Version 1.3 – Updated May 2003 

With January 2004 Addendum USACHPPM Technical Guide 230

Chemical Exposure Guidelines for 

Deployed Military Personnel 

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion 

and Preventive Medicine 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

PREFACE 

Joint Staff Memorandum MCM –0006-02 (2002) Updated Procedures for Deployment Health

Surveillance and Readiness and HQDA Letter 1-01-1 (2001) Force Health Protection (FHP): 

Occupational and Environmental Health (OEH) Threats establish responsibilities that direct commanders 

to use the operational risk management (ORM) process to manage Force Health Protection – 

Occupational and Environmental Hazards (FHP-OEH) and to minimize total [health and safety] risk to 

personnel across the broad spectrum of military operations. This includes identifying, documenting, and 

reporting exposures to OEH hazards (e.g., chemical) that may result in short- or long-term health effects 

to deployed military personnel. 

This document combines and supersedes TG 230A, Short-Term Chemical Exposure Guidelines for 

Deployed Military Personnel (May 1999), and TG 230B, Draft Long-Term Exposure Guidelines for 

Deployed Military Personnel (May 2000). Version 1.3, updated May 2003, of the original January 2002 

publication, provides the most current military guidance for assessing chemical hazards during 

deployments. 

Additional Information, Updates, and Revisions 

Chemical hazard risk assessments for deployments have been performed on a regular basis since 1995 by 

the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM) as well as other 

service organizations. The USACHPPM approach to characterizing chemical-related risks has evolved 

over the past several years. Our goal has been to learn through experience and establish a standardized, 

supportable methodology that will ultimately be applied directly “in the field” by appropriate military

medical/health personnel. 

USACHPPM has also assisted the Army Medical Department (AMEDD) Center and School in 

incorporating a session on TG 230 in the basic 6AF5 course for new Army medical and preventive 

medicine officers. As such, it is reasonable to expect a growing awareness and understanding of this 

guide and its use. In addition to the basic guidance the USACHPPM is continuing associated efforts to 

facilitate consistent assessment of chemical hazards. One such effort is to establish chemical-specific 

summary information called Chemical Hazard Information for Deployments (CHIDs). Each of these 

sheets will summarize a variety of physical, chemical, toxicological, medical and detection information 

not available in the TG 230. The USACHPPM is developing CHIDs on a case-by-case basis for 

chemicals often detected or for which specific information has been requested. Finally, one of our major 

initiatives during 2003 will be the development of a software program that will guide the user through the 

TG 230 process, to produce a standardized ORM Deployment Chemical Risk Assessment Summary

Report. We are hoping to have this available from our website. 

This TG and its supporting Reference Document (RD 230, USACHPPM 2003) present our current 

methodology. Due to scientific advances and expanding operational needs, our methods and documents 

will be updated as necessary. Users should ensure that they have the most up-to-date version of TG 230 

and any supporting reference materials and guidance. This document and associated information (to 

include information regarding past and present deployment support assessments such as for deployment 

operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait) can be obtained electronically from the following website: 

http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/desp/pages/samp_doc.htm 

Questions, comments, and recommendations can also be forwarded to USACHPPM: 

US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine 

Deployment Environmental Surveillance Program

ATTN: MCHB-TS-RDE 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5403 

DSN 584-6096 or Commercial (410) 436-6096 

 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 PURPOSE..............................................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Key Assumptions and Decisions...........................................................................................1

1.1.2. Scope.....................................................................................................................................2 

1.2 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................................3

1.2.1 Health and Operational Hazards ...........................................................................................3

1.2.2 Health Risk Management Policies and Procedures...............................................................3

1.3 AUDIENCE ...........................................................................................................................................4

1.4 APPLICATION AND LIMITATIONS OF USE.............................................................................................4

1.4.1 Use in Different Types of Deployment Scenarios ................................................................5

1.4.2 Other Technical Guidance Pertaining to Chemical Hazards.................................................5

1.4.3 Use with Caution: Scientific Uncertainties..........................................................................5

1.4.4 Chemical Not Listed in these Guidelines..............................................................................6

2. MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES (MEGs) 8

2.1 WHAT ARE MEGS?..............................................................................................................................8

2.1.1 Air-MEGs: Inhalation of Chemicals....................................................................................8

2.1.2 Water-MEGs: Chemicals Ingested in Potable Water.........................................................10

2.1.3 Soil-MEGs: Daily Exposure through Dermal Contact, Ingestion, and Inhalation.............11

2.2 CHEMICAL HAZARDS WITH UNIQUE CONCERNS...............................................................................11

2.2.1 Chemicals Warfare Agents (CWA) ....................................................................................11

2.2.2 Ambient Air Quality: Priority Pollutants and Particulates..................................................12

2.3 POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS..............................................................................................................13

2.4 DIFFERENT MEGS REFLECT DIFFERENT EFFECTS............................................................................13

2.4.1 Meaning of MEG Exceedences and Predicted Incidence of Symptoms.............................13

2.4.2 Acute and Systemic, Non-Cancer Health Effects...............................................................14

2.4.3 Cancer .................................................................................................................................15

3. RISK ASSESSMENT APPLICATIONS 17

3.1 OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................17

3.2 HEALTH THREAT AND MEDICAL THREAT CONCEPTS.......................................................................18

3.3 MEGS AND OPERATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENTS ...............................................................................19

3.3.1 Step 1 — Hazard Identification ..........................................................................................20

3.3.2 Step 2 — Hazard Assessment .............................................................................................23

3.3.3 Step 3 — Developing and Comparing Controls .................................................................29

3.3.4 Steps 4 and 5 - Implementing Controls; Supervising and Evaluating.................................31 

Appendices 

Appendix A References 

Appendix B Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Appendix C Military Exposure Guidelines for Air 

Appendix D Military Exposure Guidelines for Water 

Appendix E Military Exposure Guidelines for Soil 

Appendix F Hypothetical Case Studies

Appendix G Drinking Water Purification 

 I 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

Figures 

Figure 3–1. Operational Risk Management Process................................................................................18 

Figure 3-2. Hierarchy of OEH Hazards to the Military ..........................................................................22 

Tables 

Table 1-1. Typical Non-Hazardous Constituents Detected in Soil.............................................................7 

Table 1-2. Aesthetic Factors in Assessing Drinking Water – Physical Properties......................................7 

Table 1-3. Aesthetic Factors in Assessing Drinking Water – Chemical Properties....................................7 

Table 2-1. Definitions of Health Effects Associated with Air-MEGs ........................................................9 

Table 2-2. Definitions of Health Effects Associated with Water-MEGs..................................................10

Table 2-3. Definitions of Health Effects Associated with Soil-MEGs.....................................................11

Table 2-4. Target Organs and Systems Affected by Chemical Toxicity ..................................................15

Table 2-5. Chemical Carcinogenicity Classification Codes .....................................................................16

Table 3-1. Chemical Hazard Severity Ranking Chart for Military Deployments............................25 

Table 3-2. Chemical Hazard Probability Ranking Chart for Military Deployments.........................26

Table 3-3. Risk Assessment Matrix ..........................................................................................................27

Table 3-4. Risk Level Definitions.............................................................................................................28

Table 3-5. Example Criteria for Assigning Confidence Levels................................................................29

Table 3-6. Risk Management Strategies...................................................................................................30

Table 3-7. Examples of Chemical Hazard Control Measures...................................................................31

 II 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

SECTION 

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE 

Everyday as we respond to the nation’s needs, we expose our soldiers to hazards in 

uncertain and complex environments. We do this with the full knowledge that there are 

inherent risks associated with any military operation. The nature of our profession will not

allow for either complacency or a cavalier acceptance of risk. 

—General D.J. Reimer, Chief of Staff Army (DA 1998)

Technical Guide 230 (TG 230) provides military exposure guidelines (MEGs) for chemicals in air, water, 

and soil for use during deployments. Specific information is provided regarding the type and severity of 

health effects resulting from exposures to varying chemical concentrations, the primary organs/systems 

affected, odor /taste threshold information, and additional notes when available. Perhaps more 

importantly, this TG provides application guidance describing how the MEGs can be used to characterize 

the level of health and mission risks associated with identified or anticipated exposures to chemicals in 

the deployment environment in a manner consistent with the existing military Operational Risk 

Management (ORM) paradigm. The intent is that trained personnel such as preventive medicine officers, 

environmental staff officers, industrial hygienists, health risk assessors, or other medically trained 

personnel, can use this guide to consistently characterize risks from chemical exposures by use of a 

standardized process that is both scientifically supportable and militarily feasible. This TG is not 

designed for typical garrison operations, as these are covered under existing Department of the Army

(DA) occupational health and environmental compliance regulations. However there is limited 

application in catastrophic continental United States (CONUS) scenarios (i.e., terrorist events). Further 

details are included in Sections 1.1.2 and 1.4 discussing the intended applications. For the convenience of 

the reader, Appendix A presents the references used in this TG and Appendix B provides a glossary and 

list of acronyms. 

1.1.1 Key Assumptions and Decisions

Developing this guidance required several up-front risk management decisions that cannot be answered 

definitively by science. To the extent possible, these reflect existing military policy/ directives, but some

issues are not adequately determined by current policy or regulation. The key decisions/assumptions used 

in the preparation of this document include: 

3⁄4 Whether health effects caused by chemical exposures during a deployment are immediate or 

delayed (even delayed for several years), the risk of any adverse health effect is to be 

considered in military operations. However, since military ORM focuses on success of the 

current mission, the guidance presented in this TG is based on the decision that health effects

that have immediate impacts and affect personnel functional capabilities are of greater 

concern than delayed health effects (e.g., increased risk of cancer). 

