Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In Vitro Genotoxicity Testing: Significance and Use in Environmental Monitoring

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
In vitro Environmental Toxicology - Concepts, Application and Assessment

Part of the book series: Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology ((ABE,volume 157))

Abstract

There is ongoing concern about the consequences of mutations in humans and biota arising from environmental exposures to industrial and other chemicals. Genetic toxicity tests have been used to analyze chemicals, foods, drugs, and environmental matrices such as air, water, soil, and wastewaters. This is because the mutagenicity of a substance is highly correlated with its carcinogenicity. However, no less important are the germ cell mutations, because the adverse outcome is related not only to an individual but also to population levels. For environmental analysis the most common choices are in vitro assays, and among them the most widely used is the Ames test (Salmonella/microsome assay). There are several protocols and methodological approaches to be applied when environmental samples are tested and these are discussed in this chapter, along with the meaning and relevance of the obtained responses. Two case studies illustrate the utility of in vitro mutagenicity tests such as the Ames test. It is clear that, although it is not possible to use the outcome of the test directly in risk assessment, the application of the assays provides a great opportunity to monitor the exposure of humans and biota to mutagenic substances for the purpose of reducing or quantifying that exposure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The terms mutagenicity, genetic toxicity, and genotoxicity are often used interchangeably. Genetic toxicity and genotoxicity generally refer to any damage or effect on the cell's DNA, chromosomes, or replication machinery, regardless of the outcome to the cell. In contrast, mutagenicity refers only to specific base-pair changes, additions, or deletions at the DNA level, and can include structural chromosome damage, which is potentially heritable.

References

  1. DeMarini DM (2012) Declaring the existence of human germ-cell mutagens. Environ Mol Mutagen 53:166–172

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Devaux A, Fiat L, Gillet C, Bony S (2011) Reproduction impairment following paternal genotoxin exposure in brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Aquat Toxicol 101:405–411

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen G, White PA (2004) The mutagenic hazards of aquatic sediments: a review. Mutat Res 567:151–225

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Claxton LD, Matthews PP, Warren SH (2004) The genotoxicity of ambient outdoor air, a review: Salmonella mutagenicity. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res 567:347–399

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Houk VS (1992) The genotoxicity of industrial wastes and effluents. Mutat Res 277:91–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ohe T, Watanabe T, Wakabayashi K (2004) Mutagens in surface waters: a review. Mutat Res 567:109–149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. White PA, Claxton LD (2004) Mutagens in contaminated soil: a review. Mutat Res 567:227–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Umbuzeiro GA, Roubicek DA, Sanchez PS, Sato MI (2001) The Salmonella mutagenicity assay in a surface water quality-monitoring program based on a 20-year survey. Mutat Res 491:119–126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Umbuzeiro GA, Freeman HS, Warren SH, Oliveira DP, Terao Y, Watanabe T, Claxton LD (2005) The contribution of azo dyes in the mutagenic activity of the Cristais River. Chemosphere 60:55–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brack W (2003) Effect-directed analysis: a promising tool for the identification of organic toxicants in complex mixtures? Anal Bioanal Chem 377:397–407

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Umbuzeiro GA, Machala M, Weiss J (2011) Diagnostic tools for effect-directed analysis of mutagens, ahr agonists, and endocrine disruptors. In: Brack W (ed) Effect-directed analysis of complex environmental contamination, vol 15. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 69–82

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. DHEW (US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) (1969) Report of the secretary’s commission on pesticides and their relationship to environmental health, parts 1 and 2. Washington, DC, US GPO, 677pp

    Google Scholar 

  13. Drake JW, Abrahamson S, Crow JF, Hollaender A, Lederberg S, Legator MS, Neel JV, Shaw MW, Sutton HE, Von Borstel RC, Zimmering S (1975) Environmental mutagenic hazards. Science 187:503–514

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Flamm WG, Valcovic LR, D’Aguanno W, Fishbein L, Green S, Malling HV, Mayer V, Prival M, Wolff G, Zeiger E (1977) Approaches to determining the mutagenic properties of chemicals: risk to future generations. J Environ Pathol Toxicol 1:301–352

