@article{fdi:010092623,
  title = {{A}n interlaboratory comparison to quantify oxidative potential measurement in aerosol particles : challenges and recommendations for harmonisation},
  author = {{D}ominutti, {P}. {A}. and {J}affrezo, {J}. {L}. and {M}arsal, {A}nouk and {M}hadhbi, {T}. and {E}lazzouzi, {R}. and {R}ak, {C}. and {C}avalli, {F}. and {P}utaud, {J}. {P}. and {B}ougiatioti, {A}. and {M}ihalopoulos, {N}. and {P}araskevopoulou, {D}. and {M}udway, {I}. and {N}enes, {A}. and {D}aellenbach, {K}. {R}. and {B}anach, {C}. and {C}ampbell, {S}. {J}. and {C}igánková, {H}. and {C}ontini, {D}. and {E}vans, {G}. and {G}eorgopoulou, {M}. and {G}hanem, {M}. and {G}lencross, {D}. {A}. and {G}uascito, {M}. {R}. and {H}errmann, {H}. and {I}ram, {S}. and {J}ovanovic, {M}. and {J}ovasevic-{S}tojanovic, {M}. and {K}alberer, {M}. and {K}ooter, {I}. {M}. and {P}aulson, {S}. {E}. and {P}atel, {A}. and {P}erdrix, {E}. and {P}ietrogrande, {M}. {C}. and {M}ikuska, {P}. and {S}auvain, {J}. {J}. and {S}eitanidi, {K}. and {S}hahpoury, {P}. and {S}ouza, {E}jds and {S}teimer, {S}. and {S}tevanovic, {S}. and {S}uarez, {G}. and {S}ubramanian, {P}. {S}. {G}. and {U}tinger, {B}. and van {O}s, {M}. {F}. and {V}erma, {V}. and {W}ang, {X}. and {W}eber, {R}. {J}. and {Y}ang, {Y}. {H}. and {Q}uerol, {X}. and {H}oek, {G}. and {H}arrison, {R}. {M}. and {U}zu, {G}a{\¨e}lle},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}his paper presents the findings from a collaborative interlaboratory comparison exercise designed to assess oxidative potential ({OP}) measurements conducted by 20 laboratories worldwide. {T}his study represents an innovative effort as the first exercise specifically aimed at harmonising this type of {OP} assay, setting a new benchmark in the field.{O}ver the last decade, there has been a noticeable increase in {OP} studies, with numerous research groups investigating the effects of exposure to air pollution particles through the evaluation of {OP} levels. {H}owever, the absence of standardised methods for {OP} measurements has resulted in variability in results across different groups, rendering meaningful comparisons challenging. {T}o address this issue, this study engages in an international effort to compare {OP} measurements using a simplified method (with a dithiothreitol ({DTT}) assay).{H}ere, we quantify the {OP} in liquid samples to focus on the protocol measurement itself, while future international {OP} interlaboratory comparisons ({ILC}s) should aim to assess the whole chain process, including the sample extraction. {W}e analyse the similarities and discrepancies observed in the results, identifying the critical parameters (such as the instrument used, the use of a simplified protocol, the delivery and analysis time) that could influence {OP} measurements and provide recommendations for future studies and interlaboratory comparisons even if other crucial aspects, such as sampling {PM} methods, sample storage, extraction methods and conditions, and the evaluation of other {OP} assays, still need to be standardised. {T}his collaborative approach enhances the robustness of the {OP} {DTT} assay and paves the way for future studies to build on a unified framework. {T}his pioneering work concludes that interlaboratory comparisons provide essential insights into the {OP} metric and are crucial to move toward the harmonisation of {OP} measurements.},
  keywords = {},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{A}tmospheric {M}easurement {T}echniques},
  volume = {18},
  numero = {1},
  pages = {177--195},
  ISSN = {1867-1381},
  year = {2025},
  DOI = {10.5194/amt-18-177-2025},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010092623},
}