 1 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

3⁄4 The military population, for which these guidelines are developed, is assumed to be “healthy

and fit” and often believed to be less susceptible to the adverse health effects caused by

chemical exposures than the general (civilian) population. However, this assumption has 

been debated and an assessment of susceptibility traits amongst the military population 

concluded that for many health effects the military population is of equivalent variability as 

the general population (see section 2.4). There are known and unknown subpopulations 

within the deployed military population that may be uniquely susceptible to effects caused by

certain chemicals. In some cases where adequate information was available, the MEGs 

accommodate a susceptible group within the military population (e.g., asthmatics, who are 

included in deployment operations). Although pregnant women are not considered 

deployable, there are potential scenarios where a woman may be deployed without realizing 

her pregnant status. Since developmental effects caused by chemical exposures are often 

associated with first trimester exposures, and since the fetus is considered a third party

involuntarily being put at risk, legal and ethical recommendations have resulted in these 

guidelines to be protective against developmental effects where such data was available. As a 

result, several MEGs are the same as would be applied to a civilian population. However, the 

MEGs have been screened to ensure that they are not based on health effects that are clearly

not associated with deployed military personnel (i.e. they are not designed to protect people 

that would never be deployed such as children or the elderly). 

3⁄4 Current scientific methods for deriving human health guidelines focus on estimating human 

threshold concentrations by using toxicological data along with safety factors to account for 

various data gaps and uncertainties. The resulting MEGs in this TG represent conservative 

population thresholds for different types of health effects. This provides the user with an 

idea of when the specified effect may begin to be noticed in a small percentage of the 

exposed persons. It does not represent levels at which the majority, median, or 50% of 

personnel will demonstrate such effects as the selected scientific models do not provide this 

information. 

1.1.2 Scope 

This version of TG 230 is a combined and updated version of TG 230A and TG 230B (see Preface). The 

associated Reference Document (RD 230) has also been completed to support the material herein. 

Specific technical material has been limited in this TG to facilitate field use. RD 230 provides the 

technical information that support the derivation of the MEG values and other information contained 

herein. 

This TG does not address biological or nuclear/radiation hazards. Its focus is on chemical hazards – both 

chemical warfare agents (CWAs) as well as toxic industrial chemicals (TICs). However, there are 

limitations in this TG regarding chemical hazards: 

3⁄4 Not every chemical is listed (see section 1.4.1) since many chemicals have limited toxicity

information available. TG 230 has focused on chemicals with readily available information 

or which were otherwise identified as key hazards of concern. Future amendments to TG 230 

will include both updated MEGs as well as the addition of chemicals. 

3⁄4 Other aspects critical to addressing occupational and environmental health (OEH) chemical 

hazards include guidance on sampling contaminated media, control methods, and medical 

treatment. While these topics are beyond the scope of this TG, additional guidance in these 

areas is currently being developed by USACHPPM in the form of Chemical Hazard 

 2 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

Information for Deployments (CHIDs) (see Preface) as well as other guidance (see the back 

cover). 

3⁄4 The purpose of the MEGs is to provide protection to our personnel from chemical exposures 

during deployments. The MEGs are not designed for environmental compliance purposes 

and should not be used as environmental compliance/preservation/remediation goals in 

CONUS or outside the continental United States (OCONUS). 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

Risk Management is not an add-on feature to the decision-making process but rather a fully

integrated element of planning and executing operations... Risk management helps us

preserve combat power and retain the flexibility for bold decisive action. Proper risk 

management is a combat multiplier that we can ill afford to squander. 

—General D.J. Reimer, 1995 (DA 1998)

1.2.1 Health and Operational Hazards 

The deployed military population is subject to a variety of operation-related hazards. These hazards 

include climate conditions (e.g., excessive heat, cold and noise), infectious diseases, physical threats 

(including those associated with accidents, explosions, and certain forms of ionizing radiation), chemical 

and biological warfare agents, and a large number of chemical contaminants in air, water, food, and soil. 

Forces might be exposed to these hazards intermittently, continuously, or simultaneously. Exposures to 

chemicals during deployments and other operations are inevitable. In some situations chemicals may be 

present for only a short time, but at high enough levels that exposures could immediately impact 

individual health or even degrade the mission. In other situations, continuous but less extreme levels of 

chemicals in the environment could put military personnel at increased risk of delayed, permanent health 

problems. 

1.2.2 Health Risk Management Policies and Procedures 

The military, scientific, and political communities have recently acknowledged the need to identify and 

consider (as identifiable military “threats”) all toxic chemicals or radiological hazards that pose delayed, 

chronic health risks to military personnel (IOM 1999, NRC 1999, DOD 1999, DODI 6055.1, and 

NSTC/PRD 5). Military leaders and their staff elements are now responsible for monitoring, assessing, 

and minimizing OEH hazards to ensure force health protection. A listing of policies, procedures, and 

guiding principles for the management of such hazards are listed in RD 230. 

Deployment scenarios can involve a range of operations from sustaining peace and stability to direct 

combat. While the hazards may be of a different nature during these operations, the hazard management 

process is the same. This process requires the identification of hazards, a standardized categorization of 

the risks, and a decision process that appropriately balances these risks to minimize adverse impacts on 

the mission and personnel. Field Manual (FM) 100-14, Risk Management and FM-3-100.12, Risk 

Management: Multiservice Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures provide the ORM doctrine that defines 

this process. Making decisions to accept, minimize, or altogether prevent OEH hazards must be made in 

conjunction with assessments of other operational hazards that put the commander’s mission and 

personnel at risk. 

It is DOD and Army policy to address the health and mission risks associated with chemical exposures 

within the overall ORM process (DODI 6055.1 and HQDA Letter 1-01-1). Specifically, appropriate 

consideration of OEH chemical hazards are a part of Force Health Protection (FHP), and proper 

assessment and surveillance should be used to minimize both immediate health and mission impacts, as 

 3 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

well as any potential delayed health effects that adversely effect the long-term health of service men and 

women. The objective is to minimize overall health risks while achieving successful mission completion. 

This will always be a balance. War-time operations will inevitably yield higher acceptance of casualties, 

while peacekeeping missions will require greater need to minimize non-severe health effects associated 

with what has been referred to as “low-level” exposures. Low-level exposures are those that may not 

significantly impact the current mission or result in any function-impairing effects, but which constitute 

an exposure that could have a health effect. Further discussion on different levels of health effects and 

associated mission impacts are discussed in Section 3 and presented in Table 3-1. 

TG 248, Guide for Deployed Military Personnel on Health Risk Management, (USACHPPM 2001) 

provides a general framework for addressing OEH hazards (i.e., chemical, radiological, biological, 

entomological, endemic disease) in a way that implements the established ORM process, as defined by

FM 100-14. This revised TG 230 was developed following the framework used in TG 248. Appropriate 

application of ORM and this TG will allow appropriate consideration be given to chemical hazards. The 

use of MEGs within the TG 248 ORM process is presented in Section 3. 

1.3 AUDIENCE 

Staff members continuously look for hazards associated with their area of expertise. They

then recommend controls to reduce those risks.... Leaders, staff and soldiers become the 

assessors for ever-changing hazards such as those associated with the environment 

(weather, visibility, contaminated air, soil, water), equipment readiness, unit experience, 

and fatigue. Leaders and staff should advise the chain of command on risks and risk

reduction methods. 

—FM 100-14, Risk Management

TG 230 is designed to assist trained preventive medicine/medical personnel in the evaluation of chemical 

exposure data in order to minimize health and mission risks during deployments. These trained personnel 

are to use the TG as an objective base from which to make educated determinations. It is not intended for 

use by untrained personnel or as a substitute for having trained preventive medicine personnel onsite or in 

theater. Users should have a basic understanding of the underlying toxicological/health basis for these 

guidelines. They should be familiar with basic methods of exposure assessment of chemicals in the 

environment. Finally, it is necessary that the user appreciate the uncertainties associated with sampling 

and with the assumptions used for estimating representative exposure levels. Military health services 

personnel will need to use professional judgment when applying the standardized information in this 

guide; however, they will be more adequately prepared to determine the severity of health hazards within 

a framework that is consistent with other military risk management decisions. 

1.4 APPLICATION AND LIMITATIONS OF USE 

First reckon, then risk. 

—Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke, FM 100-14, Risk Management (DA 1998)

Risk Management is the recognition that decision-making occurs under conditions of

uncertainty... —FM 100-14, Risk Management (DA 1998)

 4 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

In general, this TG should be used to characterize health and medical threats and the risks they pose to 

personnel and the mission. The user should compare the guidelines with field sampling data or other 

(e.g., modeled) exposure data information. The interpretation of these comparisons will require 

professional judgment. Due to the uncertainties that are inherent in the toxicological data, as well as the 

variations in human response to chemical exposure and the exposure estimates that go into establishing 

health-based guidelines, users should not use the MEGs as strict, bright-lines (i.e., go/no-go standards) for 

decision making unless so noted (e.g., water MEGs based on TB MED 577). Instead, the TG and its 

range of MEGs provide a set of criteria that are to be used to identify and rank OEH risks from chemical 

exposures in a deployment setting. The range of concentration levels and exposure durations represented 

for each chemical are designed to give the user an idea of the overall toxicity and types of health effects 

associated with certain exposure scenarios. MEGs range from high levels that represent a “threshold” for 

fatality to levels that could be present continuously for short or long-term periods without resulting in any

significant symptoms. 

