Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

4 A New Set of Exposure Guidelines: Chemical Casualty Estimating Guidelines
Pages 76-90

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 76...
... . They would be used to evaluate course-ofaction options expected to involve chemical exposures.
From page 77...
... · Relate to the military population, which includes generally healthy adult men and women with typical variations in genetic susceptibilities. · Provide exposure-response and population-response information, insofar as possible.
From page 78...
... It is complicated by the variables included, but it begins with making maximum use of the data available to evaluate exposures that might affect imminent decisions or missions and exposures that are of longer-term concern. DERIVATION OF CHEMICAL CASUALTY ESTIMATING GUIDELINES The existing health-protective exposure guidelines set by other organizations usually do not satisfy the criteria for CCEGs outlined in Box 4-1.
From page 79...
... to prioritize acute chemical hazards and suggests that it might be a starting point for identifying chemicals of interest. Standard procedures should be developed to derive CCEGs for individual chemicals.
From page 80...
... For health-based standards, the adverse effect occurring at the lowest dose level in experimental studies is selected as the critical effect, under the assumption that an exposure level based on that effect will provide protection from other effects that occur at higher doses. The goal of CCEGs is to provide risk estimates of impacts on troop strength, including consideration of individuals affected to different extents by the exposure.
From page 81...
... When chemicals of interest have known susceptible subpopulations, it might be necessary to formulate more reliable estimates of the mean responses of the entire deployed population at risk if those susceptible groups were not represented appropriately in the key studies. The CCEGs should consider factors that might increase doses in deployed personnel (e.g., higher ventilation rates, greater water consumption)
From page 82...
... This section reviews how USACHPPM developed MEGs for CWAs, illustrates some of the special considerations for those agents, and discusses the difficultiesofusingexistingexposureguidelinesforthosechemicalsasthebasis for CCEGs, particularly with regard to the use of UFs. In RD-230, AEGL values for CWAs are used directly as air MEGs for the 1-hour and 8-hour exposure durations.
From page 83...
... report. Given the criterion that CCEGs relate to the military population, a UF of 10 for intraspecies variability might overstate the expected adverse outcome, particularly when the exposure estimates are based on female rat data used to derive the AEGL-1 and AEGL-3 for GB (see Appendix D)
From page 84...
... The ERDEC-TR-489 provides occupational exposurelimitsforGagentsthatincorporateadjustmentsfromexperimental breathing rates to occupational conditions. The air MEGs for toxic industrial chemicals were developed on the basis of the estimated breathing rates (29.2m3/day)
From page 85...
... Table 4-1 provides an example of how CCEGs derived in Appendix C for seven chemicals could be used to estimate impacts on troop strength in place of the three-step categorical MEG-based procedure now described in TG-230. The chemical concentrations estimated to severely affect 15%, 30%, 40%, and 50% of the unit are listed with the corresponding ORM risk level and unit status, assuming that the entire unit is exposed.
From page 86...
... 15% 30% 40% 50% Unit troop strengtha 85% 70% 60% 50% ORM risk levela Low Moderate High Extremely High Unit statusa Green Amber Red Black aAssumes 100% of the unit is exposed. Abbreviations: C15, concentration estimated to effect 15% of the unit; C30, concentration estimated to effect 30% of the unit; C40, concentration estimated to effect 40% of the unit; C50, concentration estimated to effect 50% of the unit.
From page 87...
... Analyticframeworksthathaveoccurrenceprobabilitiesmodeledexplicitly as functions of corresponding chemical exposure have been developed specificallyforapplicationtoquantitativehealth-riskassessmentsinvolving multiple toxic chemicals and/or multiple toxicity end points (NRC 1994; Bogen 2001)
From page 88...
... -- CCEGs should provide predictive, probabilistic exposure-re sponse information that will enable chemical threats to be weighed in comparison with other mission threats. CCEGs ideally would be deter mined by modeling chemical-specific data to predict effects on unit strength at various exposure levels (e.g., probit analysis)
From page 89...
... Personnel in the field will need to be able to make comparisons rapidly between estimated exposure concentrations for specified durations and the CCEGs to identify estimated unit status (i.e., green, amber, red, black) and to weigh chemical threats against other operational risks.
From page 90...
... 1992. Guidelines for Developing Spacecraft Maximum AllowableConcentrationsforSpaceStationContaminants.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.