• TTA Journal
• /
• s.35
• /
• pp.132-145
• /
• 1994

• TTA Journal
• /
• s.36
• /
• pp.138-152
• /
• 1994

• TTA REPORT
• /
• v.4 no.6 s.16
• /
• pp.55-60
• /
• 1992

• TTA Journal
• /
• s.39
• /
• pp.103-108
• /
• 1995

• TTA Journal
• /
• s.37
• /
• pp.134-137
• /
• 1995

• TTA REPORT
• /
• v.5 no.2 s.18
• /
• pp.58-65
• /
• 1993

• TTA Journal
• /
• s.38
• /
• pp.110-113
• /
• 1995

• TTA REPORT
• /
• v.4 no.2 s.12
• /
• pp.28-33
• /
• 1992

• Applied Biological Chemistry
• /
• v.40 no.6
• /
• pp.546-550
• /
• 1997

This study was carried out to elucidate the biological characteristics of Rhizobia in biological nitrogen fixation system. The results of investigation were as follows; Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis pattern of root lectin in the presence of SDS was ascertained electrophoretically and chromatographically. The purified root lectin formed immunoprecipitin line with anti lectin rabbit IgG. Root lectin, seed lectin and root exudate were tested for chemotactic ability. Chemotactic responses of RCR3407 and KCTC2422 toward root exudate were stronger than those of seed lectin and root lectin, but there didn't occur chemotactic responses of LPN100, not bound with seed lectin and that of LPN101, bound with seed lectin toward root exudate, root lectin and seed lectin. RCR3407, KCTC2422 and LPN-101, which nodulated with soybean, interacted with soybean lectin, but not with pea lectin. LPN-100, which was not nodulated with soybean, didn't interact with soybean lectin.

• Journal of Environmental Health Sciences
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.9-17
• /
• 2019

Objectives: This study examined the safety of tattoo ink by analyzing the phenol contents in tattoo inks and its risk assessment of selected phenol. Methods: A sample of 30 tattoo inks was purchased, the phenol contents were analyzed, and a risk assessment on dermal exposure from tattooing was carried out. Hazard identification was collected from toxicity data on systemic effects caused by dermal exposure to phenol, and the most sensitive toxicity value was adopted. Exposure assessment ($Exposure_{phenol}$) was calculated by applying phenol contents and standard exposure factors, while dose-response assessment was based on the collected toxicity data and skin absorption rate of phenol, assessment factors (AFs) for derived no-effect level ($DNEL_{demal}$). In addition, the risk characterization was calculated by comparing the risk characterization ratio (RCR) with $Exposure_{phenol}$ and $DNEL_{dermal}$ Results: The phenol concentration in the 30 products was from 1.4 to $649.1{\mu}g/g$. The toxicity value for systemic effects of phenol was adopted at 107 mg/kg. $Exposure_{phenol}$ in tattooing was from 0.000087 to 0.040442 mg/kg. $DNEL_{dermal}$ was calculated at 0.0072 mg/kg (=toxicity value 107 mg/kg ${\div}$ AFs 650 ${\times}$ skin absorption rate 4.4%). Thirteen out of 30 products showed an RCR between 1.02 and 5.62. The RCR of all red inks was above 1. Conclusions: Phenol was detected in all of the 30 tattoo inks, and the RCR of 13 products above 1 indicates a high level of risk concern, making it necessary to prepare safety management standards for phenol in tattoo inks.