1.4.1 Use in Different Types of Deployment Scenarios 

For certain types of deployment operations (such as direct combat), it is anticipated that such guidelines 

will be of limited importance to the overall ORM decision-making process. That is, “physical” hazards 

such as armed adversaries will present much greater risks and, therefore, be of greater priority. For other 

scenarios, such as long-term humanitarian deployment operations, the considerations of overall long-term

personnel health may play a more critical role in risk management decisions. Accordingly, these 

guidelines are to be used at the discretion of the commander. As stated in the HQDA Letter 1-01-1 

(2001) Force Health Protection (FHP): Occupational and Environmental Health (OEH) Threats: 

“...commanders [need to be] aware of and consider risks created by OEH exposures 

(both long-term and short-term) during all phases of military activities...[and]...reduce 

OEH exposures to as low as practicable to minimize short- and long-term health effects 

in personnel within the context of the full spectrum of health and safety risks confronting 

the deployed personnel.” 

1.4.2 Other Technical Guidance Pertaining to Chemical Hazards 

To the extent possible, a wide variety of occupational, environmental, and military standards have been 

considered and incorporated into the development of these guidelines. There is a substantial amount of 

technical information on various chemicals that can be obtained from other sources (hardcopy or 

electronically such as through the internet). To the extent that personnel have the resources, accessibility, 

and time to review additional information, this is encouraged as it will likely increase overall confidence 

in the assessment and characterization of risk. However, it is anticipated that there will be situations 

where there are inconsistencies in information or guideline levels. To the extent possible, RD 230 

delineates in detail the basis for the MEGs and in many cases describes reasons for conflicts with other 

standards. Where such explanations are not available, the user must use professional judgment or contact 

USACHPPM for consultation. When assessing industrial-type operations during deployments, where the 

soldiers’ activities involve typical 8-hour workday situations (e.g., motor pool maintenance), existing 

industrial hygiene standards may be more appropriate than MEGs. 

1.4.3 Use with Caution: Scientific Uncertainties 

Uncertainties involved in the development of these guidelines are principally those related to exposure 

parameters and toxicological data. Uncertainties in the toxicological data may result from data gaps, 

insufficient quality or quantity of data, and/or lack of human data. Exposure assumptions used in 

developing these guidelines include inhalation and ingestion rates, body weights, and frequency and 

duration of exposure. These assumptions may or may not represent those in actual deployment scenarios. 

 5 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

Furthermore, the environmental levels estimated through sampling are often not likely to remain constant. 

The user must consider these uncertainties when making risk management decisions or recommendations. 

Use of this TG should not be construed as a “definitive quantification of health outcomes.” In most 

deployment scenarios, it will be difficult to make definitive statements as to the absolute degree of 

risk/type of health effect(s) caused by environmental contaminants. Even statements regarding whether a 

risk is present or not must be carefully stated to ensure that the uncertainty inherent to any risk assessment 

is accurately considered and weighed. 

In addition to communicating a level of risk associated with a chemical hazard, a user should be prepared 

to describe the degree of confidence in his/her assessment (such as high, moderate, or low confidence). 

An estimate of a “high” risk that has low confidence (i.e., uncertainty is high) may significantly influence 

Command decisions, especially if there are other high risks for which there is greater levels of certainty. 

Guidance for determining confidence levels is provided in Section 3.3. 

Due to limitations in toxicity data, the nature of chemical exposures and human variability, OEH 

chemical risk assessments should almost never be ranked with high confidence. For the most part, the 

MEGs are conservatively designed so that confidence in estimated Low Risks will tend to be greater than 

those estimated to be High Risk. 

1.4.4 Chemical Not Listed in these Guidelines 

Though the list of chemicals included in this TG is quite broad, there are occasions where identified 

chemicals will not have a specified guideline. In general, this may be because there is limited toxicity 

information available for the chemical. Occasionally, there may be a short-term guideline but no longterm guideline for a chemical. In these cases, it is likely that the chemical poses primarily an acute (shortterm) hazard at higher concentrations but at lower concentrations there are no documented effects, even 

after continued long-term exposures. On the other hand, some chemicals may not pose a health risk 

unless the exposure is constant and repeated over a long-term exposure. In this case, there may not be 

any short-term MEGs. 

In any situation where there is information lacking on a chemical, the user has a few options: (1) contact 

USACHPPM to do research and characterize severity and risk; (2) establish an overall risk estimate based 

on other chemicals and information in this TG and document the uncertainty (i.e., reduced confidence) in 

the risk estimate by not including a chemical assessment of the chemical(s) with no MEGs; or (3) 

research the chemical (e.g., literature or internet resources) and establish a surrogate guideline. 

Key reference sites for looking up additional chemical information are prioritized below. When using 

values/data from these sites the user should attempt to be consistent with the MEG derivations/guidelines 

presented in RD 230. 

- http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

- http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html

- http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm

 

1.4.4.1 “Non-Hazards”. Some chemical data received from routine laboratory analyses will include 

certain chemicals/ constituents/compounds that can be readily identified as “non-hazards”. These are 

primarily identified in soil or water analysis and include essential nutrients, minerals, and related 

compounds. They are found commonly in nature and are considered, at least at some level, beneficial or 

even necessary to the proper functioning of the human body. 

 6 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

Soil: If identified in laboratory results, the following are examples of constituents that can 

generally be considered as non-hazards and do not need to be factored into a health risk assessment. 

These constituents are generally only toxic when ingested in large amounts at high concentrations, which 

is not realistically feasible from soil ingestion at typical environmental concentrations. For these reasons, 

many of these constituents lack Federal guidance as well. 

TABLE 1-1. TYPICAL NON-HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS DETECTED IN SOIL 

Aluminum Barium Magnesium Potassium Sodium

Calcium Iron Manganese Selenium

Drinking Water: Drinking water analysis also often includes constituents that may not cause 

adverse health effects, but which may aesthetically (e.g., color, taste, odor) make the water less palatable. 

This could lead to reduced consumption that could in turn result in indirect health effects from

dehydration (Case Study 4 in Appendix F provides an example scenario). In addition, these criteria may

be a useful source of information when evaluating water treatment system capabilities. While there are 

guidelines and standards (per TB MED 577) to ensure that aesthetic standards are met – it is useful to 

note that these guidelines/criteria are not based on direct toxic health effects. Tables 1-2 and 1-3 

summarize various aesthetic factors considered in assessing drinking water. 

TABLES 1-2 AND 1-3. AESTHETIC FACTORS IN ASSESSING DRINKING WATER 

 

Table 1-2. Physical 

Properties 

Maximum level 

5-15L/day 

(TB Med 577) 

 <7 days >7 days

Color (color unit) 50 15 

Odor (TON) 3 3 

pH 5-9 5-9

TDS (mg/L) 1000 1000 

Turbidity (NTU) 1 1 

Table 1-3. Chemical 

Properties 

Recommended 

maximum level 

(U.S. EPA*) 

Aluminum 0.05 – 0.2 mg/L 

Fluoride 2 mg/L

Iron 0.3 mg/L

Manganese 0.05 mg/L

Silver 0.1 mg/L

Sulfate 250 mg/L

* U.S. EPA public drinking water criteria are 

recommendations only. 

 7 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

SECTION 

2 

MILITARY EXPOSURE 

GUIDELINES

2.1 WHAT ARE MEGs? 

MEGs are concentrations for chemicals in air, water, and soil that can be used to assist in assessing the 

significance of field exposures to OEH chemical hazards during deployments. TG 230 MEGs are 

designed to address a variety of scenarios such as a single catastrophic release of large amounts of a 

chemical, temporary exposure conditions lasting hours to days, or for continuous ambient environmental 

conditions such as regional pollution, use of a contaminated water supply, or persistent soil contamination 

where there is regular contact. For each environmental media there are slightly different exposure 

scenarios of concern. 

Specifically, a MEG is a chemical concentration which represents an estimate of the level above which 

certain types of health effects may begin to occur in individuals within the exposed population after a 

continuous, single exposure of specified duration. The severity of the health effects and percentage of the 

exposed population demonstrating health effects will increase as concentrations increase above the MEG, 

but the rate is chemical-specific, and therefore cannot be represented by the MEGs themselves. The 

MEGs are not designed for determining casualty estimates but are instead are preventive measures 

guidelines.

Since existing toxicological databases were utilized, the quality and extensiveness of toxicological 

information underlying these guidelines is comparable, and as variable, as that used by Federal agencies 

for worker and civilian applications. For specific details on the various approaches and methods used to 

develop the guideline values, refer to RD 230.

2.1.1 Air-MEGs: Inhalation of Chemicals 

Table 2-1 defines the types of Air-MEGs and the meaning behind exceedences of the various air 

guidelines. Air-MEGs are presented in Appendix C. 

In deployment situations, the most prominent and likely exposure pathway for exposure to chemicals is 

through the inhalation of contaminated air. As contaminants in air are difficult to avoid or control and 

may produce immediate and severe health effects, a variety of Air-MEGs were developed. Some of these 

levels represent severe conditions that are likely to have real-time, direct impacts on personnel 

performance and mission accomplishment/success. For selected CWAs, Air-MEGs are provided for 

temporary and short-term exposure scenarios of 10 minutes, 1 hour, 8 hours, and 24 hours (Table C-1). 

