GOSENS, I., MATHIJSSEN, L., BOKKERS, B., MUIJSER, H., and CASSEE, F. (2013) Comparative hazard identification of nano- and micro-sized cerium oxide particles- based on 28-day inhalation studies in rats. Nanotoxicology, http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2013.815814
When the above article was first published online, the two time points for cell analyses in the broncho alveolar lavage fluid are incorrectly described in figure legends 1,2 and 3 as being after 28 days and after a recovery period of 60 days. The correct timing of the cell analyses is 1 day after the final exposure to cerium oxide and after a recovery time of 28 days, as described in the materials and methods section. The figure legends should read:
Figure 1. Cell analyses of BALF in male and female rats after inhalation of NM-213 CeO2 (micro-sized), the day after the final exposure and after a recovery period of 28 days. (A) Total cell number, (B) number of macrophages, (C) number of neutrophils and (D) number of lymphocytes are shown; *p < 0.05 is compared to the respective control group.
Figure 2. Cell analyses of BALF in male and female rats after inhalation of NM-212 CeO2 (nanosized), the day after the final exposure and after a recovery period of 28 days. (A) Total number of cells, (B) number of macrophages, (C) number of neutrophils and (D) number of lymphocytes are shown; *p < 0.05 is compared to the respective control group.
Figure 3. Cell analyses of BALF in male and female rats after inhalation of NM-211 CeO2 (nanosized), the day after the final exposure and after a recovery period of 28 days. (A) Total number of cells, (B) number of macrophages, (C) number of neutrophils and (D) number of lymphocytes are shown; *p < 0.05 is compared to the respective control group.
The author apologises for this error.