Analysis of dioxins in contaminated soils with the CALUX and CAFLUX bioassays, an immunoassay, and gas chromatography/high‐resolution mass spectrometry

Abstract

The chemically activated luciferase expression assay, the chemically activated fluorescence expression assay, and the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) are all bioanalytical methods that have been used for the detection and quantification of polychlorinated dibenzo-pdioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs). However, no comparisons of the results obtained by these three methods have been published analyzing identical replicates of purified sample extracts. Therefore, we have evaluated the performance of each of these methods for analyzing PCDD/Fs in aliquots of extracts from aged-contaminated soil samples and compared the results with those obtained by gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (GC/ HRMS). The quantitative performance was assessed and the effects of sample purification and data interpretation on the quality of the bioassay results were investigated. Results from the bioanalytical techniques were, in principle, not significantly different from each other or from the GC/HRMS data (p = 0.05). Furthermore, properly used, all of the bioanalytical techniques examined were found to be sufficiently sensitive, selective, and accurate to be used in connection with soil remediation activities when aiming at the remediation goal recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (i.e., < 1,000 pg toxic equivalency/g). However, a site-specific correction factor should be applied with the use of the ELISA to account for differences between the toxic equivalency factors and the ELISA cross-reactivities of the various PCDD/F congeners, which otherwise might significantly underestimate the PCDD/F content.

Combinatorial Biochemical and Chemical Analyses of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Agricultural Soils from Chongming Island, Shanghai, China

“…Studies in other areas have successfully showed that EIA analysis can potentially be used as a complementary screening tool to avoid some of the costs involved and the time required analyzing samples using HRGC/HRMS. Studies examining the ability of EIA analysis to screen for PCDD/F in soils, sediments, and fish are especially promising (Nording et al 2007;Tsutsumi et al 2008;Emon et al 2008). Our EIA results indicate that all of the soil samples contained PCDD/F concentrations lower than the regional screening value of 19.0 g EIA-TEQ/g, which was determined in a previous study (Li et al 2009).…”

Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor-Mediated Induction of EBV Reactivation as a Risk Factor for Sjögren’s Syndrome

“…The conventional method, high-resolution chromatography/mass spectrometry, is time-consuming, costly, and requires large sample volumes. A previous comparison of results obtained using the two assays revealed few differences (51). For our assessments, involving limited volumes of saliva, the CALUX bioassay was a useful tool for evaluating dioxins.…”

Direct Assessment of Cumulative Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Agonist Activity in Sera from Experimentally Exposed Mice and Environmentally Exposed Humans

“…These assays have been shown to produce similar results, with the advantage that the EGFP provides a nondestructive readout (Nagy et al 2002; Nording et al 2007; Peters et al 2006). We calculated AhR agonist activity values, presented as picograms TCDD equivalents (eq) per milliliter, by interpolation from TCDD standard curves.…”