For other airborne chemicals, Air-MEGs for short-term exposure scenarios of 1 hour, 8 hours, and 14 

days are provided (Table C-2). Air-MEGs are also provided for 1-year (deployment-length), continuous 

exposures (Table C-3). Guidelines for priority pollutants are provided in Table C-4. 

 8 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

TABLE 2-1. DEFINITIONS OF HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH AIR-MEGS 

EXPOSURE DURATION HEALTH EFFECTS AND PERFORMANCE DEGRADATION * 

1-hour

Sev 

The airborne concentration above which continuous exposure for 1 hour could 

begin to produce life-threatening or lethal effects in a small portion of 

individuals. Increasing concentrations and/or duration of exposure will increase 

incidence of lethality and severity of non-lethal severe effects. 

1-hour

Sig 

The airborne concentration above which continuous exposure for 1 hour could 

begin to produce irreversible, permanent, or serious health effects that may result 

in performance degradation and incapacitate in a small portion of individuals. 

Increasing concentrations and/or duration of exposure will increase incidence 

and severity of effects.

1-hour

Min

The airborne concentration above which continuous exposure for 1 hour could 

begin to produce mild, non-disabling, transient, reversible effects, if any. Such

effects should not impair performance. Increasing concentration and/or duration 

could result in performance degradation, especially for tasks requiring specific

mental/visual acuity or physical dexterity/strength.

8-hour and 

24-hour **

The airborne concentration above which continuous exposure for 8 or 24 hours 

could begin to produce mild, non-disabling, transient, reversible effects, if any.

Such effects should not impair performance. Increasing concentration and/or

duration could result in performance degradation, especially for tasks requiring

specific mental/visual acuity or physical dexterity/strength. 

SHORT-TERM 

14-day

The airborne concentration for a continuous exposure for up to 14 days (24 

hours/day) that should not impair performance and is considered protective 

against significant, non-cancer effects. Increasing concentration and/or duration

could result in performance degradation or increase the potential for inducing 

delayed/permanent disease (e.g., kidney disease or cancer).

LONG-TERM 

1 year 

The airborne concentration for a continuous exposure up to 1 year (365 days, 24

hours/day) that is considered protective against health effects including chronic 

disease and increased risk to cancer (i.e., cancer risk greater than 1 x 10-4). No

performance degradation or long-term health consequences are expected with 

exposure at or below this level. Increasing concentration and/or duration could 

increase the potential for delayed/permanent disease (e.g., kidney disease or 

cancer). 

* Sensitive individuals may be predisposed to toxic effects and, therefore, maybe more susceptible. If available 

scientific evidence regarding such subpopulations exists for a particular chemical, then this information is provided

in the guideline tables. 

** For military unique chemicals warfare agents (i.e., GA, GB, GD, GF, VX, and HD), a 24-hour MEG has been

derived instead of a 14-day MEG because of the likelihood for CWA exposures to extend beyond a 24-hour period

is extremely small. The 24-hour CWA MEGs are described in detail in Table C-1. The definition of effects 

associated with these values is the same as the 8-hour guidelines. 

 9 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

2.1.2 Water-MEGs: Chemicals Ingested in Potable Water 

Table 2-2 defines the types of Water-MEGs and the meaning behind their exceedence. Water-MEGs are 

presented in Appendix D – Table D-1 for short-term exposure scenarios of 5 days and 2 weeks and Table 

D-2 for 1-year (deployment-length) continuous exposures. 

Potable water implies various uses; however, these guidelines reflect the specific exposure pathway of 

direct consumption of a water source. Applying such guidelines to make decisions regarding bathing,

teeth brushing, dishwashing, or other non-potable water applications are over-conservative applications, 

but at this time no other guidelines have been derived for these specific scenarios.

Water-MEGs are based on specific exposure conditions that are described by daily rates of water 

consumption that have been designated as typical standards for military deployment operations: 5 liters 

(L)/day for moderate climates and 15 L/day in dry/arid climates. These rates are extremely high in 

comparison to typical general population drinking /consumption rates (e.g., 2L/day) but these rates have 

been validated and established in Army doctrine (TB MED 577). The Water-MEGs are designed to 

indicate “thresholds” for minimal to no adverse health effects. The health effects at these levels do not 

generally represent observable degradation in personnel performance. However, the more chemical 

concentrations in a water source exceed a guideline level or the duration of exposure, the more likely that 

a greater portion of those exposed will develop symptoms of exposure. When available, information 

regarding levels that produce severe or lethal effects is also provided in the Appendix D tables. 

TABLE 2-2. DEFINITIONS OF HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH WATER-MEGS 

EXPOSURE

DURATION HEALTH EFFECT HEALTH EFFECTS AND PERFORMANCE DEGRADATION * 

5 days

5 or

15 L/day

MINIMAL TO 

NONSIGNIFICANT 

The drinking water concentration for a continuous daily

consumption of either 5 L/day or 15 L/day for up to 5 days that

should not impair performance and is considered protective against

significant non-cancer effects. Increasing concentration and/or

duration could result in performance degradation, need for medical

intervention, or increase the potential for delayed/permanent 

disease (e.g., kidney disease or cancer). 

SHORT-TERM 

14 days

5 or

15 L/day

MINIMAL TO 

NONSIGNIFICANT 

The drinking water concentration for a continuous daily

consumption of either 5 L/day or 15 L/day for up 14 days that 

should not impair performance and is considered protective against

significant non-cancer effects. Increasing concentration and/or

duration could result in performance degradation, need for medical

intervention, or increase the potential for delayed/permanent 

disease (e.g., kidney disease or cancer). 

LONG-TERM 

1 year 

5 or

15 L/day

NONSIGNIFICANT

TO NONE 

The drinking water concentration for a continuous daily

consumption of either 5 L/day or 15 L/day for up to 1 year that 

should not impair performance and is considered protective against

health effects including chronic disease and increased risk to cancer 

(i.e., cancer risk greater than 1 x 10-4). Increasing concentration 

and/or duration could increase the potential for delayed/permanent

disease (e.g., kidney disease or cancer). 

* Sensitive individuals may be predisposed to toxic effects and, therefore, maybe more susceptible. If available 

scientific evidence regarding such subpopulations exists for a particular chemical, then this information is provided

in the guideline tables. 

 10 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

2.1.3 Soil-MEGs: Daily Exposure through Contact, Ingestion, and Inhalation 

Table 2-3 defines the Soil-MEGs and the meaning behind their exceedences. Soil-MEGs for 1-year 

(deployment-length) continuous exposures are presented in Appendix E. Soil-MEGs for short-term

exposure scenarios were not developed for the following reasons. Typically, unless obvious odors, dead 

or discolored vegetation, or free chemical product is observed, soil contamination is not anticipated to be 

an immediate or severe hazard. If such conditions are observed, such areas that may contain 

contaminated soils are usually relatively easy to avoid. 

Soil-MEG values are based on specific exposure assumptions that are described by daily rates of activity

to include breathing rates, incidental soil ingestion rates, and dermal contact rates that are expected to be 

typical for military deployment operations. These soil guidelines are designed to indicate “thresholds” for 

no adverse health effects. As the parameters of the MEG are exceeded (e.g., chemical concentrations 

exceed soil MEGs, or exposure durations increase), it becomes more likely that greater portions of 

individuals in the exposed population will experience adverse health outcomes. 

TABLE 2-3. DEFINITIONS OF HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH SOIL-MEGS 

EXPOSURE

DURATION HEALTH EFFECT HEALTH EFFECTS AND PERFORMANCE DEGRADATION LONG-TERM 

1 year NONSIGNIFICANT

TO NONE 

The soil concentration for continuous, daily exposure (from

ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation) for up to 1 year (365

days) that should not impair performance and is considered

protective against any health effects including chronic disease and 

increased risk to cancer (i.e., cancer risk greater than 1 x 10-4). 

Increasing concentration and/or duration could increase the potential 

for delayed/permanent disease (e.g., kidney disease or cancer). 

* Sensitive individuals may be predisposed to toxic effects and, therefore, maybe more susceptible. If available 

scientific evidence regarding such subpopulations exists for a particular chemical, then this information is provided

in the guideline tables. 

2.2 CHEMICAL HAZARDS WITH UNIQUE CONCERNS 

2.2.1 Chemicals Warfare Agents (CWA) 

The primary CWAs addressed by this TG include the nerve agents (GA, GB, GD, GF and VX) and the 

vesicants or blister agents (Sulfur Mustard (HD) and Lewisite). Currently, military risk management 

decisions regarding CWAs are somewhat unique in comparison to that of other TICs addressed by this 

TG. In part, this is because various Army, DoD and Joint Staff policy and doctrinal documents establish 

procedures and standards to address potential military exposure to CWA. Most of the existing 

operational Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) policies and procedures focus on the wartime 

scenario. (See the back cover for a list of a few key NBC references.) Much of the responsibility is 

assigned to the Chemical Corps or designated NBC personnel. Much of the existing doctrine and 

equipment has focused on “presence-absence” identification as opposed to estimation of degree of risk. 

Medical responsibilities for NBC have historically been limited to casualty management with preventive 

medicine aspects focused on antidote development and administration. Today, with varying types of 

deployments and increased attention to health effects that may be more subtle and/or long lasting, the 

policies, doctrine, and even equipment (such as detection and monitoring devices) are undergoing 

evaluation and change. Requirements (HQDA Letter 1-01-1, 2001) to address mild or delayed health 

 11 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

effects in operational risk management – including scenarios involving potential residual or low-level 

CWA concentrations require more information than what has been previously incorporated into doctrine. 

