Document Yrd2d3b6kn02eRMxn6q3zRwdK

"VINYL CHLORIDE; COMBINED INHALATION TWO-GENERATION REPRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY STUDY 'IN CD RATS" (PROTOCOL) : /a PEER REVIEWER COSpSE&T FORM August 1995 Name Ronald D. Hood, Ph.D. 1. Are the study objectives clearly stated and appropriate? (S) No Unsure Why? This is a relatively routine type of study, and the protocol concisely States what is to be done. 2. Is the study design appropriate for the study objectives? t.i.V.v. No Unsure Why? The design is typical for studies assessing a chemical's potential for reproductive or developmental toxicity. ' BFG 00620 PAGE 2 Name PEER REVIEWER COMMENT PORM Ronald D. Hood, Ph.D. 3. Are the methods selected appropriate for the study objectives? No Unsure Why? The methods proposed are typical of the proposed types of tests. 4. Any overall comments on the protocol? The protocol appears to be quite thorough and well planned. It should be quite adequate to carry out the proposed objectives. I did not find any technical flaws in the protocol, but there are a few typographical errors, which I have circled with pencil in the draft. I have only two additional questions/comments: 1. On page 6, first paragraph, the statement is made that the high inhalation dose of 1012 mg/kg/day "was selected based on the oral equivalent of the limit dose of 1 mg/kg body weight/day." Shouldn't that have been 1000 mg/kg body weight/day instead of 1? 2. The value in mg/kg/day that I obtain when I use the example on page 6 is 1009.8, which rounds to 1010, not 1012. The difference is trivial, but someone might want to check on the discrepancy. , BFG 00621 PAGE 3 Name PEER REVIEWER COMMENT FORM Ronald D. Hood, Ph.D. Select the appropriate category below (List recommended changes or reasons Cor not recommendingt A* Recommend <X> B. Recommend with Required Changes ( ) C. Not Recommended ( ) BFG 00622 PAGE 4 PEER REVIEWER COMMENT FORM Ronald D. Hood, Ph.D. Name _______________________________________________________________________ 5. Any comments on ATSDR's peer review process? The review process seems appealingly simple and straight forward. . Any other comments? Call on me again if I can be of assistance. BFG 00623