At a glance
NIOSH created a peer review plan for the draft Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Profile document for hydrogen chloride.
Overview
Title
Draft Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH) Profile: Hydrogen Chloride
Subject
An assessment of the available scientific information about the effects of acute and short-term airborne exposures to this workplace chemical.
Purpose
The IDLH values characterize high-risk exposure concentrations and conditions for this workplace chemical to:
- Ensure that a worker can escape from a given contaminated environment in the event of failure of the respiratory protection equipment; and
- Indicate a maximum level above which only a highly reliable breathing apparatus, providing maximum worker protection, is permitted.
Review information
Timing of review
August 2023 - October 2023
Primary Disciplines or Expertise Needed for Review
Toxicology, risk assessment, industrial hygiene
Type of Review
Individual letter
Number of Reviewers
2-4
Reviewers Selected by
CDC/NIOSH
Public Nominations Requested for Reviewers
No
Opportunities for the Public to Comment
Yes
Peer Reviewers Provided with Public Comments Before Their Review
No
Have OMB requirements been deferred or waived for this dissemination?
No
Will alternative peer review procedures be applied to this dissemination?
No
Peer reviewers
Laurie Roszell, PhD, DABTUS, Defense Centers for Public Health, Aberdeen
Expertise: Toxicology, risk assessment
Amy DeLong, PhD, CIHUS, Navy and Marine Corps Force Health Protection Command
Expertise: Toxicology, industrial hygiene
Charge to peer reviewers
1. Does this document clearly outline the health hazards associated with acute (or short-term) exposures to the chemical? If not, what specific information is missing from the document?
2. Are the rationale and logic behind the derivation of an IDLH value for a specific chemical clearly explained? If not, what specific information is needed to clarify the basis of the IDLH value?
3. Are the conclusions supported by the data?
4. Are the tables clear and appropriate?
5. Is the document organized appropriately? If not, what improvements are needed?
6. Are you aware of any scientific data reported in government publications, databases, peer-reviewed journals, or other sources that should be included in this document?