Most scenarios involving CWA will still require Chemical/NBC personnel involvement. Follow-up 

and/or joint evaluation by medical/preventive medicine personnel is necessary to ensure that the potential 

for residual CWA contamination is appropriately considered and documented. 

2.2.1.1 Air-MEGs 

The Air-MEGs for CWAs (Table C-1) are based on the same technical and toxicological models that the 

other chemical Air-MEGs are based on with the exception of Lewisite, which has a limited toxicity

database and therefore has guidelines derived largely from a conservative baseline detection limit. 

Therefore, the MEGs can be used to demonstrate relative potency or toxicity of the chemicals. The AirMEGs for CWA are provided for 1-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour exposure durations. Air-MEGs for the 14-

day and 1-year exposure durations were not developed because CWAs are generally not persistent in the 

air for longer than 24 hours. 

2.2.1.2 Water-MEGs 

Drinking Water-MEGs are extracted directly from the doctrinal requirements of TB MED 577. These TG 

Water-MEGs are, therefore, “standards” which must not be exceeded. As with the air exposure pathway,

extended exposure to small amounts of CWA in a drinking water source is not a plausible scenario (due to

physical/chemical characteristics of the agent as well as the military requirements that would prohibit

extended use of such a water source), therefore, only short-term CWA Water-MEGs are provided. 

2.2.1.3 Soil-MEGs 

Despite the general non-persistent nature of CWA in air and even water, binding to soil or other solid 

media can potentially extend the presence of CWA in a deployment setting. This is particularly true for 

the agents HD and VX. Cold temperatures and dry climates will tend to extend the persistence of these 

chemicals; on the other hand, rain and heat are natural mechanisms of degradation. 

Decisions concerning reentry and post-decontamination scenarios (i.e., after air monitoring has cleared 

the immediate airborne hazard concern) may need to be validated through specific analysis of soil or other 

solid material. Soil-MEGs have been conservatively developed using the same model used to derive 1-

year Soil-MEGs for other TICs in this TG. 

2.2.2 Ambient Air Quality: Priority Pollutants and Particulates 

The USEPA has identified seven “criteria pollutants” or “priority pollutants” as indicators of air quality

and has established for each of them National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) reflecting 

maximum concentrations above which adverse effects on human health may occur. The criteria 

pollutants are ozone (O3), particulates [particulate matter (PM10) and (PM 2.5)], carbon monoxide (CO), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and lead (Pb). The sources of these criteria pollutants 

include factories, power plants, incinerators, automobiles, construction activity, fires and windblown 

dusts. 

As indicators of overall levels of airborne pollution, these pollutants are often of particular focus during 

deployment environmental surveillance and monitoring efforts. In recent environmental surveillance 

programs in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Kuwait, levels of these criteria pollutants have exceeded USEPA 

NAAQS. Ongoing investigations suggest that at high enough levels, these pollutants may be associated 

with increases in military sick call visits for upper respiratory illnesses. Though delayed or permanent 

health effects associated with yearlong exposures to these pollutants have yet to be confirmed, there are 

indications suggesting potential for development or exacerbation of illnesses such as asthma, chronic 

bronchitis, and theoretically, even cancer. Part of the difficulty in ascertaining the specific association of 

 12 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

a priority pollutant with a specific health effect is the confounding nature of pollution – in which multiple 

chemicals form unique mixtures in different environments. In general, exceeding guidelines for more 

than one priority pollutant can be assumed to be of greater health effect than if there was just a single 

pollutant, but the degree to which one pollutant may modify the effect of another is not well established. 

In deployment assessment, sampling efforts during operations should monitor priority pollutants to 

identify potential adverse health effects to military personnel and to ascertain whether actions are 

warranted to minimize impacts. For example, pollutant levels might warrant minimizing strenuous 

outdoor activity at peak hours when pollutants are at their highest concentrations. 

Specific short-term Air-MEGs are provided in TG 230 for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen 

dioxide (see Appendix C, Table C-2). Long-term Air-MEGs have been established for pollutants 

included in the NAAQS that are consistent with the intent of other Air-MEGs derived for TG 230, which 

are protective of the military population for 24 hours per day, up to 1 full year (see Appendix C, Table C3). Additional information and guidance specific to these criteria pollutants is presented in Appendix C, 

Table C-4. 

2.3 POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS 

The MEGs are based on the assumption that deployed military populations consist of relatively healthy

and fit male and non-pregnant female adults. Deployed military personnel are assumed to be 18 to 55 

years of age, with an average weight of approximately 70 kilograms (kg) (i.e., approximately 154 

pounds). While a common assumption is that such individuals will have no predisposing physical or 

mental factors that could exacerbate exposure to environmental chemicals, such an assumption does not 

appear to be entirely supported through scientific evidence. While there are basic health and fitness 

requirements that must be met and maintained by military personnel, an assessment of the factors that can 

lead to chemical specific susceptibilities suggests that many of the primary factors exist for the deployed 

military population (which includes active duty, reserve, and National guard personnel) (See Section 1.4.4 

and Appendix F of the RD 230 for additional discussion). Predisposing factors such as age (>40 years), 

illness (e.g., asthma), physical and emotional stressors, life-style choices (e.g., smoking or alcohol use), or 

unique genetic traits may alter susceptibility to a toxicant. These factors are common to both the general 

population and the deployed military population as well. So, while the MEGs are not specifically

designed to address or protect individuals with hypersensitive or critical health conditions, some sensitive 

sub-populations (identifiable to include genetic subgroups, asthmatics, pregnant females) were factored 

into these guidelines. 

Where intelligence estimates for an area of operation (AO) indicated hazards to known sensitive 

subpopulations, medical planners may consider establishing medical qualifications for deploying forces to 

prevent these subpopulations from deploying to the AO. 

2.4 DIFFERENT MEGs REFLECT DIFFERENT EFFECTS 

2.4.1 Meaning of MEG Exceedences and Predicted Incidence of Symptoms 

To the extent possible, MEG values were developed in a manner to attempt to consistently represent 

designated “thresholds” of differing toxicological severity. However, since the quantity and quality of 

scientific data upon which the guidelines are based varies substantially amongst the chemicals, the 

accuracy with which the guidelines represent severity “thresholds” varies. In cases where data for a 

chemical was extremely limited, a margin of safety has been built into the derived guideline value. In 

some cases, exposures greater than the MEG can induce immediate adverse health effects that may impact 

upon the ability of personnel to accomplish their mission. In other cases, exposures greater than the MEG 

 13 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

simply indicate that there is an increased likelihood that a health problem could arise either during or after 

the deployment is completed. The degree and duration of health effects experienced will depend on: (1) 

the sensitivity and characteristics of the individual exposed; (2) the duration and frequency of exposures; 

(3) the concentration of the substance; (4) the rate at which the individual takes in the substance (such as 

breathing rate or water consumption rate); and (5) the levels of other substances present and their 

interaction. 

In general, environmental concentrations equal to, or slightly greater than, the specified MEG, are 

expected to result in the specified type and degree of health effect in none to a small portion of 

individuals in the exposed military population. In some cases, however, the MEG represents a purely

“protective” level where health effects should not be observed at all. 

Though the MEGs are based on generally conservative interpretations of toxicological data, there are 

variations among the chemicals in the degree of conservatism. In addition, these MEGs are designed for 

assessing a single exposure scenario, and do not consider the impacts of multiple deployments with 

similar or variable chemicals exposures or the inevitable exposures that occur pre- and post-deployment 

during CONUS-based activities and/or personal time (e.g., related to hobbies or home activities). 

2.4.2 Acute and Systemic, Non-Cancer Health Effects 

For non-carcinogens, it is assumed that there is a threshold dose, which defines the minimal amount of a 

chemical necessary to cause a specific adverse health effect or group of effects. Below the threshold 

dose, a chemical compound is not expected to cause any biologically adverse change. The MEG values 

for non-carcinogens represent the best estimate of what the average human threshold dose would be under 

the specific exposure conditions described. Above these concentrations, it is possible that a variety of 

adverse symptoms of exposure may occur. 

The types of health effects and toxicological endpoints associated with exceeding a particular chemical 

guideline are described in the MEG tables in Appendices C, D, and E. Because toxicological data are 

often limited, some potential health effects might not be identified. Similarly, there are uncertainties with 

ascertaining whether any, some, or all of the effects may actually occur. Due to human variability, it is 

also very difficult to quantify the percentage of exposed individuals that may be impacted. Therefore, 

trained personnel should interpret with caution any exceedences of a specific MEG. Understanding the 

types of effects and ascertaining whether short-term guidelines are exceeded is very important in 

determining the severity of the hazard. Also, noting the types of organs/systems that a chemical may

effect is particularly important when there are multiple chemicals present and when some have the same

types of effects. Tables 2-4-1 and 2-4-2 present the target organ and target systems upon which 

chemicals may have adverse impact. These groups are also notated along with each guideline in the MEG 

tables. 

