Abstract
A letter was presented in response to the paper, "Mutagenicity Assessment of Airborne Particles from Three Polyurethane Foam Manufacturing Facilities," by T. Ong and colleagues (American Journal of Industrial Medicine 11:475-482, 1985). The conclusions based on the risk assessment used by NIOSH and reported in the cited article were contested with regard to designation of the Ames assay as a method on which to base a risk assessment decision, the weak assay response determined for the indoor factory air, inappropriate comparisons, disparate sample volumes for inside and outside air samples, the diminished potency of the test sample relative to the positive control, and the use of dichloromethane as an extraction solvent. A response by the primary author included the following points: the use of the Ames test as a screening test; the use of two tester strains; mutagenic responses with S9; dose levels; the comparison between outside and inside air based on the number of revertants per cubic meter of air; the use of positive controls; and the use of dichloromethane as a solvent.
