» Articles » PMID: 34014964

Solid-phase Excitation-emission Matrix Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis of Combustion Aerosols

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2021 May 20
PMID 34014964
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Exposure to ultrafine combustion aerosols such as particulate matter (PM) from residential woodburning, forest fires, cigarette smoke, and traffic emission have been linked to adverse health outcomes. Excitation-emission matrix (EEM) spectroscopy presents a sensitive and cost-effective alternative for analysis of PM organic fraction. However, as with other analytical chemistry methods, the miniaturization is hindered by a solvent extraction step and a need for benchtop instrumentation. We present a methodology for collecting and in-situ analysis of airborne nanoparticles that eliminates labor-intensive sample preparation and miniaturizes the detection platform. Nanoparticles are electrostatically collected onto a transparent substrate coated with solid-phase (SP) solvent-polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS). The PM organic fraction is extracted into PDMS and analyzed in-situ, thus avoiding liquid-phase extraction. In the SP-EEM analysis, we evaluated external and internal excitation schemes. Internal excitation shows the lowest scattering interference but leads to signal masking from PDMS fluorescence for λ<250nm. The external excitation EEM spectra are dependent on the excitation light incident angle; ranges of 30-40° and 55-65° show the best results. SP-EEM spectra of woodsmoke and cigarette smoke samples are in good agreement with the EEM spectra of liquid-phase extracts. The SP-EEM technique can be used to develop wearable sensors for exposure assessments and environmental monitoring.

Citing Articles

Solid-phase excitation-emission matrix spectroscopy for chemical analysis of combustion aerosols.

Mahamuni G, He J, Rutherford J, Ockerman B, Majumdar A, Seto E PLoS One. 2021; 16(5):e0251664.

PMID: 34014964 PMC: 8136721. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251664.

References
1.
Chen Q, Ikemori F, Mochida M . Light Absorption and Excitation-Emission Fluorescence of Urban Organic Aerosol Components and Their Relationship to Chemical Structure. Environ Sci Technol. 2016; 50(20):10859-10868. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02541. View

2.
Rutherford J, Dawson-Elli N, Manicone A, Korshin G, Novosselov I, Seto E . Excitation Emission Matrix Fluorescence Spectroscopy for Combustion Generated Particulate Matter Source Identification. Atmos Environ (1994). 2020; 220. PMC: 7111209. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117065. View

3.
Samburova V, Zielinska B, Khlystov A . Do 16 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Represent PAH Air Toxicity?. Toxics. 2017; 5(3). PMC: 5634701. DOI: 10.3390/toxics5030017. View

4.
Bonetta S, Gianotti V, Bonetta S, Gosetti F, Oddone M, Gennaro M . DNA damage in A549 cells exposed to different extracts of PM(2.5) from industrial, urban and highway sites. Chemosphere. 2009; 77(7):1030-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.07.076. View

5.
Lin P, Fleming L, Nizkorodov S, Laskin J, Laskin A . Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of Atmospheric Brown Carbon by High Resolution Mass Spectrometry with Electrospray and Atmospheric Pressure Photoionization. Anal Chem. 2018; 90(21):12493-12502. DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b02177. View