 14 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

 TABLE 2-4-1. TARGET ORGANS TABLE 2-4-2. TARGET SYSTEMS 

TARGET ORGANS TARGET SYSTEMS 

Eyes CNS – Central Nervous System

Skin PNS – Peripheral Nervous System

Blood GI tract – Gastrointestinal Tract 

Bladder RS – Respiratory System

Brain LRS – Lower Respiratory System

Heart URS – Upper Respiratory System

Pancreas CVS – Cardiovascular System

Adrenal Glands ChE Inh – Cholinesterase Inhibitor 

Lungs UT – Urogenital Tract 

Liver CRC – Circulatory System

Kidneys IMM – Immune System

Spleen REPR – Reproductive System

Thyroid HEM – Hemopoietic System

Bone ENDO – Endocrine System

Fetus LYMP – Lymphatic System

 

2.4.3 Cancer 

Chemicals that are identified as cancer-causing (i.e., carcinogenic) can also cause local and/or other 

systemic health conditions. In such cases, both health effects were addressed for the selection of most 

MEGs. With the exception of severe effect 1-hour Air-MEGs, the majority of the MEGs are protective 

against local, systemic, and as well as significant excess cancer risk. The significance of cancer risk is 

unique from other toxic effects in that it is a “non-threshold” effect and therefore exposure at any level 

may be considered to increase the risk of cancer development. To address this in setting chemical 

exposure levels, Federal organizations such as the USEPA and Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) have established “acceptable” excess cancer risk levels. For purposes of TG 230, 

MEGs represent levels that are protective of excess cancer risks greater than 1 x 10-4. A cancer risk of 1 x 

10-4 means that 1 out of 10,000 equally exposed individuals would be expected to develop cancer as a 

result of the evaluated exposure. This is within the range of acceptable risk noted by other federal 

agencies and has previously been indicated an acceptable risk level for DoD (NRC, 1986b). Further 

discussion is provided in the RD 230, Section 3.1.5. 

Uncertainty must be considered when characterizing the risk contributed by a chemical carcinogen. This 

includes consideration of the certainty with which the scientific community believes it to be a human 

carcinogen. Weight-of-Evidence (WOE) classifications (Table 2-5) are provided to characterize the 

degree of certainty with which the USEPA considers the chemical to, in fact, be a human carcinogen. 

These classifications should be incorporated into the overall risk characterization and confidence 

estimation process (for example, a chemical that is considered a “C” carcinogen may be considered to 

pose less risk than one classified as an “A”). 

 15 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

TABLE 2-5. CHEMICAL CARCINOGENICITY CLASSIFICATION CODES * 

CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION 

Class A: Human carcinogen 

Sufficient evidence in epidemiological studies to support causal

association between exposure and cancer. 

Class B: Probable human carcinogen 

Limited evidence in epidemiological studies (Group B1) and/or 

sufficient evidence from animal studies (Group B2). 

Class C: Possible human carcinogen 

Limited evidence from animal studies and inadequate or no data in

humans. 

Class D: Not classifiable Inadequate or no human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity. 

Class E: No evidence of carcinogenicity for

humans 

No evidence of carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests 

in different species or in adequate epidemiological and animal 

studies. 

* While technically only group “E” chemicals may be firmly stated to be “non-carcinogens”, chemicals that fall into a “D” 

category are also not assessed as carcinogens. Chemicals that are “C” carcinogens may be assessed with caution as carcinogens 

with an understanding of the conservatism and uncertainty involved with the associated database. In general, focus should be on 

carcinogens with classifications of A, B1, and B2. 

 16 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

SECTION 

3 

RISK ASSESSMENT

APPLICATIONS

Risk decisions are a commanders business. Such decisions are normally based on the next

higher commands guidance on how much risk he is willing to accept and delegate for the

mission. 

—FM 100-14, Risk Management

Risk management is an effective process for preserving resources. It is not an event. It is

both an art and a science. 

—FM 100-14, Risk Management

A philosophy of dealing with any harm [to deployed personnel] should be clearly stated, 

widely disseminated, ethically based, practical, and comprehensive. This will allow 

commanders to make informed decisions and be flexible rather than having to deal with

prescribed limits when they may be inappropriate or impractical . . . 

—Institute of Medicine (1999)

TG 230 MEGs are best utilized in risk assessments supporting ORM decisions. TG 230 should be used in 

concert with TG 248, which provides guidance for assessing and managing OEH hazards within the 

military ORM framework. TG 248 also identifies those preventive medicine tasks that support OEH 

surveillance and the responsibilities for various assets within the preventive medicine hierarchy. 

3.1 OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT 

Army risk management doctrine, as detailed in FM 100-14, provides commanders with methods to 

evaluate and manage the risks posed by operational hazards to the force. In addition, FM 3-100.4, 

Environmental Considerations in Military Operations, provides doctrine for managing environmental 

risks. These two documents provide an initial framework for characterizing environmental hazards. This 

framework is an iterative process that is integrated into operational planning and decision-making at all 

levels. Leaders manage risk by evaluating hazards and implementing ORM options during course of 

action (COA) development (see Figure 3-1). 

The ORM approach is a process for identifying, assessing, and controlling risks as well as evaluating the 

effectiveness of risk control measures. This TG, in context of TG 248, addresses OEH chemical hazards 

that may pose health threats to individual troops. These can ultimately be expressed as medical threats to 

the force and the mission. The goal of TG 230 MEGs is to provide a useful tool to assist field 

commanders and their staff in the production of risk assessments and making informed ORM decisions 

that consider OEH hazards. Preventive medicine personnel should participate in the ORM process by

identifying OEH hazards, assessing the threat associated with hazards, characterizing the risks in context 

of the proposed COA, effectively transmitting the risk assessments, and recommending appropriate 

control measure options to the commander. Preventive medicine personnel should also assist in 

implementing commander-selected control measures (e.g., provide health risk communication), evaluate 

effectiveness of control measures in controlling health threats, and document the ORM assessment to aid 

in subsequent re-assessments and in providing lessons learned for future deployments. 

 17 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

 FIGURE 3–1. OPERATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS 

3.2 HEALTH THREAT AND MEDICAL THREAT CONCEPTS 

Health threats and medical threats represent different levels of importance to military operations. A 

health threat can cause negative health effects to a soldier. A medical threat is more severe and has the 

ability to render a field unit combat or mission ineffective, and lead to casualties reporting for medical 

diagnosis and treatment. Preventive medicine personnel must document assessments for both health 

threats and medical threats. For medical threats, preventive medicine must notify commanders of the 

mission impact, and most notify troop clinics and other medical treatment units of potential casualties. 

These terms are defined in FM 4-02.17, Preventive Medicine Services, as follows: 

3⁄4 Health threat refers to an individual soldier’s health. The term can include hereditary

conditions that manifest themselves in adulthood, individual exposure to an industrial 

chemical or toxin where others are not exposed, or [conditions that can result in] other 

injuries and traumas that affect an individual’s health but may not affect the health of the unit. 

On the other hand, a unit that experiences 40 to 50 percent of its personnel exhibiting a 

debilitating condition (e.g., salmonella poisoning), the unit can no longer complete its 

mission. 

 18 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

3⁄4 Medical threats are a sub-set of health threats that have the potential to degrade a unit’s 

combat (or mission) effectiveness. Medical threat is defined as “a collective term used to 

designate all potential or continuing enemy actions and environmental situations that could 

adversely affect the combat effectiveness of friendly forces, to include wounds, injuries, or 

sickness incurred while engaged in a joint operation” (see Joint Publication 4-02, Doctrine 

for Health Services Support in Joint Operations). In Army and multi-service publications, 

the term is defined as a composite of all ongoing potential enemy actions and environmental 

conditions and disease and non-battle injuries (DNBI) that may degrade a unit’s combat 

effectiveness. Commanders and unit leaders are responsible for protecting and preserving 

Army personnel and equipment against injury, damage, or loss that may result from food-, 

water-, and arthropod borne diseases, as well as environmental injuries (e.g., heat and cold 

injuries) and occupational hazards. 

The TG 248 ORM framework intends to consider both kinds of threats; however, medical threats are 

more important to possible mission failure than non-medical health threats. On the other hand, 

controlling unit health threats in toto would be the focus of FHP and maintaining unit readiness. 

3.3 MEGs AND OPERATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENTS

To reemphasize, this TG does not establish “standards” that must be strictly adhered to, nor do their use 

represent a comprehensive, health risk assessment. MEGs are one tool to be used by trained preventive 

medicine personnel who may be required to inform their commanders of potential adverse health effects 

caused by chemical environmental contaminants and to identify potential impacts on the mission. This 

TG provides the evaluation criteria and methods to facilitate appropriately cautious, yet defensible, 

logical and consistent decision-making. The decision to minimize the potential health risks by avoiding

exposure to particular adverse environmental conditions or providing protective equipment will always

need to be balanced against the requirements of the mission itself. These decisions are ultimately those of 

the commander. It is the health service or preventive medicine officer’s role to ensure that the 

commander has the essential information to make the most appropriate decision. 

The process of assessing and characterizing health risks from chemical exposures inherently involves 

significant data limitations, uncertainty, variability, and professional judgment. Therefore, this TG cannot 

provide absolute answers. But the consistent application of the framework described along with the 

technical information and concentration levels, as well as suggested interpretations, can lead to 

appropriate and defendable decision making. The process described below (and more importantly the 

hypothetical case studies in Appendix F) provide the user with the baseline information from which they

can build personal experience. 

