English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Dear Sir, Regarding the letter concerning our article, GonzalezYebra et al. (2008), we want to make some statements. First: We reported median instead of means because our data did not show a normal distribution. We acknowledge the accidental typing error made in the text of the discussion where we wrote a median of 0, the correct value is 0.1 as shown in Table 3. As for the alcohol consumption and its possible relationship with the induction of micronuclei, we carried out two types of analysis as described in the materials and methods. The Kruskal–Wallis test to identify diVerences between the study groups. With this analysis we found a signiWcant diVerence between the alcohol consuming exposed group and the non alcohol consuming exposed group. Afterwards we conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify the variables associated with the presence of micronuclei, with this analysis we found no association with the consumption of alcohol. It is possible that the Kruskall–Wallis analysis shows a synergism between exposure to solvents and alcohol consumption. We agree with the author of the letter on the irrelevance of the reference Fenech et al. (1985). As for the commentary on the evaluation of only 1,000 exfoliated cells, we would like to emphasize that we scored at least one thousand cells (Material and methods right column last paragraph), according to Tolbert et al. (1992), Gonsebatt et al. (1997), Reis et al. (2002), Dominguez et al. (2005) and we can provide another reference, Wu et al. (2004). We thank the advice on the evaluation of cells by means of oil immersion and magniWcation £1,000 and may consider it for future studies. With are positive that Fig 1b, is a broken egg phenomenon, clearly showing a smaller fragment irregularly shaped. We apologize for the very few lapses in which we have incurred in our English writing on our paper, and most of all for not having erased the Spanish “nucleos rotos” for broken eggs.

international archives of occupational and environmental health

Comments to the letter to the Editor on the paper “Exposure to organic solvents and cytogenetic damage in exfoliated cells of the buccal mucosa from shoe workers” by González-Yebra et al. (2008)