiochemical Information for Complex Mixtures

  • Larry D. Claxton
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 27)

Abstract

To understand and estimate human environmental risk, investigators need to identify, quantitate, and evaluate the natural and anthropogenic pollutants in our environment. According to Eugene Sawicki, “The main barriers to estimating human environmental risks stem from a lack of knowledge of the chemical composition of our environment, the failure to use the information we have, and our indecision as to what to measure” (Sawicki, 1978). This is especially evident in the areas of genetic toxicology, analytical chemistry, and environmental engineering, where ongoing research has been somewhat isolated. Only recently, with the development of new analytical tools and sensitive short-term tests, has interdisciplinary research into environmental pollutants by engineers, chemists, and genetic toxicologists expanded. This interdisciplinary research involving complex environmental mixtures has created problems not only in the research methods used, but also in the integrating and summarizing of information that can be disseminated and intelligently evaluated. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to illustrate how physiochemical and biological information can be integrated to provide a more complete evaluation of a complex mixture. Although any or all complex mixtures could be used as illustrations, this paper will concentrate on air pollution data.

Keywords

Toxicity Hydrocarbon Propylene Diesel Fractionation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Claxton, L.D. (in press). Review of fractionation and bioassay characterization techniques for the evaluation of organics associated with ambient air particles. In: Genotoxic Effects of Airborne Agents. R. Tice, ed. Plenum: New York, pp. 19–34.Google Scholar
  2. Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Environmental Quality-1980: The Eleventh Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality, p. 168.Google Scholar
  3. Graedel, T.E. 1978. Chemical Compounds in the Atmosphere. Academic Press: New York. p. 1.Google Scholar
  4. Margolin, B., N. Kaplan, and E. Zeiger. 1981. Statistical analysis of the Ames Salmonella/microsome test. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:3779–3783.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Myers, L.E., N.H. Sexton, L.I. Southerland, and T.J. Wolff. 1981. Regression analysis of Ames test data. Environ. Mutagen. 3(5):575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sawicki, E. 1978. Atmospheric genotoxicants-what numbers do we collect? In: Application of Short-Term Bioassays in the Fractionation and Analysis of Complex Environmental Mixtures. M.D. Waters, S. Nesnow, J.L. Huisingh, S.S. Sandhu, and L. Claxton, eds. Plenum Press: New York. pp. 173–194.Google Scholar
  7. Stead, A.G., V. Hasselblad, J.P. Creason, and L. Claxton. 1981. Modeling the Ames test. Mutation Res. 85:13–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry D. Claxton
    • 1
  1. 1.Genetic Toxicology Division, Health Effects Research LaboratoryU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations