1982
DOI: 10.1016/0013-9351(82)90129-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correlation of mutagenic assessment of Houston air particulate extracts in relation to lung cancer mortality rates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2004
2004

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Differences among tlhe tests could be due to factors affecting assay efficiencies such as 1) differences in the nature of DNA lesions produced, 2:) innate differences in the bioindicator organisms, or 3) differences in test conditions. Many chemicals producing bulky lesions cause the induction of coupled SOS functions such as prophage induction and errorprone repair leading to mutagenesis: however, others produce lesions that lead exclusively to only one of the responses [Walker et al, 1982;Moreau and Devoret, 1977;Speck et al, 19781. Two nitroaromatic compounds, for example, detected in the Ames test did not induce prophage in a system used by Ma.mber and colleagues [ 19841, and the detection limits for .BaP were about an order of magnitude lower.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Differences among tlhe tests could be due to factors affecting assay efficiencies such as 1) differences in the nature of DNA lesions produced, 2:) innate differences in the bioindicator organisms, or 3) differences in test conditions. Many chemicals producing bulky lesions cause the induction of coupled SOS functions such as prophage induction and errorprone repair leading to mutagenesis: however, others produce lesions that lead exclusively to only one of the responses [Walker et al, 1982;Moreau and Devoret, 1977;Speck et al, 19781. Two nitroaromatic compounds, for example, detected in the Ames test did not induce prophage in a system used by Ma.mber and colleagues [ 19841, and the detection limits for .BaP were about an order of magnitude lower.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is to date no epidemiological evidence that any harm has resulted to operating room personnel from inhaled cantery smoke [4]. A correlation between the bacterial mutagenicity level of airborne particles and lung cancer in other settings, however, has been demonstrated [4,9]. Although the health hazard risk is yet to be determined, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended reduction in electrocautery smoke exposure by operating room personnel to minimize potential deleterious effects [ 1].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been well recognized that environmental airborne pollutants contain toxic components that are known or suspected to cause serious human health problems [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Many studies indicate that aerosols in the ambient 218 YUH-SHEN WU AND GUOR-CHENG FANG atmosphere may have mutagenic properties.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%