Review of the Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter

8-62 10,11 The preceding discussion does not provide an adequatebasis for such a firm conclusion.8-62 13 change "subject" to "subjects".8-62 17 change "side" to "sides".8-65 29,30 How does the preceding discussion provide a basis for thisconclusion? It could be made in any case without citing thepreceding discussion.8-67 5 If, in fact, the 94 mg/m3 was not an erroneous value, it isdifficult to understand why such an outrageous andirrelevant exposure was worth citing in the CD.8-70 23 change "time" to "times".8-70 29 change "scrutinization" to "scrutiny".8-72 29 change "to" to "that was".8-73 7 insert "some of" before "the pulmonary".8-73 8-10 If a contrast is to be drawn, then the concentrations at issueshould be cited. If the work of Amdur and colleagues wereincluded, the conclusion drawn would be quite different.8-73 20-22 What does the 10,000 :g/m3 refer to? It clearly was not toacid. Was it to carbon?8-75 1 What relevance can an exposure at 15,000 :g/m3 have to thediscussion? Inclusion of citations to such ridiculousexposures do not belong in this CD.8-75 10-13 What exactly are the authors saying here? Is there a seriousintent here? If so, it should be justified and elaborated.8-85 14 What implications? We, the readers, are at least entitled tosome elaboration on what the implications in the authors'minds may be.8-86 1 delete "However," insert "low concentrations of sulfuricacid on" before "ultrafine", and insert "metal oxide" before"particles".8-86 2 change "focussed largely on" to "demonstrated"; change". and" to "However,".8-86 3 insert "also" before "have".8-86 25 Add the following: "However, ambient diesel particleconcentrations have decreased during the time of increasingasthma prevalence."8-87 12 change "has" to "can have".A - 44