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ames BN, Durston WE, Yamasaki E, Lee FD (1973) Carcinogens are mutagens: a simple test system combining liver homogenates for activation and bacteria for detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 70:2281–2285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ames BN, Lee FD, Durston WE (1973) An improved bacterial test system for the detection and classification of mutagens and carcinogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 70:782–786

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. McCann J, Yamasaki E, Ames BN (1975) Detection of carcinogens in the Salmonella/microsome test: assay of 300 chemicals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 72:5135–5139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Purchase IF, Longstaff E, Ashby J, Styles JA, Anderson D, Lefevre PA, Westwood FR (1978) An evaluation of 6 short-term tests for detecting organic chemical carcinogens. Br J Cancer 37:873–903

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sugimura T, Sato S, Nagao M, Yahagi T, Matsushima T, Seino Y, Takeuchi M, Kawachi T (1976) Overlapping of carcinogens and mutagens. In: Magee PN, Takayama S, Sugimura T, Matsushima T (eds) Fundamentals of cancer prevention. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 191–215

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kirkland D, Aardema M, Henderson L, Muller L (2005) Evaluation of the ability of a battery of three in vitro genotoxicity tests to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens. I. Sensitivity, specificity and relative predictivity. Mutat Res 584:1–256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tennant RW, Margolin BH, Shelby MD, Zeiger E, Haseman JK, Spalding J, Caspary W, Resnick M, Stasiewicz S, Anderson B, Minor R (1987) Prediction of chemical carcinogenicity in rodents from in vitro genetic toxicity assays. Science 236:933–941

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zeiger E (1998) Identification of rodent carcinogens and noncarcinogens using genetic toxicity tests: premises, promises and performance. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 28:85–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zeiger E, Haseman JK, Shelby MD, Margolin BH, Tennant RW (1990) Evaluation of four in vitro genetic toxicity tests for predicting rodent carcinogenicity: confirmation of earlier results with 41 additional chemicals. Environ Mol Mutagen 16(Suppl 18):1–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ashby J, de Serres FJ, Draper M, Ishidate M Jr, Margolin BH, Matter BE, Shelby MD (eds) (1985) Evaluation of short-term tests for carcinogens: report of the international programme of chemical Safety’s collaborative study on in vitro assays. Elsevier, New York, 752pp

    Google Scholar 

  25. De Serres FJ, Ashby J (eds) (1981) Evaluation of short-term tests for carcinogens: report of the international collaborative program. Elsevier, New York, 827pp

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fish F, Lampert I, Halachmi A, Riesenfeld G, Herzberg M (1987) The SOS chromotest kit: a rapid method for the detection of genotoxicity. Toxic Assess 2:135–147

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Oda Y, Nakamura S, Oki I, Kato T, Shinagawa H (1985) Evaluation of the new system (umu-test) for the detection of environmental mutagens and carcinogens. Mutat Res 147:219–229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Burlinson B, Hartmann A, Kobayashi H, Miyamae Y, Rojas E, Ryu JC, Sasaki YF (2000) Single cell gel/comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ Mol Mutagen 35:206–221

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hastwell PW, Chai LL, Roberts KJ, Webster TW, Harvey JS, Rees RW, Walmsley RM (2006) High-specificity and high-sensitivity genotoxicity assessment in a human cell line: validation of the GreenScreen HC GADD45a-GFP genotoxicity assay. Mutat Res 607:160–175

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Simpson K, Bevan N, Hastwell P, Eidam P, Shah P, Gogo E, Rees S, Brown A (2013) The BlueScreen-384 assay as an indicator of genotoxic hazard potential in early-stage drug discovery. J Biomol Screen 18:441–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hendriks G, Atallah M, Morolli B, Calléja F, Ras-Verloop N, Huijskens I, Raamsman M, Van De Water B, Vrieling H (2012) The ToxTracker assay: novel GFP reporter systems that provide mechanistic insight into the genotoxic properties of chemicals. Toxicol Sci 125:285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Claxton LD, de Umbuzeiro GA, DeMarini DM (2010) The Salmonella mutagenicity assay: the stethoscope of genetic toxicology for the 21st century. Environ Health Perspect 118:1515–1522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. DeMarini DM, Brooks LR, Warren SH, Kobayashi T, Gilmour MI, Singh P (2004) Bioassay-directed fractionation and Salmonella mutagenicity of automobile and forklift diesel exhaust particles. Environ Health Perspect 112:814–819

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Umbuzeiro GA, Roubicek DA, Rech CM, Sato MIZ, Claxton LD (2004) Investigating the sources of the mutagenic activity found in a river using the Salmonella assay and different water extraction procedures. Chemosphere 54:1589–1597

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kummrow F, Rech CM, Coimbrão CA, Roubicek DA, Umbuzeiro GA (2003) Comparison of the mutagenic activity of XAD4 and blue rayon extracts of surface water and related drinking water samples. Mutat Res 541:103–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Mutlu E, Warren SH, Matthews PP, King C, Linak WP, Kooter IM, Schmid JE, Ross JA, Gilmour MI, Demarini DM (2013) Bioassay-directed fractionation and sub-fractionation for mutagenicity and chemical analysis of diesel exhaust particles. Environ Mol Mutagen 54:719–736

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Meier JR (1988) Genotoxic activity of organic chemicals in drinking water. Mutat Res 196:211–245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Nukaya H, Yamashita J, Tsuji K, Terao Y, Ohe T, Sawanishi H, Katsuhara T, Kiyokawa K, Tezuca M, Oguri A, Sugimura T, Wakabayashi K (1997) Isolation and chemical-structural determination of a novel aromatic amine mutagen in water from the Nishitakase river in Kyoto. Chem Res Toxicol 10:1061–1066

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Enya T, Suzuki H, Watanabe T, Hirayama T, Hisamatsu Y (1997) 3-nitrobenzanthrone, a powerful bacterial mutagen and suspected human carcinogen found in diesel exhaust and airborne particulates. Environ Sci Technol 31:2772–2776

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Nissinen TK, Miettinen IT, Martikainen PJ, Vartiainen T (2002) Disinfection by-products in Finnish drinking waters. Chemosphere 48:9–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. DeMarini DM, Gudi R, Szkudlinska A, Rao M, Recio L, Kehl M, Kirby PE, Polzin G, Richter PA (2008) Genotoxicity of 10 cigarette smoke condensates in four test systems: comparisons between assays and condensates. Mutat Res 650:15–29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Fetterman BA, Kim BS, Margolin BH, Schildcrout JS, Smith MG, Wagner SM, Zeiger E (1997) Predicting rodent carcinogenicity from mutagenic potency measured in the Ames Salmonella assay. Environ Mol Mutagen 29:312–322

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Schildcrout JS, Margolin BH, Zeiger E (1999) Predicting rodent carcinogenicity using potency measures of the in vitro sister chromatid exchange and chromosome aberration assays. Environ Mol Mutagen 33:59–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Mortelmans K, Zeiger E (2000) The Ames Salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res 455:29–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Mortelmans K, Riccio ES (2000) The bacterial tryptophan reverse mutation assay with Escherichia coli WP2. Mutat Res 455:61–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Hagiwara Y, Watanabe M, Oda Y, Sofuni T, Nohmi T (1993) Specificity and sensitivity of Salmonella typhimurium YG1041 and YG1042 strains possessing elevated levels of both nitroreductase and acetyltransferase activity. Mutat Res 291:171–180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. DeMarini DM, Dallas MM, Lewtas J (1989) Cytotoxicity and effect on mutagenicity of buffers in a microsuspension assay. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 9:287–295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Kado NY, Langley D, Eisenstatd E (1983) A simple modification of the Salmonella liquid incubation assay. Mutat Res 121:25–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Coriel Institute for Medical Research (1986) Ames Salmonella mutagenicity assay protocol. Department of Microbiology, CIMR, Camden, NJ, p13

    Google Scholar 

  50. ISO (2005) Water quality – determination of the genotoxicity of water and waste water – Salmonella/microsome test (Ames test). ISO Standard 16240:2005. Available at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=32160. Accessed 4 Oct 2015

  51. Gee P, Maron DM, Ames BN (1994) Detection and classification of mutagens: a set of base-specific Salmonella tester strains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91:11606–11610

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Gee P, Sommers CH, Melick AS, Gidrol XM, Todd MD, Burris RB, Nelson ME, Klemm RC, Zeiger E (1998) Comparison of responses of base-specific Salmonella tester strains with the traditional strains for identifying mutagens: the results of a validation study. Mutat Res 412:115–130

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Kamber M, Flückiger-Isler S, Engelhardt G, Jaeckh R, Zeiger E (2009) Comparison of the Ames II and traditional Ames test responses with respect to mutagenicity, strain specificities, need for metabolism and correlation with rodent carcinogenicity. Mutagenesis 24:359–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Reifferscheid G, Maes HM, Allner B, Badurova J, Belkin S, Bluhm K, Brauer F, Bressling J, Domeneghetti S, Elad T, Flückiger-Isler S, Grummt HJ, Gürtler R, Hecht A, Heringa MB, Hollert H, Huber S, Kramer M, Magdeburg A, Ratte HT, Sauerborn-Klobucar R, Sokolowski A, Soldan P, Smital T, Stalter D, Venier P, Ziemann C, Zipperle J, Buchinger S (2012) International round-robin study on the Ames fluctuation test. Environ Mol Mutagen 53:185–197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. ISO (2012) Water quality – determination of the genotoxicity of water and waste water – Salmonella/microsome fluctuation test (Ames fluctuation test) ISO 11350:2012. Available at http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50393. Accessed 4 Oct 2015

  56. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1997) Guideline for testing of chemicals, test guideline 471: bacterial reverse mutation test, OECD, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  57. Demeestere K, Dewulf J, De Witte B, Van Langenhove H (2007) Sample preparation for the analysis of volatile organic compounds in air and water matrices. J Chromatogr A 1153:130–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Kolkman A, Schriks M, Brand W, Bauerlein PS, Van Der Kooi MM, Van Doorn RH, Emke E, Reus AA, Van Der Linden SC, De Voogt P, Heringa MB (2013) Sample preparation for combined chemical analysis and in vitro bioassay application in water quality assessment. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 36:1291–1303

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Kosikowska M, Biziuk M (2010) Review of the determination of pesticide residues in ambient air. Trends Analyt Chem 29:1064–1072

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Potts PJ, Robinson P (2003) Sample preparation of geological samples, soils and sediments. In: Comprehensive analytical chemistry, vol 41. Elsevier, pp 723–763

    Google Scholar 

  61. Tadeo JL, Pérez RA, Albero B, García-Valcárcel AI, Sánchez-Brunete C (2012) Review of sample preparation atechniques for the analysis of pesticide residues in soil. J AOAC Int 95:1258–1271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Alvarez DA, Petty JD, Huckins JN, Jones-Lepp TL, Getting DT, Goddard JP, Manahan SE (2004) Development of a passive, in situ, integrative sampler for hydrophilic organic contaminants in aquatic environments. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:1640–1648

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Kummrow F, Rech CM, Coimbrão CA, Umbuzeiro GA (2006) Blue rayon-anchored technique/Salmonella microsome microsuspension assay as a tool to monitor for genotoxic polycyclic compounds in Santos estuary. Mutat Res 609:60–67

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Anderson D, McGregor DB (1980) The effect of solvents upon the yield of revertants in the Salmonella/activation mutagenicity assay. Carcinogenesis 1:363–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. EFSA-WHO (2015) Conclusions and recommendations of the EFSA/WHO expert working group on TTC -draft for public consultation

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheeseman M, Kleiner J, Mangelsdorf I, Piersma A, Schilter B, Schlatter J, Van Schothorst F, Vos JG, Wurtzen G (2004) Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol 42:65–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Mons MN, Heringa MB, Van Genderen J, Puijker LM, Brand W, Van Leeuwen CJ, Stoks P, Van Der Hoek JP, Van Der Kooij D (2013) Use of the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) approach for deriving target values for drinking water contaminants. Water Res 47:1666–1678

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. De Wolf W, Siebel-Sauer A, Lecloux A, Koch V, Holt M, Feijtel T, Comber M, Boeije G (2005) Mode of action and aquatic exposure thresholds of no concern. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:479–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Kim BS, Margolin BH (1999) Statistical methods for the Ames Salmonella assay: a review. Mutat Res 436:113–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Cariello NF, Piegorsch WW (1996) The Ames test: the two-fold rule revisited. Mutat Res 369:23–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Margolin BH (1985) Statistical studies in genetic toxicology: a perspective from the U.S. National toxicology program. Environ Health Perspect 63:187–194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Heringa MB, Harmsen DJH, Beerendonk EF, Reus AA, Krul CM, Metz DH, IJpelaar GF (2011) Formation and removal of genotoxic activity during UV/H2O2-GAC treatment of drinking water. Water Res 45:366–374

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Piegorsch WW, Simmons SJ, Margolin BH, Zeiger E, Gidrol XM, Gee P (2000) Statistical modeling and analyses of a base-specific Salmonella mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res 467:11–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Escher BI, Allinson M, Altenburger R, Bain PA, Balaguer P, Busch W et al (2014) Benchmarking organic micropollutants in wastewater, recycled water and drinking water with in vitro bioassays. Environ Sci Technol 48:1940–1956

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Gollapudi BB, Johnson GE, Hernandez LG, Pottenger LH, Dearfield KL, Jeffrey AM, Julien E, Kim JH, Lovell DP, MacGregor JT, Moore MM, van Benthem J, White PA, Zeiger E, Thybaud V (2013) Quantitative approaches for assessing dose–response relationships in genetic toxicology studies. Environ Mol Mutagen 54:8–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Johnson GE, Soeteman-Hernández LG, Gollapudi BB, Bodger OG, Dearfield KL, Heflich RH, Hixon JG, Lovell DP, MacGregor JT, Pottenger LH, Thompson CM, Abraham L, Thybaud V, Tanir JY, Zeiger E, Van Benthem J, White PA (2014) Derivation of point of departure (PoD) estimates in genetic toxicology studies and their potential applications in risk assessment. Environ Mol Mutagen 55:609–623

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Narotsky MG, Pressman JG, Miltner RJ, Speth TF, Teuschler LK, Rice GE, Richardson SD, Best DS, McDonald A, Hunter ES, Simmons JE (2012) Developmental toxicity evaluations of whole mixtures of disinfection by-products using concentrated drinking water in rats: gestational and lactational effects of sulfate and sodium. Birth Defects Res B Dev Reprod Toxicol 95:202–212

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Kolkman A, Martijn BJ, Vughs D, Baken KA, Van Wezel AP (2015) Tracing nitrogenous disinfection byproducts after medium pressure UV water treatment by stable isotope labeling and high resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 49:4458–4465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Brack W, Schirmer K, Erdinger L, Hollert H (2005) Effect-directed analysis of mutagens and ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase inducers in aquatic sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:2445–2458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Lübcke-Von Varel U, Bataineh M, Lohrmann S, Löffler I, Schulze T, Flückiger-Isler S, Neca J, Machala M, Brack W (2012) Identification and quantitative confirmation of dinitropyrenes and 3-nitrobenzanthrone as major mutagens in contaminated sediments. Environ Int 44:31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Reifferscheid G, Buchinger S, Cao Z, Claus E (2011) Identification of mutagens in freshwater sediments by the Ames-fluctuation assay using nitroreductase and acetyltransferase overproducing test strains. Environ Mol Mutagen 52:397–408

