Effect-based assessment of persistent organic pollutant and pesticide dumpsite using mammalian CALUX reporter cell lines

Abstract

A combined chemical and biological analysis of samples from a major obsolete pesticide and persistent organic pollutant (POP) dumpsite in Northern Tajikistan was carried out. The chemical analytical screening focused on a range of prioritized compounds and compounds known to be present locally. Since chemical analytics does not allow measurements of hazards in complex mixtures, we tested the use of a novel effect-based approach using a panel of quantitative high-throughput CALUX reporter assays measuring distinct biological effects relevant in hazard assessment. Assays were included for assessing effects related to estrogen, androgen, and progestin signaling, aryl hydrocarbon receptor-mediated signaling, AP1 signaling, genotoxicity, oxidative stress, chemical hypoxia, and ER stress. With this panel of assays, we first quantified the biological activities of the individual chemicals measured in chemical analytics. Next, we calculated the expected sum activity by these chemicals in the samples of the pesticide dump site and compared the results with the measured CALUX bioactivity of the total extracts of these samples. The results showed that particularly endocrine disruption-related effects were common among the samples. This was consistent with the toxicological profiles of the individual chemicals that dominated these samples. However, large discrepancies between chemical and biological analysis were found in a sample from a burn place present in this site, with biological activities that could not be explained by chemical analysis. This is likely to be caused by toxic combustion products or by spills of compounds that were not targeted in the chemical analysis.

Factors Affecting Sampling Strategies for Design of an Effects‐Directed Analysis for Endocrine‐Active Chemicals

“…However, in 3 out of the 4 studies that performed the bioassays in 384-well plates (Table 1), EDA volumes were among some of the highest volumes assessed (approximately 20-36 L water equivalents; Hashmi et al 2018Hashmi et al , 2020Zwart et al 2018). The LucTA cell bioassays have been successfully validated in 384-well plates, whereas the yeast cell and zebrafish bioassays have not been validated in the 384-well plate format (Pieterse et al 2015;Brennan and Tillitt 2018). Furthermore, the protocol for the yeast assays requires double the volume of treatment/well than the LucTA cell bioassays in the 96-well plate format (although the DF of extract/fraction/chemical in medium in all assays is still DF = 100, as represented in Equation 1; Rogers and Denison 2000;Wilson et al 2002;Chatterjee et al 2008;Van der Linden et al 2008;Biotech 2016).…”

Massive PCDD/F contamination at the Khimprom organochlorine plant in Ufa—a review and recommendations for future management

“…This has the potential to increase future exposure to POPs and other hazardous chemicals in landfills and dumpsites, and this risk needs to be addressed (Babayemi et al 2014;UNEP 2013a, b;Weber et al 2011a, b). There are a number of examples of pesticides and other potentially useful chemicals being recovered from unsecured landfills/dumps containing pesticide stockpiles or residues for sale or use (Pieterse et al 2015). A specific example is the mining of lime-rich wastes from an industrial landfill at an organochlorine factory in Brazil which resulted in serious contamination of the European feed chain, including milk and meat, with PCDD/Fs arising from the recovered wastes being used as feed additives (Torres et al 2013b).…”

Assessment of pesticides in surface water samples from Swedish agricultural areas by integrated bioanalysis and chemical analysis

“…The use of in vitro bioassays for environmental monitoring is a rapidly expanding field of research [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. While the bioassays cannot discriminate between the toxic effects of two or more compounds that are present in the same sample, the great strength with bioassays is that they show the total toxicity exerted by a sampleregardless whether the toxicity is caused by a known anthropogenic compound, an unknown anthropogenic compound, a naturally occurring compound, or a combination of these [6,26,27].…”