The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Results of Toxicological Testing of Jefferson Parish Pilot Plant Samples
Open accessAbstract
Five toxicological tests were performed using concentrated drinking water samples collected at a pilot-scale drinking water treatment plant that had streams treated with different disinfectants (no disinfectant, ozone, chlorine dioxide, monochloramine, or chlorine) before treatment with granular activated carbon (GAC). The toxicological tests used in this study were the Ames Salmonella assay, a subchronic in vivo toxicity assay in mice, the SENCAR mouse skin initiation-promotion assay, a rat liver foci assay, and the lung adenoma assay in strain A mice. These tests were conducted to determine the general toxicity and the mutagenic/carcinogenic potential associated with the use of disinfection and/or GAC in the treatment of drinking water. The stability of the mutagenic activity of the samples tested was determined by repeated analysis using the Ames Salmonella assay. Results indicated that the samples remained mutagenic for the duration of the tests. All the drinking water concentrates (4000 X) prepared by the XAD resin adsorption procedure failed to provide statistically significant indication of carcinogenic activity in the SENCAR mouse, rat liver foci, and the lung adenoma assays. However, concentrates of the chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and monochloramine treated waters gave consistent mutagenic responses in the Ames Salmonella assay. GAC was effective for 6 months in removing both the mutagenicity of chlorine-treated water and the potential of water to become mutagenic when treated with chlorine. In the in vivo, subchronic 30-day toxicity test in mice, some statistically significant differences in organ weights and body weights of animals exposed to different concentrates of some of the samples were observed. However, a consistent pattern of these differences indicating overt toxicity was not detected.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In CD-1 mice, 30-day drinking water exposure to concentrated monochloramine-treated water (residual 2.1 mg/l) produced some significant differences in relative organ weights but no consistent pattern.
“There were some significant differences in relative organ weights but no consistent pattern was observed.”
From Inorganic chloramines: a critical review of the toxicological and epidemiological evidence as a basis for occupational exposure limit setting (2020) · cites this paper as Miller et al. 1986
In a rat liver foci study, no statistically significant differences between monochloramine-exposed rats and vehicle controls were detected; the authors concluded there was no effect on the rat liver assay following monochloramine exposure.
“No statistically significant differences between monochloramine exposed rats and vehicle control animals were detected.The authors concluded that there was no effect on the rat liver assay following exposure to monochloramine (Miller et al. 1986).”
From Inorganic chloramines: a critical review of the toxicological and epidemiological evidence as a basis for occupational exposure limit setting (2020) · cites this paper as Miller et al. 1986
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Claxton, L. D., Pegram, R., Schenck, K. M., Simmons, J. E., & Warren, S. H. (2008) · Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A · doi:10.1080/15287390802182508 · Cited by 35
Wastensson, G., & Eriksson, K. (2020) · Critical Reviews in Toxicology · doi:10.1080/10408444.2020.1744514 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Miller, R. G., Kopfler, F. C., Condie, L. W., Pereira, M. A., Meier, J. R., Ringhand, H. P., Robinson, M., & Casto, B. C.
- Venue
- Environmental Health Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1986-11
- Volume
- 69
- Pages
- 129-139
- ISSN
- 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-9924
- PMC
- PMC1474337
- OpenAlex
- W1972212642
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 2.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- Locations
- Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Water Treatment and Disinfection
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
- Keywords
- drinking water disinfection, granular activated carbon, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, monochloramine, ozone, Ames Salmonella assay, subchronic toxicity, Jefferson Parish
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Body Weight, Carcinogens, Disinfectants, Disinfection, Female, Male, Mutagenicity Tests, Mutagens, Organ Size, Pilot Projects, Sterilization, Water Supply, Mice, Rats
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review