This TG is an effort to take technically complex information regarding potential health risks from a 

variety of hazards and translate such information for use in the traditional, standardized military ORM 

paradigm. If appropriately used, this TG and the ORM process will ensure that risks of greater 

significance are given top priority. To do this, it is necessary that all hazards be initially identified. Once 

identified, the severity and probability of the hazards is assessed to determine overall degree of risk. 

Then all risks are evaluated, compared, and decisions made which often result in decisions to 

mitigate/prevent some risks while accepting others. 

This section will assist medical/preventive medicine personnel in putting chemical hazards in proper 

perspective and relay appropriate information through command levels as well as to fellow personnel. 

The information in this TG will help minimize errors in judgment that could be made either by overestimating chemical hazards as a result of perceptions or media hype, or, in contrast, ignoring such 

 19 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

hazards because they traditionally have not been a military concern. Proper assessment of chemical 

hazards and potential control actions can prevent or reduce DNBI to ensure long-term health of the force. 

Or, when other more significant risks are present, the ‘acceptance’ of risk associated with a chemical 

exposure can be clearly demonstrated with the ORM process described herein. 

Each risk assessment should be prepared in context and support of a larger risk management effort. The 

key risk assessment steps within the larger FM 100-14 risk management process, as described in TG 248 

(Guide for Deployed Military Personnel on Health Hazard Risk Management) were used as guidance and 

are outlined below: 

1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 

1.1. METT-TC: chemicals, media, and locations 

1.2. Preliminary threat analysis 

2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 

2.1. Hazard severity evaluation 

2.2. Hazard probability evaluation 

2.3. Risk characterization 

2.3.1. Estimate risk 

2.3.2. Establish confidence level 

2.3.3. Determine threat category 

3. DEVELOP AND COMPARE CONTROLS FOR COA DEVELOPMENT 

3.1. Develop hazard controls 

3.2. Determine residual risks 

3.3. Recommend actions to increase confidence in risk estimates 

4. IMPLEMENT CONTROLS 

5. SUPERVISE AND EVALUATE 

The following subsections summarize the requirements necessary to complete risk assessment Steps 1, 2, 

and 3. TG 248 and FM 100-14 provide procedures for health service activities in implementing ORM 

Step 4 (e.g., risk communication as part of implementing controls through), ORM Step 5 (e.g., assessing 

effectiveness of controls), and documentation of ORM activities. 

3.3.1 ORM STEP 1 — HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

Step 1.1 METT-TC: Chemicals, Media, and Locations 

An OEH chemical hazard is any chemical or chemical mixture that can cause injury, illness, disease, 

adverse health conditions, or death for personnel (health threats). Such conditions may also affect the 

health status of the Command (medical threats). During the intelligence preparation of the battlefield 

(IPB) in the application of METT-TC factors1

, the identification of an OEH chemical hazard involves the 

presumption or detection of an exposure to the chemical. Chemical hazards can be associated with 

different media (e.g., air, water, soil, food) and exposure routes. Exposures can occur via inhalation of 

airborne chemicals as mists, vapors, gases or solids (fumes or dusts). They can also occur via ingestion of 

drinking water or the inadvertent ingestion of soil. Dermal contact with some chemicals can also be a 

hazard under some conditions. Identification of these hazards can include collection of information 

through intelligence channels, field sampling, exposure or accident modeling, or a combination of all 

methods. TG 248 and TG 251 (Draft Environmental Health Field Sampling Guide for Deployments) 

 1

 METT-TC: Mission, Enemy, Terrain and Weather, Troops, Time, Civilian 

 20 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

provide additional guidance on gathering, organizing, and validating the following types of chemical 

hazard information: 

• Using field data to estimate exposure: The user of this TG should become familiar with the basis, 

assumptions, and limitations associated with the MEG values presented in the tables and should 

also be able to critically assess how representative field-collected sampling data is for 

characterizing actual personnel exposures. In many cases, a limited number of samples will be 

obtained, and it will require professional judgment of trained preventive medicine staff to 

determine what exposures are truly anticipated throughout the deployment. The ORM framework 

requires not only an assessment of the severity of a hazard (i.e., exposure concentrations below 

the guideline indicate a negligible hazard but higher concentrations could signify a minimal to 

moderate hazard), but it also requires an assessment of the probability of the hazard (i.e., 

exposure above the designated guideline). Though real-world scenarios cannot entirely separate 

issues of probability and severity, this TG focuses on aspects of assessing severity. 

• Understanding the population of concern: To use these guidelines, field data should also include 

information about the population of concern (who/what percent of the overall unit is at risk of 

exposure and what operations will they be involved with that could affect how they are exposed). 

The user needs to evaluate the anticipated exposure durations at given concentrations, as this will 

be important in determining the overall severity of the hazard. 

• Pesticide use and surveillance: Some unique activities involve intentionally placing chemicals in 

the environment. Pesticide contamination due to pest control operations may lead to chemical 

residues in the environment. Of particular concern in this regard is pesticide contamination 

caused by host nation activities in an area subsequently occupied by U.S. Forces supporting a 

contingency operation. It is critical that initial levels of pesticide contamination in such areas be 

recorded prior to initiation of pest control operations to facilitate distinguishing between prior 

contamination and any accidental contamination caused by pest control operations in support of 

U.S. activities. It is important to note that pesticide contamination in a given area does not 

necessarily obviate the need for additional chemical pest control in that area. Pest and disease 

vector populations, though present in the vicinity of a contaminated site, often exist in 

microhabitats that are completely isolated from the contaminated zones, and so are not exposed to 

the contaminant. Thus, targeted pest control operations may still be warranted in such scenarios. 

Step 1.2 Preliminary Threat Analysis 

The purpose of this sub-step is to prioritize identified OEH hazards so that the risk assessment focuses on 

the most important threats first. In order to focus additional risk characterization efforts and possible data 

collection, the risk assessor must determine which of the identified chemical hazards pose HEALTH 

THREATS to personnel under site-specific conditions or are MEDICAL THREATS to the mission. The 

three types of threat classifications for OEH hazards are presented below and in Figure 3-2. 

3⁄4 NO CHEMICAL HEALTH THREAT can be assigned to a chemical hazard only when there is no 

evidence to indicate its presence in the environment of concern or there is enough data to know 

that the concentration and extent of its presence would not pose a credible health threat. 

3⁄4 CHEMICAL HEALTH THREATS are all identified chemicals within the AO that, under 

plausible circumstances, could result in adverse health effects to certain individuals. For 

example, a chemical hazard may result in temporary mild headaches or nausea to certain 

sensitized individuals or may induce health effects with delayed onset (e.g., chronic diseases like 

cancer or impaired liver and kidney function) but have no immediate, mission impacting effect. 

 21 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

Commanders may still choose to incorporate such hazards into his or her risk management 

process, regardless of immediate impacts to the mission (e.g., during operations other than war). 

3⁄4 CHEMICAL MEDICAL THREATS Depending 

on the mission, such hazards include chemical

exposures that might result in effects such as 

severe eye irritation/blurred, vision, severe

dizziness/confusion, seizures, death, or would 

otherwise result in sick calls or medical

interventions. 

Determining OEH hazard categories:

In general, if concentrations of a detected chemical

consistently fall below the 1-year MEG values, then one 

may assume that the identified OEH hazard does not pose 

a health threat. Therefore, the use of the 1-yr MEG

values to “screen” identified chemicals/hazards of

concern is encouraged before the risk assessment

proceeds into Step 2 (Hazard Assessment). If exposures 

will not last longer than 14 days, then use of the 14-day 

MEGs is acceptable to “screen” for the occurrence of a

health threat before proceeding. In all cases, professional judgment in selecting the most appropriate 

guidelines for comparison is required. In many cases, the operational risk assessment can end at this 

stage if it can be demonstrated that the exposure concentrations do not pose a health threat to personnel.

There are many uncertainties that must be considered in such determinations. For example, there will be 

a variety of situations where actual exposures are not consistent with those in the guidelines. 

FIGURE 3–2 

Hierarchy of OEH Hazards to the Military

• Estimating the exposure concentration to compare to the MEG. Environmental monitoring may

indicate fluctuations in actual concentrations over time. The MEGs should be compared with the 

most representative exposure concentration associated with the actual scenario of concern. While 

averaging exposure levels spatially and temporally is one appropriate way to look at data, it 

should be noted that peaks of short duration may have health effects—so the user should assess 

data against all guidelines and durations at this stage in the process. If any MEG is exceeded, 

then in most cases that exposure scenario should proceed to Step 2 of the process. The 

hypothetical case studies in Appendix F provide some guidance as to how this can be 

accomplished. 

• Multiple chemical exposures. Each MEG has been established to be protective against exposure 

to a single chemical. The complex issue of multi-chemical exposures and effects of chemical 

interactions is beyond the scope of the TG, but such effects should be considered in the overall 

evaluation of environmental exposures. Since certain contaminants may have similar adverse 

effects on the human body, it is necessary to consider the total sum of all similar effects. 

Unfortunately, little is known regarding the specific interactions of multiple contaminants. A 

specific quantitative technique for assessing multiple contaminants in a deployment setting is not 

feasible at this time. Instead, users are encouraged to note the possibility of added hazards, 

particularly where chemicals have similar effects or known interactions are listed. This 

information should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. (Interactions are notated 

in the “Notes” column of the MEG tables. In particular, note the target organ column.) If two or 

more chemicals have the same target organs or systems (see Section 2.4.2) , then it may be 

considered that their effects can be additive or synergistic. For some specific chemicals, such as 

 22 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) compounds or carcinogens (particularly those with an A or B 

WOE classification) it is generally assumed that effects of the different chemicals when 

combined are at least additive. 

