Unveiling Urinary Mutagenicity by the Ames Test for Occupational Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review

Occupational exposure may involve a variety of toxic compounds. A mutagenicity analysis using the Ames test can provide valuable information regarding the toxicity of absorbed xenobiotics. Through a search of relevant databases, this systematic review gathers and critically discusses the published papers (excluding other types of publications) from 2001–2021 that have assessed urinary mutagenicity (Ames test with Salmonella typhimurium) in an occupational exposure context. Due to the heterogeneity of the study methods, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. The characterized occupations were firefighters, traffic policemen, bus drivers, mail carriers, coke oven and charcoal workers, chemical laboratory staff, farmers, pharmacy workers, and professionals from several other industrial sectors. The genetically modified bacterial strains (histidine dependent) TA98, TA100, YG1041, YG1021, YG1024 and YG1042 have been used for the health risk assessment of individual (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and mixtures of compounds (e.g., diesel engine exhaust, fire smoke, industrial fumes/dyes) in different contexts. Although comparison of the data between studies is challenging, urinary mutagenicity can be very informative of possible associations between work-related exposure and the respective mutagenic potential. Careful interpretation of results and their direct use for occupational health risk assessment are crucial and yet complex; the use of several strains is highly recommended since individual and/or synergistic effects of complex exposure to xenobiotics can be overlooked. Future studies should improve the methods used to reach a standardized protocol for specific occupational environments to strengthen the applicability of the urinary mutagenicity assay and reduce inter- and intra-individual variability and exposure source confounders.