ReviewMutagens in surface waters: a review
Introduction
Surface waters, such as rivers, lakes and seas, receive large quantities of waste water from industrial, agricultural, and domestic sources, including municipal sewage treatment plants. These surface waters, which contain many unknown compounds, are used as a source of drinking water, as well as for agricultural, recreational and religious activities around the world. Consequently, water pollution can be a serious public health and aquatic ecosystem problem [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The US EPA's Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) for 2001 reported that more than 100,000 metric tonnes of chemicals are released into surface waters and approximately 762,000 metric tonnes of chemicals are emitted into the atmosphere annually by industrial use in the United States as shown in Table 1 [7]. This data show that large quantities of toxic materials are routinely released directly or indirectly (via airborne emission) into aquatic systems after industrial usage. Table 1 also notes that more than fifty percent of annual water discharges to aquatic systems come from the chemical, metal smelting and processing, and petroleum refining industries. Moreover, 800 metric tonnes of chemicals released into surface waters and 60,000 metric tonnes of chemicals emitted into the atmosphere are carcinogens ranked as 1, 2A or 2B under the IARC classification system, and most of them are known to have mutagenic and/or clastogenic activity as shown in Table 2 [8], [9], [10]. These carcinogens are categorized into two types: persistent compounds, which include metals and polycyclic aromatic compounds; and volatile compounds. Most chemicals emitted into the atmosphere eventually reach the ground or surface waters through deposition, so these TRI results show that surface waters are readily contaminated with a variety of known mutagenic or genotoxic carcinogens.
Mutagenic/genotoxic compounds, including carcinogens, whether known or unknown, become the components of complex environmental mixtures that can have adverse health effects on humans and indigenous biota [11]. We know quite a lot about identified contaminants, and it is relatively easy to study the sources and fate of those contaminants that have been identified as priorities for concern and control. Post-emission fate and behavior of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in complex mixtures including surface waters have widely investigated throughout the world, because PAHs are identified contaminants and are relatively easy to study the sources and fate [12]. However, few studies have investigated the identification of novel putative mutagens and the quantification of their response concentrations.
On the other hand, the use of short-term bioassays, which can detect a wide range of chemical substances that may produce genetic damage, has permitted the quantification of mutagenic hazard without a priori information about identity or physical–chemical property. In studies of the mutagenicity/genotoxicity of surface water and aquatic biota conducted in the late 1970s, Parry et al. [13] reported on mutagenicity studies on the tissue of the mussel Mytilus edulis in the marine environment, and Pelon et al. [14] reported on the mutagenicity/genotoxicity of Mississippi River water samples by the Salmonella assay developed by Ames et al. [15]. Cytogenic damage in fish exposed to the industrially contaminated Rhine River were also observed [16], [17]. Since 1980, many researchers have assessed mutagenicity/genotoxicity of surface waters using a variety of bioassays and analytical methods from the standpoint of determining the potential contribution to the mutagenic hazards of treated drinking water and potential ecological hazard. Collectively, mutagenicity evaluations of surface water provide an indication of potential hazard in the absence of priority knowledge about the identification or physical/chemical properties of the putative toxicants. The Salmonella mutagenicity assay in particular has been widely used to detect mutagenic activity in complex environmental mixtures such as surface waters, especially river waters.
In the early 1990s, Stahl [18], De Flora et al. [19] and Houk [1] reviewed the genotoxic and/or carcinogenic hazards of natural waters, the marine environment, and industrial wastes and effluents. Houk [1] and Stahl [18] demonstrated that genotoxic organic compounds can enter surface waters from a wide range of industrial and municipal sources by summarizing their genotoxic data performed by short-term genetic bioassays on literature. They also stressed the importance of bioassays to detect mutagenicity/genotoxicity arising from the ubiquity of genotoxic compounds in the environment and the necessity of the identification of the sources of contaminants. White and Rasmussen [4] noted that volumetric emissions from municipal wastewater treatment plants in large urban centers often exceed 109 l per day. As a result, genotoxic loadings from municipal wastewater treatment facilities are often far greater than those of industrial facilities, and there is a strong relationship between a measure of human activity (i.e., population) and surface water genotoxicity. The work of Houk [1] and White et al. [3], [4], [5], [6] implicated a wide range of industries in the release of complex mutagenic mixtures for which the identity of the putative mutagens is not known. On the other hand, some researchers have reported that conventional wastewater purification processes do not effectively remove many chemical contaminants, and treatment may actually increase the mutagenicity/genotoxicity of waste waters [2], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Other studies show a sharp rise in the mutagenicity/genotoxicity of water samples collected at sites downstream from wastewater treatment plants [24], [25]. Consequently, the increasing use of contaminated surface waters and an increase in the magnitude of the contamination pose a serious problem for the health and welfare of humans and indigenous aquatic biota. Thus, appropriate bioassay have been needed for evaluation of surface waters on potential hazard to human and the water environment.
