interesting article; i wouldn't have thought of linking this with an ames test 

limited in genotoxicity beyond eoh

The topic of this subjective mini-review is of high importance because environmental pollutants, emitted from industrial processes, often have a micro-or nanoparticulate character. With the advent of nanotechnological applications, such emission and the resulting human exposure is likely to increase further. The author is fully right in emphasizing the ongoing importance of in vivo tests, and the role of adsorbed substances in the pathogenicity of nanoparticles. Also the role of ingested (as opposed to inhaled) fibres is an important point.

The way the paper was written is, however, far from the optimal. The style and word usage is at certain sites rather clumsy. This does not significantly impede understanding of the message, a language revision would do good, all the same.

The title itself is an example for such stylistic mistake. “Solid-phase genotoxicity” would suggest that the genotoxic effect takes place in solid phase, e.g. on the surface of a test chip instead in a liquid medium; but what the author probably meant was genotoxicity of solid-phase pollutants (or simply, solid particles).

Introduction, 3^rd par.: What did the author mean by “excluding non-mammalian cell lines”? If this exclusion is justified, what about the earthworms mentioned in Example 3? Also, why were transgenic animals mentioned – are these of especial advantage in nanoparticle toxicology?

Example 1: Are commercial size asbestos fibres in fact non-respirable?

Example 2: The author mentioned a publication by Poland et al. as being scandalous and unethical. This is a grave statement, and must have been supported by more detailed background data.

Example 3: Medicinal mud, even if likely to contain nanoparticles, is a bit out of context (not anthropogenic, not inhaled, not ingested).

I have been engaged in the toxicology of environmental xenobiotics in most of my professional career. In that of nanoparticles, for ca. 6 yeras.

   The author makes an interesting point of distinguishing the genotoxic effects caused by 

solid-phase fibers themselves from the effect caused by the chemical substances that are attached to

these nano-structures. The common genotixins are polycyclic-aromatic molecules, e.g. aromatic amines

that form strong covalent bonds to DNA causing generic mutations during replication. In fact, ny nucleophilic compound would potentially represent a genotoxic risk. 

It seems that the authors atributes more significance to the chemicals that adhere to the nano-particles

than the the paticles themselves in causing the genotoxic effects, which sounds reasonable.

I would suggest replacing "Mud particles did not cause genotoxicity in contrast to soil contaminated aromatics."

by "Mud particles did not cause genotoxicity in contrast to soil containing the contaminated aromatics".

Can the author list what paticular aromatic molecules have been observed?

Carbon nano-structures.

Dear the WebmedCentral Team,

The article was checked well. The article has both scientific and interesting sounds. It was well organized as a short communication. The presented data were based on logical evidences. As well the article was well written. Therefore this article is scope of interest for all public health holders and toxicology researchers. 

With regards,

Prof Amir Jalali,

Dept of Pharmacology and Toxicology,

School of Pharmacy, Jundishapur University,

Ahvaz, Iran.  

I got invovlved in this area from the past year. My publications will be published soon.