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 7 Exposure to EtO may be much more widespread than generally assumed. EtO sterilized food and medical appliances act as slow-release preparations. Are there any data on exposure levels from these sources? Section 4.1. Expand the PBPK discussion. This PBPK information appears to be the rationale for stating later that humans are less susceptible than animals. Section 7.3. Why was Jacobson used and not Nachreiner? Section 7.2 points out this is a good study and that Jacobson used an unspecified strain of rat. Section 7.3. Second paragraph, bring in the PBPK discussion in explaining the interspecies factor. Section 8.2. The discussion of ERPG-3 needs refinement. These are AEGL-2 effects. What study did they use that the NAC did not use or discounted? Figure 1. This is not a very convincing figure. It is essentially a straight line through two points. There is some confusion of units (regarding unit risk and slope factor). Minor issues Derivation of valuesâtoo many significant figures. The subcommittee commends the use of â(uncertainty factor)â. This helps the lay reader understand how the AEGL values were addressed. Summary. The odor threshold discussion does not belong in the first paragraph. Section 8.1, 5th line. Add âonâ after âbasedâ. COMMENTS ON PROPYLENE OXIDE At its July 21â23, 2003 meeting, the subcommittee reviewed the AEGL document on propylene oxide (PO). The document was presented by Claudia Troxel of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The document can be finalized after the subcommittee's recommended revisions have been made appropriately. General Comment Human data should be used for the derivation of AEGLs 1 and 2 values, but the animal data should be used for the derivation of AEGL 3 values with human data to support the value obtained. Furthermore, it appears that the same end point is being used for AEGLs 1 and 2. In fact, the effect used in support of the latter is really an effect that is more appropriate for the former. An explanation of this rationale is needed here.