The purpose of this review is to summarize the state of the current literature on mutagenicity/genotoxicity data for surface waters and to lead the most profitable directions for future research in order to control and manage effectively our water environment. In this review, we will focus on a synopsis of the mutagenicity/genotoxicity assay data in surface waters in the scientific literature published since 1990. Subheadings include a description of sample concentration methods, mutagenic/genotoxic bioassay data, and suspected or identified mutagens in surface waters. In most cases, surface waters have been administered in their crude extracts to these biological test system. Fig. 1 illustrates a breakdown of the collected surface water mutagenicity/genotoxicity assays. Results from 178 published mutagenicity/genotoxicity assays of surface waters were obtained from 128 publications. Published mutagenicity/genotoxicity assessments were divided into two major categories: bacterial assays, including the Salmonella mutagenicity test, and the SOS Chromotest and Salmonella umu-test; and aquatic organism and plant assays, including the micronucleus assay, 32P-postlabelling, the comet assay and the alkaline unwinding assay. The 32P-postlabeling assay, DNA strand breaks and the micronucleus test are unique in that they can be utilized in the laboratory setting, or they can be taken to the site for in situ monitoring using fishes or plants that inhabit regions contaminated by industrial and municipal wastewater. Genotoxic parameters (e.g. hepatic DNA adducts) are currently the most valuable biomarkers for environmental risk assessment and there are many reports on the studies linking the DNA damage to subsequent molecular, cellular and tissue-level alteration of aquatic organisms. In this paper, we intended to review the studies in which bioassays with DNA alterations, e.g. mutagenicity, DNA damaging activity and chromosome aberration, as their endpoints were used to evaluate contamination of surface water with genotoxic chemicals. The studies on the tumor incidence or the incidence of idiopathic lesions, including oncogene activation, link to mutagens exposure in aquatic organisms are not cited.
Section snippets
Sample concentration of surface waters for mutagenicity/genotoxicity assays
Mutagenicity/genotoxicity data of surface waters performed using the bacterial assays are summarized in Table 3. There are many varieties of monitoring methods combined with mutagenicity/genotoxicity tests and selective extraction methodologies for identifying the possible classes of mutagenic/genotoxic organic contaminants in surface waters. A discussion of different extraction/concentration methods has been presented in detail by Houk [1] and Stahl [18]. We describe here briefly the sample
Mutagenic features of surface waters with Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100
There are many assays for detecting the mutagenicty/genotoxicity of surface waters, but the utilization of bioassays with bacteria has proven to be very effective for monitoring because these assays are sensitive, inexpensive, reliable, and can be performed in a short period of time with relatively low cost. Among the microbial bioassays, the Salmonella mutagenicity test has been the most widely used for detecting mutagenicity/genotoxicity in surface waters. The different responses of the
Suspected or identified mutagens in surface waters
Numerous chemicals are released directly into surface waters from industrial, domestic and agricultural sources, or following treatment. Surface runoff and atmospheric deposition also contribute to aquatic pollution. These xenobiotic contaminants are generally present in complex mixtures, and many genotoxic chemicals have been detected. Several heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, nickel and lead, are known to be genotoxic in vitro [185] and in vivo [186]. Twenty-five surface
Mutagenic/genotoxic bioassay data on surface waters
Thousands of synthetic chemical compounds are currently registered for use in industry, commerce, agriculture and the home, and thousands of tonnes of these are produced annually in the world. Portions of these chemicals are released either deliberately or unintentionally into the atmosphere, land, rivers, lakes and seas, and numerous xenobiotics are ultimately found in the surface waters and sediments. It has been estimated that there are approximately 80,000 chemicals in commerce, and the
Conclusion
Mutagenicity/genotoxicity test of complex mixtures such as surface waters using variety of bioassays demonstrates that these environmental mixtures contain many unidentified and unregulated toxicants which may have carcinogenicity and a risk of unknown magnitude. It can be concluded that the analysis of surface waters proved to be an essential stage of the study to identify areas potentially contaminated by genotoxic compounds from the different sources. In literatures analyzed, some rivers in
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Paul A. White of Health Canada, Ottawa for inviting this review and Virgina Houk of US EPA in Research Triangle Park, NC for her revision of the English.
References (205)
The genotoxicity of industrial wastes and effluents—a review
Mutat. Res.
(1992)- et al.
Genotoxicity of industrial waste and effluents
Mutat. Res.
(1998) - et al.
The genotoxic hazards of domestic wastes in surface waters
Mutat. Res.
(1998) - et al.
Genetic toxicology data in the evaluation of potential human environmental carcinogens
Mutat. Res.
(1999) - et al.
Genotoxicity risk assessment: a proposed classification strategy
Mutat. Res.
(2002) The genotoxicity of priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in complex mixtures
Mutat. Res.
(2002)- et al.
Cytogenetic changes in fish exposed to water of the river Rhine
Sci. Total Environ.
(1978) - et al.
Induction of sister-chromatid exchanges in fish exposed to Rhine water
Mutat. Res.
(1980) The genetic toxicology of organic compounds in natural waters and wastewaters
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.
(1991)- et al.
Genotoxic, carcinogenic, and teratogenic hazards in the marine environment, with special reference to the Mediterranean Sea
Mutat. Res.
(1991)
Genotoxic activity of ether insoluble organic compounds in raw and treated water extracts
Chemosphere
A microplate version of the SOS/umu-test for rapid detection of genotoxins and genotoxic potentials of environmental samples
Mutat. Res.
Toxicological and chemical characterization of organic micropollutants in River Po waters (Italy)
Water Res.
Monitoring response of XAD-concentrated water in the Rhine delta: a major part of the toxic compounds remains unidentified
Water Res.
Mutagenicity and toxicity of water extracts from the Sora River area
Mutat. Res.
Ecotoxicological studies using modified Ames bioassay
Water Sci. Technol.
Genotoxicity of industrial effluents, river waters, and their fractions using the Ames test and in vitro cytogenetic assay
Toxicol. Lett.
Genotoxicity assessment of suspended particulate matter in the Elbe river: comparison of Salmonella microsome test, arabinose resistance test, and umu-test
Mutat. Res.
Mutagenicity of extracts of lake drinking water treated with different disinfectants in bacterial and plant tests
Water Res.
Mutagenic activity of lake water samples used as drinking water resources in Northern Italy
Water Res.
Identification of mutagenic heterocyclic amines (IQ, Trp-P-1 and AαC) in the water of the Danube River
Mutat. Res.
The cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of surface water and wastewater effluents as determined by bioluminescence, umu-assays and selected biomarkers
Chemosphere
Comparison of the Ames test and a newly developed assay for detection of mutagenic pollution of marine environments
Mutat. Res.
Mutagenicity of adsorbates to a copper-phthalocyanine derivative recovered from municipal river water
Mutat. Res.
Identification of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in mutagenic adsorbates to a copper-phthalocyanine derivative recovered from municipal river water
Mutat. Res.
Mutagenicities of Bangkok and Tokyo river waters
Mutat. Res.
Mutagenic activity of the ganges water with special reference to the pesticide pollution in the river between Kachla to Kannauj (U.P.), India
Mutat. Res.
Genotoxicity of the Ganges water at Narora (U.P.), India
Mutat. Res.
Genotoxic activity of 1-nitropyrene in water from the Yodo River, Japan
Sci. Tot. Environ.
Evaluation of blue-chitin column, blue-rayon hanging, and XAD-resin column techniques for concentrating mutagens from two Japanese rivers
Mutat. Res.
Quantification of mutagenic/carcinogenic heterocyclic amines, MeIQx, Trp-P-1, Trp-P-2 and PhIP, contributing highly to genotoxicity of river water
Mutat. Res.
Identification of a carcinogenic heterocyclic amine in river water
Water Res.
Genotoxicity of surface water samples from Meiliang Bay, Taihu Lake, Eastern China
Chemosphere
Identification of 2-[2-(acetylamino)-4-amino-5-methoxyphenyl]-5-amino-7-bromo-4-chloro-2H-benzotriazole (PBTA-4) as a potent mutagen in river water in Kyoto and Aichi prefectures, Japan
Mutat. Res.
Synthesis of 2-phenylbenzotriazole-type mutagens, PBTA-5 and PBTA-6, and their detection in river water from Japan
Mutat. Res.
Toxicological profile of pollutants in surface water from an area in Taihu Lake, Yangtze Delta
Toxicology
Seasonal fluctuation of the mutagenicity of river water in Fukui, Japan, and the contribution of 2-phenylbenzotriazole-type mutagens
Mutat. Res.
The Salmonella mutagenicity of industrial, surface and ground water samples of Aligarh region of India
Mutat. Res.
Mutatox test: a new test for monitoring environmental genotoxic agents
Environ. Pollut.
Genotoxicity in water and sediment extracts from the St Lawrence River system, using the SOS Chromotest
Water Res.
Mutagenic characteristics of river waters flowing through large metropolitan areas in North America
Mutat. Res.
Mutagenic activity detected by the Ames test in river water under the influence of petrochemical industries
Mutat. Res.
Use of two short-term tests to evaluate the genotoxicity of river water treated with different concentration/extraction procedures
Mutat. Res.
Water mutagenicity and toxicology in Rio Tercero (Cordoba, Argentina)
Water Res.
The Salmonella mutagenicity assay in a surface water quality monitoring program based on a 20-year survey
Mutat. Res.
Genotoxicity assessment in aquatic environments under the influence of heavy metals and organic contaminants
Mutat. Res.
Comparison of the mutagenic activity of XAD4 and blue rayon extracts of surface water and related drinking water samples
Mutat. Res.
Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test
Mutat. Res.
The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay
Mutat. Res.
Comparing the presence, potency, and potential hazard of genotoxins extracted from a broad range of industrial effluents
Environ. Mol. Mutagen.
Cited by (435)
Genotoxicity of surface waters in Brazil
2023, Mutation Research - Genetic Toxicology and Environmental MutagenesisRecent developments in the utilization of modified graphene oxide to adsorb dyes from water: A review
2023, Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry