ELISA Applied on Survey and Remediation of Dioxin Contaminated Site - A Case Study in Southern Taiwan

Abstract:

Once the pollution was found in a preliminary survey, the related information about the pollution site should be collected to confirm polluted range and quantity. Appropriate remediation technology is implemented until the pollution is completely remove. The more precise survey could lower the risk of uncertainty and improve the site remediation process. However, numerous of sampling and analysis should be done during whole process, including pollution survey, evaluation of remediation effectiveness, and verification after remediation. Time and budget needed for the remediation will be huge loads because of the widely range of site, and characteristics of the complicated pollutants, which may affect the remediation process. This study utilities Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbant Assay (ELISA) as the screening tool for dioxin pollutants by means of immuno-biological assay, which can complete the detailed investigation quickly and effectively, and also the pollution reclamation in a short time with the independent quality control. An appropriate screening method plays an important role for a successful and effective remediation.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 788)
• Pages: 444-449
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.788.444
• Online since: September 2013
• Authors: Jun Ying Huang, Cheng Haw Lee, Kao Hung Lin
• Keywords: Dioxin, Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbant Assay (ELISA), Screening Test, Survey

References

[1] H Fiedler, O Hutzinger, and CW Timms, Dioxins: Sources of Environmental Load and Human Exposure, Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, vol. 29, 1990, pp.157-234.

DOI: 10.1080/02772249009357628

[2] JP Vanden Heuvel, and George Lucier, Environmental Toxicology of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans, Environmental health perspectives, vol. 100, 1993, p.189.

DOI: 10.1289/ehp.93100189

[3] IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), Iarc Monographs Programme on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Polychlorinated-P-Dibenzodioxins and Polychlorinated Furans, 1997, pp.1-631.

[4] James L. Pirkle, William H. Wolfe, Donald G. Patterson, Larry L. Needham, Joel E. Michalek, Judson C. Miner, Michael R. Peterson, and Donald L. Phillips, Estimates of the Half‐Life of 2, 3, 7, 8‐Tetrachlorodibenzo‐P‐Dioxin in Vietnam Veterans of Operation Ranch Hand, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, vol. 27, 1989, pp.165-71.

DOI: 10.1080/15287398909531288

[5] Stephen H Safe, Development Validation and Problems with the Toxic Equivalency Factor Approach for Risk Assessment of Dioxins and Related Compounds, Journal of animal science, vol. 76, 1998, pp.134-41.

DOI: 10.2527/1998.761134x

[6] Martin Van den Berg, Linda Birnbaum, AT Bosveld, Björn Brunström, Philip Cook, Mark Feeley, John P Giesy, Annika Hanberg, Ryuichi Hasegawa, and Sean W Kennedy, Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Humans and Wildlife, Environmental health perspectives, vol. 106, 1998, p.775.

DOI: 10.1289/ehp.98106775