Peer Review: Draft Skin Notation Profile: Chlorodiphenyl

Draft Document

NIOSH Docket 153-e

Regulations.gov: https://www.regulations.gov/searchResults?rpp=25&po=0&s=CDC-2019-0015&fp=true&ns=trueexternal icon

Required Elements for Initial Public Posting

Subject: NIOSH Skin Notation Profile

Purpose: Provides information about the health risks associated with dermal contact and uptake of a specific workplace chemical.

Timing of Review: March 2019 – May 2019.

Primary Disciplines or Expertise Needed for Review: Toxicology, risk assessment, industrial hygiene, occupational medicine.

Type of Review: Individual

Number of Reviewers: 2-3 reviewers

Reviewers Selected by: NIOSH

Public Nominations Requested for Reviewers: No

Opportunities for the Public to Comment: Yes

Peer Reviewers Provided with Public Comments Before Their Review: No

Charge to Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to consider the following review questions:

1. Does this document clearly outline the systemic health hazards associated with exposures of the skin to the chemical? If not, what specific information is missing from the document?
2. If the SYS or SYS (FATAL) notations are assigned, are the rationale and logic behind the assignment clear? If not assigned, is the logic clear why it was not (e.g., insufficient data, no identified health hazard)?
3. Does this document clearly outline the direct (localized) health hazards associated with exposures of the skin to the chemical? If not, what specific information is missing from the document?
4. If the DIR, DIR (IRR), or DIR (COR) notations are assigned, are the rationale and logic behind the assignment clear? If not assigned, is the logic clear why it was not (e.g., insufficient data, no identified health hazard)?
5. Does this document clearly outline the immune-mediated responses (allergic response) as health hazards associated with exposures of the skin to the chemical? If not, what specific information is missing from the document?
6. If the SEN notation is assigned, are the rationale and logic behind the assignment clear? If not assigned, is the logic clear why it was not (e.g., insufficient data, no identified health hazard)?
7. If the ID (SK) or SK were assigned, are the rationale and logic outlined within the document?
8. Are the conclusions supported by the data?
9. Are the tables clear and appropriate?
10. Is the document organized appropriately? If not, what improvements are needed?
11. Are you aware of any scientific data reported in governmental publications, databases, peer-reviewed journals, or other sources that should be included within this document?