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Altenburger R, Ait-Aissa S, Antczak P, Backhaus T, Barceló D, Seiler TB, Brion F, Busch W, Chipman K, De Alda ML, De Umbuzeiro AG, Escher BI, Falciani F, Faust M, Focks A, Hilscherova K, Hollender J, Hollert H, Jäger F, Jahnke A, Kortenkamp A, Krauss M, Lemkine GF, Munthe J, Neumann S, Schymanski EL, Scrimshaw M, Segner H, Slobodnik J, Smedes F, Kughathas S, Teodorovic I, Tindall AJ, Tollefsen KE, Walz KH, Williams TD, Van Den Brink PJ, Van Gils J, Vrana B, Zhang X, Brack W (2015) Future water quality monitoring — adapting tools to deal with mixtures of pollutants in water resource management. Sci Total Environ 512–513:540–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Rook JJ (1974) Formation of haloforms during chlorination of natural waters. Water Treat Examin 23(2):234–243

    Google Scholar 

  84. Richardson SD, Plewa MJ, Wagner ED, Schoeny R, DeMarini DM (2007) Occurrence, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of regulated and emerging disinfection by-products in drinking water: a review and roadmap for research. Mutat Res 636:178–242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Kool HJ, Van Kreijl CF, De Greef E, Van Kranen HJ (1982) Presence, introduction and removal of mutagenic activity during the preparation of drinking water in the Netherlands. Environ Health Perspect 46:207–214

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Kruithof JC, Kamp PC, Belosevic M (2000) UV/H2O2-treatment: the ultimate solution for pesticide control and disinfection. Water Sci Technol Water Supply 2:113–122

    Google Scholar 

  87. Martijn AJ, Kruithof JC (2012) UV and UV/H2O2 treatment: the silver bullet for by-product and genotoxicity formation in water production. Ozone Sci Eng 34:92–100

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. World Health Organisation (WHO) ((2011)) Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 4th edn. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241548151_eng.pdf

  89. Richardson SD, Ternes TA (2011) Water analysis: emerging contaminants and current issues. Anal Chem 83:4616–4648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Oliveira DP, Carneiro PA, Rech CM, Zanoni MVV, Claxton LD, Umbuzeiro GA (2006) Mutagenic compounds generated from the chlorination of disperse azo-dyes and their presence in drinking water. Environ Sci Technol 40:6682–6689

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Caritá R, Marin-Morales MA (2008) Induction of chromosome aberrations in the Allium cepa test system caused by the exposure of seeds to industrial effluents contaminated with azo dyes. Chemosphere 72:722–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. De Lima ROA, Bazo AP, Salvadori DMF, Rech CM, Oliveira DP, Umbuzeiro GA (2007) Mutagenic and carcinogenic potential of a textile azo dye processing plant effluent that impacts a drinking water source. Mutat Res 626:53–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Umbuzeiro GA, Coimbrão CA, Kummrow F, Lobo DJA, Saldiva PHN (2007) Mutagenic activity assessment of Cristais river, São Paulo, Brazil, using the Blue Rayon/Salmonella microsome and the Tradescantia pallida micronuclei assays. J Braz Soc Ecotoxicol 2:163–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Technology, UNICAMP, Rua Dr Paschoal Marmo 1888, 13484-332, Limeira, SP, Brazil

    Gisela De Aragao Umbuzeiro

  2. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands

    Minne Heringa

  3. Errol Zeiger Consulting, 800 Indian Springs Road, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA

    Errol Zeiger

Authors
  1. Gisela De Aragao Umbuzeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Minne Heringa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Errol Zeiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gisela De Aragao Umbuzeiro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany

    Georg Reifferscheid

  2. Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany

    Sebastian Buchinger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Umbuzeiro, G.D.A., Heringa, M., Zeiger, E. (2016). In Vitro Genotoxicity Testing: Significance and Use in Environmental Monitoring. In: Reifferscheid, G., Buchinger, S. (eds) In vitro Environmental Toxicology - Concepts, Application and Assessment. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, vol 157. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2015_5018

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation