![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective: In this paper, we compare acute toxic gas standards developed for occupational, military, and civilian use that predict or establish guidelines for limiting exposure to inhaled toxic gases.
Context: Large disparities between guidelines exist for similar exposure scenarios, raising questions about why differences exist, as well as the applicability of each standard. The motivation and rationale behind the development of the standards is explored with emphasis on the experimental data used to set the standards.
Methods: The Toxic Gas Assessment Software (TGAS) is used to quantitatively compare current acute exposure standards, such as: Acute Exposure Guidelines (AEGL), Immediate Danger to Life or Health (IDLH), Purser, International Organization for Standardization (ISO 13571), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The TGAS software does this by calculating the body-mass-normalized internal doses of each gas exposure in each standard, which is then plotted on a cumulative distribution function for a normal or susceptible population to visualize the relationship of the standards to each other. To focus the comparison, acute toxic gas standards for five common fire gases, carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen chloride (HCl), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and acrolein (C3H4O), are explored.
Results: It was found that differences between standards can be reconciled when the target population, effect endpoint, and incidence level are taken into account.
Conclusion: By analyzing the standards with respect to these factors, we can acquire a better understanding of the applicability of each.
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command under contract W81XWH-06-C-0051. The opinions or assertions contained herein are private views of the authors, and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. Cleared for all audiences for OPSEC 28 Apr 2011.