-
As shown in Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3, the diameter of PM in the ME was less than 1 μm. The peak value occurred at a diameter less than 100 nm for the diluted ME; whereas, the non-dilution ME had a diameter larger than 100 nm.
Figure 1. Motorcycle exhausts particle size distribution with respect to number concentration in different diluted ME. The x-axis is the particle size of the particulate matter (nm). The y-axis is the number concentration in all diameters of PM in the ME: (A) Clean air; (B) 1:20 diluted ME; (C) 1:10 diluted ME; (D) 1:5 diluted ME; (E) 1:2 diluted ME; and (F) Non-diluted ME.
Figure 2. Motorcycle exhausts particle size distribution with respect to surface area concentration in different dilution ME. The x-axis is the particle size of the particulate matter (nm). The y-axis is the surface area concentration in all diameters of PM in the ME: (A) Clean air; (B) 1:20 diluted ME; (C) 1:10 diluted ME; (D) 1:5 diluted ME; (E) 1:2 diluted ME; and (F) Non-diluted ME.
Figure 3. Motorcycle exhausts particle size distribution with respect to mass concentration in different dilution ME. The x-axis is the particle size of the particulate matter (nm). The y-axis is the mass concentration in all diameters of PM in the ME: (A) Clean air; (B) 1:20 diluted ME; (C) 1:10 diluted ME; (D) 1:5 diluted ME; (E) 1:2 diluted ME; and (F) Non-diluted ME.
The number, surface area, and MC of PM in the ME are shown in Table 1. There was a favorable decreased linear relationship between the NC of MEPs and dilution ratio. The same relationship was also observed between the SAC and MC of the MEPs (all P ≤ 0.001). Compared with the clean air group, the NC in the 1:20, 1:10, 1:5, and 1:2 diluted ME groups as well as in the non-diluted ME group were 13.8, 19.1, 22.4, 286.0, and 1237.0 times higher than that of the clean air group, respectively. The SAC in the 1:2 diluted ME and non-diluted ME groups were higher than those in the clean air group and 1:20, 1:10, and 1:5 diluted groups (P < 0.05). For MC, the 1:20 and 1:2 diluted and non-diluted ME groups were significantly higher when compared with the clean air group and the non-diluted ME group was also higher than those in the 1:20, 1:10, 1:5, and 1:2 diluted ME group (P < 0.001). Therefore, the number, surface area, and MC of PM in the ME were gradually reduced with increase in the dilution.
Table 1. Number, surface area, and mass concentrations characterization of motorcycle exhausts particle in different diluted ME groups
Groups Number concentration
(#/cm3)Surface area concentration
(× 107nm2/cm3)Mass concentration
(μg/m3)Clean air 27 ± 8 0.74 ± 0.60 0.07 ± 0.06 1:20 diluted ME 373 ± 60* 1.01 ± 0.10 0.28 ± 0.07* 1:10 diluted ME 517 ± 47* 1.81 ± 0.66 0.88 ± 0.96 1:5 diluted ME 606 ± 15*# 2.23 ± 0.65 1.72 ± 0.95 1:2 diluted ME 7,723 ± 48*#△▲ 16.57 ± 0.22*#△▲ 2.78 ± 0.16*# non-diluted ME 33,400 ± 883*#△▲□ 462.75 ± 13.12*#△▲□ 192.32 ± 6.27*#△▲□ Linear-by-Linear Association x2 = 13.438 x2 = 10.412 x2 = 10.130 P-value < 0.001 0.001 0.001 Note. The particle size of scanning ranges from 18.1–947.5 nm; Data represent Mean ± SD, n = 5/group.
*P < 0.05, as compared with the clean air group. #P < 0.05, as compared with the 1:20 diluted ME. △P < 0.001, as compared with the 1:10 diluted ME. ▲P < 0.001, as compared with the 1:5 diluted ME. □P < 0.001, as compared with the 1:2 diluted ME.To investigate the concentration of the MEPs with diameter ≤ 100 nm and > 100 nm, we selected NC as a variable and analyzed the NC of MEPs with diameter ≤ 100 nm or > 100 nm in different diluted ME groups. Results show that most of the PMs were smaller than 0.1 μm according to NC in the diluted groups (Table 2). The NC of MEPs with diameter ≤ 100 nm were 3.7, 3.1, 5.5, and 5.2 times higher than those with diameter > 100 nm in 1:20, 1:10, 1:5, and 1:2 diluted ME groups, respectively. But for the non-diluted ME, NC of the PM with diameter ≤ 100 nm was less than that with diameter > 100 nm (Table 2). These results indicate that dilution will greatly affect the particle size.
Table 2. Number concentration of the MEPs with the diameter ≤ 100 nm and > 100 nm
Groups Number concentration (#/cm3) P-value* Diameter ≤ 100 nm Diameter > 100 nm Clean air 14 ± 8 13 ± 5 0.944 1:20 diluted ME 294 ± 61 79 ± 13 0.007 1:10 diluted ME 392 ± 28 125 ± 20 < 0.001 1:5 diluted ME 513 ± 19 93 ± 13 < 0.001 1:2 diluted ME 6,490 ± 36 1,232 ± 39 < 0.001 non- diluted ME 1,877 ± 56 31,550 ± 858 < 0.001 Note. Data represent Mean ± SD, n = 5/group. *Compared between MEPs with diameter ≤ 100 nm and MEPs with diameter > 100 nm. -
CRV% of the clean air group and 1:20 diluted ME group were higher than 90%; while CRV% of 1:10, 1:5, 1:2 diluted ME group and non-diluted ME group were reduced by about 14%, 23%, 42%, and 40% compared to that of 1:20 group, respectively (P < 0.001) (Figure 4). Compared to 1:10 and 1:5 diluted ME groups, both the 1:2 diluted and non-diluted ME group had a decreased CRV (P < 0.001). When comparing the CRV% between 1:2 diluted and non-diluted ME groups, there was no significant reduction (P > 0.05; Figure 4). These results indicate that the low concentration of ME exposure had a good dilution-dependent decrease of CRV in the BEAS-2B cells, with CRV more than 60%. However, at high concentration (1:2 diluted and non-diluted ME), CRV was less than 60%.
Figure 4. Dose-dependent cytotoxicity of BEAS-2B cells induced by ME using CCK-8 assay. Data represent Mean ± SD, n = 3/group. ***P < 0.001, as compared with group exposed to clean air; ∆∆∆P < 0.001, as compared with 1:20 diluted ME; ▪▪▪P < 0.001, as compared with 1:10 diluted ME; ▫▫▫P < 0.001, as compared with 1:5 diluted ME.
-
Based on the four models (including Hill, Linear, Polynomial and Power in the BMDS), the AIC, P-value, BMD, and BMDL (the 95% CI limit of BMD) were calculated automatically and presented in Table 3. According to the P-value (> 0.05) and minimal AIC, the best-fitting models for the NC, SAC and MC were Hill, Hill, and Polynomial models, respectively. The BMD of NC, SAC, and MC that induced the decrease of CRV were 450.6#/cm3, 1.449 × 107 nm2/cm3, and 0.369 μg/m3, respectively. The best-fitting model showed that BMDL of particulates in ME for the CRV of BEAS-2B cell via ALI exposure were as follows: 364.2#/cm3 for NC; 0.662 × 107 nm2/cm3 for SAC; and 0.278 μg/m3 for MC; respectively (Table 3).
Table 3. BMD and BMDL for the decrease of CRV in BEAS-2B cells in terms of number, surface area and mass concentration calculated by different models
Model name BMD BMDL AIC P-value Number concentration (#/cm3) Hill 450.6 364.2 87.88 0.5031 Linear 14339.8 9314.5 115.35 < 0.0001 Polynomial 1605.6 1130.1 102.39 0.0005 Power 14339.8 9314.5 115.35 < 0.0001 Surface area concentration (× 107 nm2/cm3) Hill 1.449 0.662 87.41 0.6348 Linear 278.125 164.574 119.21 < 0.0001 Polynomial 3.694 2.654 101.31 0.0008 Power 278.125 164.574 119.21 < 0.0001 Mass concentration (μg/m3) Hill 0.709 0.397 92.67 0.0458 Linear 119.907 70.14 119.53 < 0.0001 Polynomial 0.369 0.278 86.91 0.4914 Power 119.907 70.14 119.53 < 0.0001 Note. AIC: Akaike information coefficient.
doi: 10.3967/bes2021.036
Assessment of Benchmark Dose in BEAS-2B Cells by Evaluating the Cell Relative Viability with Particulates in Motorcycle Exhaust via the Air-liquid Interface Exposure
-
Abstract:
Objective This study aimed to use an air–liquid interface (ALI) exposure system to simulate the inhalation exposure of motorcycle exhaust particulates (MEPs) and then investigate the benchmark dose (BMD) of MEPs by evaluating cell relative viability (CRV) in lung epithelial BEAS-2B cells. Methods The MEPs dose was characterized by measuring the number concentration (NC), surface area concentration (SAC), and mass concentration (MC). BEAS-2B cells were exposed to MEPs at different concentrations via ALI and CRV was determined using Cell Counting Kit (CCK-8) assay. BMD software was applied to calculate BMD and the lower limit of benchmark dose (BMDL) according to Akaike Information Coefficient (AIC), with P-value based on Hill, Linear, Polynomial, and Power model. Results Our results reveal that BMD of NC and SAC were estimated by the best-fitting Hill model, while MC was estimated by Polynomial model. The BMDL for CRV following ALI exposure to MEPs were as follows: 364.2#/cm3 for NC; 0.662 × 107 nm2/cm3 for SAC; and 0.278 μg/m3 for MC. Conclusion These results indicate that MEPs exposure via ALI system induces a dose-dependent decrease of CRV and provides the potential exposure threshold of MEPs in a lung cell model. -
Key words:
- Motorcycle exhaust particulates /
- Air–liquid interface /
- Bronchial epithelial cells /
- Cell relative viability /
- Dose-dependent effect
注释: -
Figure 1. Motorcycle exhausts particle size distribution with respect to number concentration in different diluted ME. The x-axis is the particle size of the particulate matter (nm). The y-axis is the number concentration in all diameters of PM in the ME: (A) Clean air; (B) 1:20 diluted ME; (C) 1:10 diluted ME; (D) 1:5 diluted ME; (E) 1:2 diluted ME; and (F) Non-diluted ME.
Figure 2. Motorcycle exhausts particle size distribution with respect to surface area concentration in different dilution ME. The x-axis is the particle size of the particulate matter (nm). The y-axis is the surface area concentration in all diameters of PM in the ME: (A) Clean air; (B) 1:20 diluted ME; (C) 1:10 diluted ME; (D) 1:5 diluted ME; (E) 1:2 diluted ME; and (F) Non-diluted ME.
Figure 3. Motorcycle exhausts particle size distribution with respect to mass concentration in different dilution ME. The x-axis is the particle size of the particulate matter (nm). The y-axis is the mass concentration in all diameters of PM in the ME: (A) Clean air; (B) 1:20 diluted ME; (C) 1:10 diluted ME; (D) 1:5 diluted ME; (E) 1:2 diluted ME; and (F) Non-diluted ME.
Figure 4. Dose-dependent cytotoxicity of BEAS-2B cells induced by ME using CCK-8 assay. Data represent Mean ± SD, n = 3/group. ***P < 0.001, as compared with group exposed to clean air; ∆∆∆P < 0.001, as compared with 1:20 diluted ME; ▪▪▪P < 0.001, as compared with 1:10 diluted ME; ▫▫▫P < 0.001, as compared with 1:5 diluted ME.
Table 1. Number, surface area, and mass concentrations characterization of motorcycle exhausts particle in different diluted ME groups
Groups Number concentration
(#/cm3)Surface area concentration
(× 107nm2/cm3)Mass concentration
(μg/m3)Clean air 27 ± 8 0.74 ± 0.60 0.07 ± 0.06 1:20 diluted ME 373 ± 60* 1.01 ± 0.10 0.28 ± 0.07* 1:10 diluted ME 517 ± 47* 1.81 ± 0.66 0.88 ± 0.96 1:5 diluted ME 606 ± 15*# 2.23 ± 0.65 1.72 ± 0.95 1:2 diluted ME 7,723 ± 48*#△▲ 16.57 ± 0.22*#△▲ 2.78 ± 0.16*# non-diluted ME 33,400 ± 883*#△▲□ 462.75 ± 13.12*#△▲□ 192.32 ± 6.27*#△▲□ Linear-by-Linear Association x2 = 13.438 x2 = 10.412 x2 = 10.130 P-value < 0.001 0.001 0.001 Note. The particle size of scanning ranges from 18.1–947.5 nm; Data represent Mean ± SD, n = 5/group.
*P < 0.05, as compared with the clean air group. #P < 0.05, as compared with the 1:20 diluted ME. △P < 0.001, as compared with the 1:10 diluted ME. ▲P < 0.001, as compared with the 1:5 diluted ME. □P < 0.001, as compared with the 1:2 diluted ME.Table 2. Number concentration of the MEPs with the diameter ≤ 100 nm and > 100 nm
Groups Number concentration (#/cm3) P-value* Diameter ≤ 100 nm Diameter > 100 nm Clean air 14 ± 8 13 ± 5 0.944 1:20 diluted ME 294 ± 61 79 ± 13 0.007 1:10 diluted ME 392 ± 28 125 ± 20 < 0.001 1:5 diluted ME 513 ± 19 93 ± 13 < 0.001 1:2 diluted ME 6,490 ± 36 1,232 ± 39 < 0.001 non- diluted ME 1,877 ± 56 31,550 ± 858 < 0.001 Note. Data represent Mean ± SD, n = 5/group. *Compared between MEPs with diameter ≤ 100 nm and MEPs with diameter > 100 nm. Table 3. BMD and BMDL for the decrease of CRV in BEAS-2B cells in terms of number, surface area and mass concentration calculated by different models
Model name BMD BMDL AIC P-value Number concentration (#/cm3) Hill 450.6 364.2 87.88 0.5031 Linear 14339.8 9314.5 115.35 < 0.0001 Polynomial 1605.6 1130.1 102.39 0.0005 Power 14339.8 9314.5 115.35 < 0.0001 Surface area concentration (× 107 nm2/cm3) Hill 1.449 0.662 87.41 0.6348 Linear 278.125 164.574 119.21 < 0.0001 Polynomial 3.694 2.654 101.31 0.0008 Power 278.125 164.574 119.21 < 0.0001 Mass concentration (μg/m3) Hill 0.709 0.397 92.67 0.0458 Linear 119.907 70.14 119.53 < 0.0001 Polynomial 0.369 0.278 86.91 0.4914 Power 119.907 70.14 119.53 < 0.0001 Note. AIC: Akaike information coefficient. -
[1] Chernyshev VV, Zakharenko AM, Ugay SM, et al. Morphologic and chemical composition of particulate matter in motorcycle engine exhaust. Toxicol Rep, 2018; 5, 224−30. doi: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2018.01.003 [2] Costagliola MA, Murena F, Prati MV. Exhaust emissions of volatile organic compounds of powered two-wheelers: effect of cold start and vehicle speed. Contribution to greenhouse effect and tropospheric ozone formation. Sci Total Environ, 2014; 468-9, 1043−9. [3] Canagaratna MR, Onasch TB, Wood EC, et al. Evolution of vehicle exhaust particles in the atmosphere. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 2010; 60, 1192−203. doi: 10.3155/1047-3289.60.10.1192 [4] Chang CT, Chen BY. Toxicity assessment of volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in motorcycle exhaust. J Hazard Mater, 2008; 153, 1262−9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.09.091 [5] Yang HH, Lee SA, Hsieh DP, et al. PM2.5 and associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and mutagenicity emissions from motorcycles. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol, 2008; 81, 412−5. doi: 10.1007/s00128-008-9478-6 [6] Kheirbek I, Haney J, Douglas S, et al. The contribution of motor vehicle emissions to ambient fine particulate matter public health impacts in New York City: a health burden assessment. Environ Health, 2016; 15, 89. doi: 10.1186/s12940-016-0172-6 [7] Lighty JS, Veranth JM, Sarofim AF. Combustion aerosols: factors governing their size and composition and implications to human health. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 2000; 50, 1565−618, discussion 1619-22. doi: 10.1080/10473289.2000.10464197 [8] Pham CT, Kameda T, Toriba A, et al. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in particulates emitted by motorcycles. Environ Pollut, 2013; 183, 175−83. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.003 [9] Lin CW, Lu SJ. Lin KS. Test emission characteristics of motorcycles in Central Taiwan. Sci Total Environ, 2006; 368, 435−43. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.03.032 [10] Kuo ML, Jee SH, Chou MH, et al. Involvement of oxidative stress in motorcycle exhaust particle-induced DNA damage and inhibition of intercellular communication. Mutat Res, 1998; 413, 143−50. doi: 10.1016/S1383-5718(98)00020-5 [11] Lee CC, Cheng YW, Kang JJ. Motorcycle exhaust particles induce IL-8 production through NF-kappaB activation in human airway epithelial cells. J Toxicol Environ Health A, 2005; 68, 1537−55. doi: 10.1080/15287390590967496 [12] Ueng TH, Hwang WP, Chen RM, et al. Effects of motorcycle exhaust on cytochrome P-450-dependent monooxygenases and glutathione S-transferase in rat tissues. J Toxicol Environ Health A, 1998; 54, 509−27. doi: 10.1080/009841098158674 [13] Ueng TH, Wang HW, Hung CC, et al. Effects of motorcycle exhaust inhalation exposure on cytochrome P-450 2B1, antioxidant enzymes, and lipid peroxidation in rat liver and lung. J Toxicol Environ Health A, 2004; 67, 875−88. doi: 10.1080/15287390490441283 [14] Ueng TH, Hung CC, Kuo ML, et al. Induction of fibroblast growth factor-9 and interleukin-1alpha gene expression by motorcycle exhaust particulate extracts and benzo(a)pyrene in human lung adenocarcinoma cells. Toxicol Sci, 2005; 87, 483−96. [15] Shao B, Jin TY, Wu XW, et al. Application of benchmark dose (BMD) in estimating biological exposure limit (BEL) to cadmium. Biomed Environ Sci, 2007; 20, 460−4. [16] Chen X, Wang Z, Zhu G, et al. Benchmark dose estimation of cadmium reference level for hypertension in a Chinese population. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015; 39, 208−12. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2014.11.026 [17] Yu T, Zhang X, Zhong L, et al. The use of a 0.20 μm particulate matter filter decreases cytotoxicity in lung epithelial cells following air-liquid interface exposure to motorcycle exhaust. Environ Pollut, 2017; 227, 287−95. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.080 [18] Kasumba J, Hopke PK, Chalupa DC, et al. Comparison of sources of submicron particle number concentrations measured at two sites in Rochester, NY. Sci Total Environ, 2009; 407, 5071−84. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.040 [19] Järvelä M, Huvinen M, Viitanen AK, et al. Characterization of particle exposure in ferrochromium and stainless steel production. J Occup Environ Hyg, 2016; 13, 558−68. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2016.1159687 [20] Yu T, Zhang XY, Wang ZX, et al. Evaluation of the viability of BEAS-2B cells exposed to gasoline engine exhaust with different particle sizes by air-liquid interface. Chin J Ind Hyg Occup Dis, 2017; 35, 414−21. (In Chinese [21] Upadhyay S, Palmberg L. Air-liquid interface: relevant in vitro models for investigating air pollutant-induced pulmonary toxicity. Toxicol Sci, 2018; 164, 21−30. [22] Ritter D, Knebel J, Niehof M, et al. In vitro inhalation cytotoxicity testing of therapeutic nanosystems for pulmonary infection. Toxicol In Vitro, 2020; 63, 104714. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2019.104714 [23] Tatsuta M, Kan OK, Ishii Y, et al. Effects of cigarette smoke on barrier function and tight junction proteins in the bronchial epithelium: protective role of cathelicidin LL-37. Respir Res, 2019; 20, 251. doi: 10.1186/s12931-019-1226-4 [24] Han Z, Zhu Y, Cui Z, et al. MicroRNA Let-7f-1-3p attenuates smoke-induced apoptosis in bronchial and alveolar epithelial cells in vitro by targeting FOXO1. Eur J Pharmacol, 2019; 862, 172531. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2019.172531 [25] Hiemstra PS, Grootaers G, van der Does AM, et al. Human lung epithelial cell cultures for analysis of inhaled toxicants: Lessons learned and future directions. Toxicol In Vitro, 2018; 47, 137−46. doi: 10.1016/j.tiv.2017.11.005 [26] Toor A, Culibrk L, Singhera GK, et al. Transcriptomic and proteomic host response to Aspergillus fumigatus conidia in an air-liquid interface model of human bronchial epithelium. PLoS One, 2018; 13, e0209652. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209652 [27] Thorne D, Larard S, Baxter A, et al. The comparative in vitro assessment of e-cigarette and cigarette smoke aerosols using the γH2AX assay and applied dose measurements. Toxicol Lett, 2017; 265, 170−8. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.12.006 [28] Al Zallouha M, Landkocz Y, Brunet J, et al. Usefulness of toxicological validation of VOCs catalytic degradation by air-liquid interface exposure system. Environ Res, 2017; 152, 328−35. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.10.027 [29] Stoddart MJ. Cell viability assays: introduction. Methods Mol Biol, 2011; 740, 1−6. [30] Kašuba V, Milić M, Rozgaj R, et al. Effects of low doses of glyphosate on DNA damage, cell proliferation and oxidative stress in the HepG2 cell line. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2017; 24, 19267−81. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-9438-y [31] Li K, Wang Y, Zhang A, et al. miR-379 inhibits cell proliferation, invasion, and migration of vascular smooth muscle cells by targeting insulin-like factor-1. Yonsei Med J, 2017; 58, 234−40. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.1.234 [32] Xiao H, Wang J, Yan W, et al. GLUT1 regulates cell glycolysis and proliferation in prostate cancer. Prostate, 2018; 78, 86−94. doi: 10.1002/pros.23448 [33] Ke S, Cheng XY, Zhang JY, et al. Estimation of the benchmark dose of urinary cadmium as the reference level for renal dysfunction: a large sample study in five cadmium polluted areas in China. BMC Public Health, 2015; 15, 656. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2021-x [34] Kim KH, Kabir E, Kabir S. A review on the human health impact of airborne particulate matter. Environ Int, 2015; 74, 136−43. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.10.005 [35] Bai N, Khazaei M, van Eeden SF, et al. The pharmacology of particulate matter air pollution-induced cardiovascular dysfunction. Pharmacol Ther, 2007; 113, 16−29. [36] Kirrane EF, Luben TJ, Benson A, et al. A systematic review of cardiovascular responses associated with ambient black carbon and fine particulate matter. Environ Int, 2019; 127, 305−16. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.02.027 [37] Clarke AG, Robertson LA, Hamilton RS, et al. A Lagrangian model of the evolution of the particulate size distribution of vehicular emissions. Sci Total Environ, 2004; 334-335, 197−206. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.04.038 [38] Niu J, Rasmussen PE, Magee R, et al. Spatial and temporal variability of incidental nanoparticles in indoor workplaces: impact on the characterization of point source exposures. Environ Sci Process Impacts, 2015; 17, 98−109. doi: 10.1039/C4EM00478G [39] Shen F, Zheng Y, Niu M, et al. Characteristics of biological particulate matters at urban and rural sites in the North China Plain. Environ Pollut, 2019; 253, 569−77. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2019.07.033 [40] Buha A, Antonijević B, Milovanović V, et al. Polychlorinated biphenyls as oxidative stress inducers in liver of subacutely exposed rats: implication for dose-dependence toxicity and benchmark dose concept. Environ Res, 2015; 136, 309−17. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.11.005 [41] Chen S, Li D, Zhang H, et al. The development of a cell-based model for the assessment of carcinogenic potential upon long-term PM2.5 exposure. Environ Int, 2019; 131, 104943. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.104943 [42] Chepelev NL, Meek ME, Yauk CL. Application of benchmark dose modeling to protein expression data in the development and analysis of mode of action/adverse outcome pathways for testicular toxicity. J Appl Toxicol, 2014; 34, 1115−21. [43] Fournier K, Baumont E, Glorennec P, et al. Relative toxicity for indoor semi volatile organic compounds based on neuronal death. Toxicol Lett, 2017; 279, 33−42. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.07.875 [44] Kirman CR, Gargas ML, Collins JJ, et al. Screening-level risk assessment for styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN) trimer detected in soil and groundwater. J Toxicol Environ Health A, 2012; 75, 1280−97. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2012.709441 [45] Liu C, Li Y, Zhu C, et al. Benchmark dose for cadmium exposure and elevated N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase: a meta-analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2016; 23, 20528−38. doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7214-z [46] Wang Q, Hu J, Han TX, et al. Application of BMD approach to identify thresholds of cadmium-induced renal effect among 35 to 55 year-old women in two cadmium polluted counties in China. PLoS One, 2014; 9, e87817. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087817 [47] Wang H, He L, Liu B, et al. Establishment and comparison of air-liquid interface culture systems for primary and immortalized swine tracheal epithelial cells. BMC Cell Biol, 2018; 19, 10. doi: 10.1186/s12860-018-0162-3 [48] Zhang GH, Ji BQ, Li Y, et al. Benchmark doses based on abnormality of WBC or micronucleus frequency in benzene-exposed Chinese workers. J Occup Environ Med, 2016; 58, e39−44. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000000639 [49] Arts JH, Rennen MA, de Heer C. Inhaled formaldehyde: evaluation of sensory irritation in relation to carcinogenicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2006; 44, 144−60. [50] Efremenko AY, Campbell JL Jr, Dodd DE, et al. Time- and concentration-dependent genomic responses of the rat airway to inhaled nickel subsulfide. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2014; 279, 441−54. [51] Gutting BW, Rukhin A, Marchette D, et al. Dose-response modeling for inhalational anthrax in rabbits following single or multiple exposures. Risk Anal, 2016; 36, 2031−8. doi: 10.1111/risa.12564 [52] Maruyama W, Hirano S, Kobayashi T, et al. Quantitative risk analysis of particulate matter in the air: interspecies extrapolation with bioassay and mathematical models. Inhal Toxicol, 2006; 18, 1013−23. [53] Schlosser PM, Lilly PD, Conolly RB, et al. Benchmark dose risk assessment for formaldehyde using airflow modeling and a single-compartment, DNA-protein cross-link dosimetry model to estimate human equivalent doses. Risk Anal, 2003; 23, 473−87. doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00328 [54] Scully RR, Lam CW, James JT. Estimating safe human exposure levels for lunar dust using benchmark dose modeling of data from inhalation studies in rats. Inhal Toxicol, 2013; 25, 785−93. [55] Taft SC, Hines SA. Benchmark dose analysis for Bacillus anthracis inhalation exposures in the nonhuman primate. Risk Anal, 2012; 32, 1750−68. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01808.x