-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
Other Comments:
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.
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
-
References:
None -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
I got invovlved in this area from the past year. My publications will be published soon.
- How to cite: Jalali A .Accept completely [Review of the article 'Solid-phase Environmental Genotoxicity: In Vivo Veritas! ' by Varga C].WebmedCentral 2012;2(11):WMCRW001107
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?
No
No
No
None
Carbon nano-structures.