饮用水遗传毒性测试中TA98和TA100的敏感度和可靠度比较  

Comparing of Sensitivity and Reliability of TA98 and TA100 in Genotoxicity Test of Drinking Water

作　　者：张丽萍[1] 刘文君[1] 

机构地区：[1]清华大学环境学院,北京100084

出　　处：《生态毒理学报》2017年第5期98-108,共11页Asian Journal of Ecotoxicology

基　　金：水体污染控制与治理重大专项(2012ZX07404-002)

摘　　要：为了寻找适合我国水质特征的Ames试验简化方法,作者通过广泛的文献调研,对近30年以来,我国研究者用Ames试验评价饮用水和水源水的遗传毒性的实验数据进行了总结和分析。结果发现,TA98-S9测试体系的敏感度和可靠度最高,TA98+S9次之,TA100-S9与TA100+S9 2个测试体系对Ames试验结果的影响几乎可以忽略。只用1个TA98-S9测试体系的方法 1,仅用25%的工作量,可获得91%的致突变阳性检出率和74%的有效数据率;采用TA98-S9和TA98+S9 2个测试体系的方法 2,使用50%的工作量,可获得96%的阳性检出率和96%的有效数据率。据此,作者建议:采用Ames试验评价我国饮用水和水源水的遗传毒性时,可以将通常采用的4个测试体系的方法 4,简化为只采用TA98-S9与TA98+S9 2个测试体系的方法 2。在仅进行致突变性定性评价时,或者在费用或水样量不足等条件下,则可使用更为简化的方法 1,更利于Ames试验的广泛应用。In order to identify a simplified Ames test method optimized for the characteristics and quality of water in China, Ames test data of drinking water and source water samples from different regions in China obtained from papers published in the last 30 years was summarized and analyzed. It was found that TA98-S9 is the most sensitive and reliable testing system, TA98＋S9 comes second. On the other hand, TA100-S9 and TA100＋S9 systems have negligible impacts on Ames test results. Method 1, which uses the TA98-S9 system, can achieve a 91% positive detection rate and a 74% reliability rate with 25% required work and cost compared to traditional method. Method 2, which uses the TA98-S9 and TA98＋S9 systems can achieve 96% of positive detection rate and 96% of reliability rate with 50% required work and cost compared to traditional method. The above findings suggest that Ames test can be simplified from the traditional 4 systems into two systems using TA98-S9 and TA98＋S9 for the evaluation of drinking water or source water genotoxicity in China. In case of limited budgets, low sample volume, or when only a qualitative analysis required, the method can be simplified to using only the TA98-S9 system, which may extend the usage of Ames test.

关 键 词：AMES试验 简化方法 饮用水 遗传毒性 

分 类 号：X171.5[环境科学与工程—环境科学]