Contribution of chlorination to the mutagenic activity of drinking water extracts in Salmonella and Chinese hamster ovary cells.

Abstract

The production of chlorinated by-products through chlorine disinfection of drinking water has been well documented. Natural organic precursors for these chemicals include fulvic and humic acids, the chlorination of which leads to the production of mutagenic compounds. Conmparisons of extracts of raw versus treated waters have confirmed that clorination during water treatment produces inutagenic activity in the Salmonella (Ames) test. Present work on XAD-2 extracts of raw and chlorinated water from six municipalities in the Great Lakes region of Canada has involved a battery of mutagenicity assays for various genetic endpoints: the Salmonella test, the sister-chromatid exchange (SCE), and the micronucleus (MN) induction in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. All extracts of treated (chlorinated), but none of untreated, water were mutagenic in the Salmonella assay. On the other hand, extracts of both treated and untreated water samples showed activity in the SCE and MN assays, but no consistent pattern of response with regard to treatment (chlorination) was evident. These data show that chlorination contributes mutagens to drinking water and suggest that mammalian in vitro assays may be more sensitive for detecting mutagenicity in water samples than the Salmonella test.

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of a tincture derived from the buds of Pinus sylvestris L. (pine tincture) for use in all animal species (FEFANA abl)

“…The available genotoxicity studies have been reviewed in the MAK Value Documentation for abietic acid (2013) reporting negative results for the induction of gene mutations in bacteria (strains TA98, TA100, TA1535 and TA1548) by abietic acid (purity not specified), dehydroabietic acid (95%), levopimaric acid (98%), 7‐oxodehydroabietic acid (95%), pimaric acid (85%), isopimaric acid (98%) and sandaracopimaric acid (90%), while neoabietic acid (purity 95%) showed a mutagenic activity in the absence and presence of metabolic activation in the strains TA98, TA100, TA1535 and TA1548, but not TA1537 (Douglas et al., 1980 ; Nestmann et al., 1979 , as referenced in MAK Value Documentation, 2013 ). Resin acids, including neoabietic acid, induced mitotic gene conversion in Saccharomyces cerevisiae D7.…”

Assessment of mutagenic activity in drinking water from São Paulo City, Brazil

“…Direct-acting mutagenic activity of trihalomethanes and other chlorinated and nonchlorinated organic products, formed as a result of aqueous chlorination of humic materials, has been reported by some authors (Bull, 1981;Meier et al, 1983;Meier, 1988). Furthermore, studies performed in United States, Canada, Europe, and South Africa have documented that the organic fraction of chlorinated drinking water derived from surface water has shown mutagenic activity in Ames SalrnonelZalmammalian-microsome test and in mammalian culture cells (Athanasiou and Kyrtopoulos, 1983;Cheh et al, 1980;De Marini et al, 1982;Douglas et al, 1986;Grabow et al, 1981;Kool and Kreijl, 1984;Maruoka and Yamanaka, 1980;Meier et al, 1983;Meier, 1988;Nestmann et al, 1979;Schwartz et al, 1979;Williams et al, 1982;Vartiainen and Liimatainen, 1986).…”

A mutagenicity investigation of sediment from İzmir Inner Bay using Ames genotoxicity assay

“…In most cases, mutagenic potential of pure chemicals has been studied. Ames's assay, however, has also been used to analyze complex mixtures extracted from a variety of sources, such as effluents from pulp mills (Douglas et al,1980;Kamra, et al, 1983), petroleum refineries (Metcalfe,1985), and wastes from the wood-preserving industry (Donnelly, 1987). Several studies have been carried out in order to detect mutagenicity of sediment samples using the Salmonella Mutagenicity Assay (Ames's Assay) (Hollert et al,1999;Vargas et al, 2001;Boyacıoğlu et al, 2008;Çakmak and Demir, 2018).…”