Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality

This public health statement tells you about manganese and the effects of exposure to it.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies the most serious hazardous waste sites in the nation. These sites are then placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) and are targeted for long-term federal clean-up activities. Manganese has been found in at least 869 of the 1,699 current or former NPL sites. Although the total number of NPL sites evaluated for this substance is not known, the possibility exists that the number of sites at which manganese is found may increase in the future as more sites are evaluated. This information is important because these sites may be sources of exposure and exposure to this substance may harm you.When a substance is released either from a large area, such as an industrial plant, or from a container, such as a drum or bottle, it enters the environment. Such a release does not always lead to exposure. You can be exposed to a substance only when you come in contact with it. You may be exposed by breathing, eating, or drinking the substance, or by skin contact.If you are exposed to manganese, many factors will determine whether you will be harmed. These factors include the dose (how much), the duration (how long), and how you come in contact with it. You must also consider any other chemicals you are exposed to and your age, sex, diet, family traits, lifestyle, and state of health.

Toxicological Profile for Manganese

The performance of a battery of three of the most commonly used in vitro genotoxicity tests--Ames+mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)+in vitro micronucleus (MN) or chromosomal aberrations (CA) test--has been evaluated for its ability to discriminate rodent carcinogens and non-carcinogens, from a large database of over 700 chemicals compiled from the CPDB ("Gold"), NTP, IARC and other publications. We re-evaluated many (113 MLA and 30 CA) previously published genotoxicity results in order to categorise the performance of these assays using the response categories we established. The sensitivity of the three-test battery was high. Of the 553 carcinogens for which there were valid genotoxicity data, 93% of the rodent carcinogens evaluated in at least one assay gave positive results in at least one of the three tests. Combinations of two and three test systems had greater sensitivity than individual tests resulting in sensitivities of around 90% or more, depending on test combination. Only 19 carcinogens (out of 206 tested in all three tests, considering CA and MN as alternatives) gave consistently negative results in a full three-test battery. Most were either carcinogenic via a non-genotoxic mechanism (liver enzyme inducers, peroxisome proliferators, hormonal carcinogens) considered not necessarily relevant for humans, or were extremely weak (presumed) genotoxic carcinogens (e.g. N-nitrosodiphenylamine). Two carcinogens (5-chloro-o-toluidine, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane) may have a genotoxic element to their carcinogenicity and may have been expected to produce positive results somewhere in the battery. We identified 183 chemicals that were non-carcinogenic after testing in both male and female rats and mice. There were genotoxicity data on 177 of these. The specificity of the Ames test was reasonable (73.9%), but all mammalian cell tests had very low specificity (i.e. below 45%), and this declined to extremely low levels in combinations of two and three test systems. When all three tests were performed, 75-95% of non-carcinogens gave positive (i.e. false positive) results in at least one test in the battery. The extremely low specificity highlights the importance of understanding the mechanism by which genotoxicity may be induced (whether it is relevant for the whole animal or human) and using weight of evidence approaches to assess the carcinogenic risk from a positive genotoxicity signal. It also highlights deficiencies in the current prediction from and understanding of such in vitro results for the in vivo situation. It may even signal the need for either a reassessment of the conditions and criteria for positive results (cytotoxicity, solubility, etc.) or the development and use of a completely new set of in vitro tests (e.g. mutation in transgenic cell lines, systems with inherent metabolic activity avoiding the use of S9, measurement of genetic changes in more cancer-relevant genes or hotspots of genes, etc.). It was very difficult to assess the performance of the in vitro MN test, particularly in combination with other assays, because the published database for this assay is relatively small at this time. The specificity values for the in vitro MN assay may improve if data from a larger proportion of the known non-carcinogens becomes available, and a larger published database of results with the MN assay is urgently needed if this test is to be appreciated for regulatory use. However, specificity levels of <50% will still be unacceptable. Despite these issues, by adopting a relative predictivity (RP) measure (ratio of real:false results), it was possible to establish that positive results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than three times more likely to be a rodent carcinogen than a non-carcinogen. Likewise, negative results in all three tests indicate the chemical is greater than two times more likely to be a rodent non-carcinogen than a carcinogen. This RP measure is considered a useful tool for industry to assess the likelihood of a chemical possessing carcinogenic potential from batteries of positive or negative results.

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

We include in this review an assessment of the formation, environmental fate, and mammalian and ecotoxicity of CW agent degradation products relevant to environmental and occupational health. These parent CW agents include several vesicants: sulfur mustards [undistilled sulfur mustard (H), sulfur mustard (HD), and an HD/agent T mixture (HT)]; nitrogen mustards [ethylbis(2-chloroethyl)amine (HN1), methylbis(2-chloroethyl)amine (HN2), tris(2-chloroethyl)amine (HN3)], and Lewisite; four nerve agents (O-ethyl S-[2-(diisopropylamino)ethyl] methylphosphonothioate (VX), tabun (GA), sarin (GB), and soman (GD)); and the blood agent cyanogen chloride. The degradation processes considered here include hydrolysis, microbial degradation, oxidation, and photolysis. We also briefly address decontamination but not combustion processes. Because CW agents are generally not considered very persistent, certain degradation products of significant persistence, even those that are not particularly toxic, may indicate previous CW agent presence or that degradation has occurred. Of those products for which there are data on both environmental fate and toxicity, only a few are both environmentally persistent and highly toxic. Major degradation products estimated to be of significant persistence (weeks to years) include thiodiglycol for HD; Lewisite oxide for Lewisite; and ethyl methyl phosphonic acid, methyl phosphonic acid, and possibly S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) methylphosphonothioic acid (EA 2192) for VX. Methyl phosphonic acid is also the ultimate hydrolysis product of both GB and GD. The GB product, isopropyl methylphosphonic acid, and a closely related contaminant of GB, diisopropyl methylphosphonate, are also persistent. Of all of these compounds, only Lewisite oxide and EA 2192 possess high mammalian toxicity. Unlike other CW agents, sulfur mustard agents (e.g., HD) are somewhat persistent; therefore, sites or conditions involving potential HD contamination should include an evaluation of both the agent and thiodiglycol.

The sources, fate, and toxicity of chemical warfare agent degradation products.

Engineered nanoparticles (NPs) are widely used in different technologies but their unique properties might also cause adverse health effects. In reviewing recent in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies we discuss potential mechanisms of genotoxicity induced by NPs. Various factors that may influence genotoxic response, including physico-chemical properties and experimental conditions, are highlighted. From 4346 articles on NP toxicity, 112 describe genotoxicity studies (94 in vitro, 22 in vivo). The most used assays are the comet assay (58 in vitro, 9 in vivo), the micronucleus assay (31 in vitro, 14 in vivo), the chromosome aberrations test (10 in vitro, 1 in vivo) and the bacterial reverse mutation assay (13 studies). We describe advantages and potential problems with different methods and suggest the need for appropriate methodologies to be used for investigation of genotoxic effects of NPs, in vitro and in vivo.

Mechanisms of genotoxicity. A review of in vitro and in vivo studies with engineered nanoparticles.

Results from the testing of 108 coded chemicals in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells for the induction of chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs) are presented. All chemicals were tested with and without exogenous metabolic activation, using protocols designed to allow testing up to toxic doses. Cell harvest times could also be extended if chemical-induced cell cycle delay was seen. Chromosome aberrations were induced by 43 of the chemicals, and 66 induced SCEs; 37 of the chemicals were positive for both endpoints.

Chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in chinese hamster ovary cells: Evaluations of 108 chemicals

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

C. Cannon

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in chinese hamster ovary cells: Evaluations of 108 chemicals