Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
TENTH INTERIM REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ACUTE EXPOSURE GUIDELINE LEVELS 23 If propylenimine is used to such great extent in modern industry, why is there such a dearth of data? Is this due to the systems? Explain the contemporary work practices used for this material and how it is handled and utilized in various industrial applications. The approach for propylenimine is based on ethylenimine; the AEGL document for propylenimine should not be finalized until the AEGL document for ethylenimine is finalized The rationale for selecting a relative potency of 5 for AEGL-2 needs to be clearly explained. Table 3 shows relative potency based on exposure duration (to same concentration and same percentage mortality) of 4â8. The choice of 5 seems arbitrary. Specific Comments Page 1, line 15. Is there a standard procedure for a relative toxicity approach in the SOPs? Page 8, line 21. The reason for a 2-fold modifying factor needs to be better explained. Editorial Comments Page v, lines 15â17. Upon what adverse health effect is the relative potency based? Page 5, lines 25â26. This sentence does not make sense. If the structural, chemical/physical, and toxicological properties are similar, does not it follow that the metabolic fate is the same? The sentence as written seems either redundant or obvious, and at a minimum the entry is confusing. Appendix A. Correct the number of significant figures. COMMENTS ON ALLYL ALCOHOL At its July 21â23, 2003 meeting, the subcommittee reviewed the AEGL document on allylamine. The document was presented by Claudia Troxel of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The subcommittee recommends the following revisions. The document could be finalized if the subcommittee is satisfied with the revisions made in response to its recommendations. General Comment The regression analysis yielded n=0.78 and the NAC rounded it to 1. Yet, for propylenimine, the n value was 0.91 and it was not rounded. Therefore, the NAC has not been consistent with its approach. In the ten Berge analysis, there were only 20 compounds. The NAC has already evaluated many more materials; the NAC should contribute to the literature by publishing the procedures used and the factors which contribute to the values of n for time scaling.
