ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Comparative Toxicity of Fly Ash: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oxidative damage and DNA repair in desiccated recalcitrant embryonic axes of Acer pseudoplatanus L.BMC plant biology · 2022Article
- Novel Foaming-Agent Free Insulating Geopolymer Based on Industrial Fly Ash and Rice Husk.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Influence of Wood Fly Ash on Concrete Properties through Filling Effect Mechanism.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Influence of Asphalt Emulsion Inclusion on Fly Ash/Hydrated Lime Alkali-Activated Material.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Fly Ash as an Eco-Friendly Filler for Rigid Polyurethane Foams Modification.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Fly ash produced during coal combustion is one of the major sources of air and water pollution, but the data on the impact of micrometer-size fly ash particles on human cells is still incomplete. Fly ash samples were collected from several electric power stations in the United States (Rockdale, TX; Dolet Hill, Mansfield, LA; Rockport, IN; Muskogee, OK) and from a metallurgic plant located in the Russian Federation (Chelyabinsk Electro-Metallurgical Works OJSC). The particles were characterized using dynamic light scattering, atomic force, and hyperspectral microscopy. According to chemical composition, the fly ash studied was ferro-alumino-silicate mineral containing substantial quantities of Ca, Mg, and a negligible concentration of K, Na, Mn, and Sr. The toxicity of the fly ash microparticles was assessed in vitro using HeLa cells (human cervical cancer cells) and Jurkat cells (immortalized human T lymphocytes). Incubation of cells with different concentrations of fly ash resulted in a dose-dependent decrease in cell viability for all fly ash variants. The most prominent cytotoxic effect in HeLa cells was produced by the ash particles from Rockdale, while the least was produced by the fly ash from Chelyabinsk. In Jurkat cells, the lowest toxicity was observed for fly ash collected from Rockport, Dolet Hill and Muscogee plants. The fly ash from Rockdale and Chelyabinsk induced DNA damage in HeLa cells, as revealed by the single cell electrophoresis, and disrupted the normal nuclear morphology. The interaction of fly ash microparticles of different origins with cells was visualized using dark-field microscopy and hyperspectral imaging. The size of ash particles appeared to be an important determinant of their toxicity, and the smallest fly ash particles from Chelyabinsk turned out to be the most cytotoxic to Jukart cells and the most genotoxic to HeLa cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.