• Multiple exposure pathways. In addition to the potential additive effects of multiple 

contaminants, military personnel may be exposed to the same contaminants from multiple sources 

(e.g., air, water, and soil). The effects of exposure to the same or similar chemicals through 

different media should be considered additive. Users are encouraged to note that exposure 

(through multi-media) may increase overall exposure. This information can be used when 

ranking OEH hazards. 

• Chemical hazards without MEG values. Where this TG lacks a MEG for an identified chemical, 

we recommend the health staff follow these steps: (1) contact USACHPPM for assistance in 

establishing a MEG; (2) research the chemical (e.g., literature or internet resources) and establish 

a surrogate MEG; (3) establish a risk estimate based on similar chemicals in this TG and 

document the uncertainty (i.e., reduced confidence) in the risk characterization (Sub-step 2.3). 

Additional information is provide in Section 1.4.4. 

3.3.2 STEP 2 — HAZARD ASSESSMENT

OEH hazards that proceed into this step of the operational risk assessment will usually be present in air, 

water, or soil at concentrations greater than 1-yr or 14-day MEG values depending on the duration of the 

exposure. 

Step 2.1 Hazard Severity Evaluation 

An OEH chemical hazard severity category represents “the potency of the chemical to cause injury, 

illness, disease, adverse health conditions, or death integrated with the significance of the health 

consequences for personnel relative to the ability of the field unit to complete the mission or maintain 

readiness” (TG 248, 2001). 

When field concentrations exceed 1-year MEGs, users must attempt to estimate the severity of the health 

threat. For air and drinking water, users should first determine whether any short-term standards are also 

exceeded. If the exposure duration is 1 year and a 14-day, 8-hour, or 1-hour MEG is exceeded, then some

significant health and/or mission impacts may be anticipated. For many chemicals with long-term

guidelines, however, there are no parallel short-term guidelines. In such cases, the user may have to rely

on professional judgment as to the severity of the hazards. In practice, any “conclusion” and estimation 

of the severity of health threat must be made with an understanding of the limitations of currently 

available data that forms the basis of the MEG and of the risk-assessment process in general. Appendix F 

provides examples of how hazard severity can be determined. 

A chemical’s hazard severity is a function of the consequence of exposure for any given individual in the 

unit and the predicted distribution of that impact within the field unit. Unfortunately there is often limited 

human toxicological or epidemiological data for most chemicals, and limited information regarding 

human response variability and genetic susceptibilities to most chemicals, making it difficult to know 

specifically what health effects to anticipate or, even more difficult, to ascertain the percentages of an 

exposed population that will exhibit certain effects. However, to the extent possible, the following 

considerations will need to be factored into assigning a hazard severity category to a chemical hazard. 

 23 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

• Proportion of the field unit that is likely to exhibit effects relative to the specific exposure 

guidelines. 

• Nature of the health effect(s) associated with exposures at or above the guideline level. 

• Confidence in the available data, given the sources of uncertainty and variability. 

Based on these considerations, one of the following categories from FM 100-14 should be assigned to an 

identified chemical hazard: 

CATASTROPHIC — Loss of ability to accomplish the mission or mission failure. 

CRITICAL — Significantly (severely) degraded mission capability or unit readiness. 

MARGINAL — Degraded mission capability or unit readiness. 

NEGLIGIBLE — Little or no adverse impact on mission capability. 

The Hazard Severity Ranking Chart presented in Table 3-1 is a recommended approach: 

 24 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

TABLE 3-1. CHEMICAL HAZARD SEVERITY RANKING CHART FOR MILITARY DEPLOYMENTS 

WATER < MEG 

≥ MEG that is not 

based on TB MED 577 

(See Water Note)

≥ MEG that is based 

on TB MED 577

(See Water Note)

See Water Note See Water Note 

SOIL < MEG ≥ MEG 

(See Soil Note) See Soil Note See Soil Note See Soil Note 

MAGNITUDE OF CHEMICAL 

CONCENTR

A

TION 

AIR 

< 1-yr MEG 

or 

< 14-day

MEG 

≥ 1-yr MEG or 

≥ 14-day MEG 

but 

≤ 1 to 24-hr MinMEGs 

> 1-yr MEG or 

>14-day MEG 

but 

> 1 to 24-hr

Min-MEGs 

> 1-hr Min-MEG but 

< 1-hr Sig-MEG 

>1-hr Sig-MEG 

but 

≤ 1-hr Sev-MEG

> 1 hr Sev-MEG

IN GENERAL,

THE ASSOCIATED 

HEALTH 

OUTCOME 

ATTRIBUTIBLE 

TO EXPOSURE 

(Percentages are very

uncertain and will vary

by chemical and other 

confounding factors.) 

No cases of

illness or noncancer disease

and less than

1 cancer case

in 10,000 

0 – 10 % of

personnel may

develop illness or

chronic disease 

0 – 10 % of

personnel may

develop mild 

illness or

temporary

irritation 

> 10 % of personnel 

may experience mild 

illness, irritation 

AND 

0 – 10 % of personnel 

may develop more

severe illness that 

begins to impair

functional abilities. 

10 – 25 % of

personnel may

experience severe

illness or irritation 

and more 

noticeable

degradation of

performance 

capabilities 

AND 

Other personnel 

will, at least,

suffer some mild

effects 

 > 25 % of personnel 

may experience 

severe, incapacitating

effects 

AND 

Fatalities will begin to

occur just above the 

Sev Air-MEG with 

increasing number of

fatalities as 

concentrations

increase 

ONSET OF 

SYMPTOMS After the Mission During the Mission 

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RANK NONE NEGLIGIBLE MARGINAL CRITICAL CATASTROPHIC

HAZARD 

TYPE 

NO 

HEALTH 

THREAT 

HEALTH THREAT MEDICAL THREAT 

WATER NOTE: Concentrations greater than the MEG may result in Hazard Severity from Marginal to Catastrophic if certain 

chemicals are present in high enough quantities and there is sufficient consumption. Additional information in the Notes column 

of the MEG Tables should be evaluated regarding effects of higher levels of exposure. 

SOIL NOTE: Soil is unlikely to represent a hazard that would yield a Medical Threat. Additional information in the Notes 

column of the MEG Tables should be evaluated for data regarding higher levels of exposure. 

Min-MEG: minimal effects level from Appendix C, Tables C-1 & C-2. 

Sig-MEG: significant effects level from Appendix C, Tables C-1 & C-2. 

Sev-MEG: severe effects level from Appendix C, Tables C-1 & C-2. 

1-yr MEG: values from Table C-3. 

 25 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

Step 2.2 Hazard Probability Evaluation 

An OEH chemical hazard probability category represents “the magnitude, frequency and duration of 

personnel exposure to the identified chemical(s) integrated with the expected incidence of exposure 

within the unit relative to associated guideline levels” (TG 248, 2001). 

Determining the chemical hazard probability category will generally be a very subjective evaluation, 

where three primary considerations are used to determine the potential degree of exposure: 

• Comparability of the field unit’s exposure profile (exposure factors, frequencies, and durations) to 

the standard exposure profile used in the derivation of the exposure guideline(s) of concern. 

• Proportion of the field unit that is likely to experience exposures relative to the specific exposure 

guidelines. 

• Confidence in the available data, given the sources of uncertainty and variability. 

Based on these considerations, one of the following categories from FM 100-14 should be assigned to an 

identified chemical hazard to indicate the probability of personnel exposures to concentrations equal to or 

greater than the MEGs: 

FREQUENT — Occurs very often, continuously experienced 

LIKELY — Occurs several times 

OCCASIONAL — Occurs sporadically 

SELDOM — Remotely possible; could occur at some time 

UNLIKELY — Can assume will not occur, but not impossible 

The following Hazard Probability Ranking Chart (Table 3-2) is based on TG 248, and is a 

recommended approach than can be altered as the situation dictates. 

TABLE 3-2. CHEMICAL HAZARD PROBABILITY RANKING CHART FOR MILITARY 

DEPLOYMENTS 

PERCENT OF PERSONNEL THAT WILL EXPERIENCE 

EXPOSURES TO CONCENTRATIONS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE MEG* 

<10% 10< 25 % 25 <50 % 50 <75 % >75 % 

Unlikely Seldom Occasional Likely Frequent

*Determination of the percent of personnel exposed to a chemical or mixture specifically above a guideline level

can be based on modeling, gridding, or generalized assumptions. 

 26 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

Step 2.3 Risk Characterization

Step 2.3.1 Estimate Risk 

The risk level is estimated using the probability and severity information from the previous 

sections. The primary objective is to apply the FM 100-14 Risk Assessment Matrix (Table 3-3) in a way

that is consistent with operational guidance, so that OEH risks can be put in the same context as other 

operational risks. 

ORM risk levels defined in FM 100-14 (Table 3-3) are presented with unit status suggestions from FM 

101-5-1 in Table 3-4 to create an OEH risk characterization paradigm that is consistent with current 

operational doctrine. The concept of unit strength status (e.g., “below 50% strength”) refers to the overall 

loss of resources that would otherwise be directed towards the planned mission tasks. For every casualty 

(i.e., significant through severe effects that result in functional loss) one can expect the loss of additional 

personnel due to medical and related support for that casualty. 

TABLE 3-3. RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX (FM 100-14)

HAZARD PROBABILITY

HAZARD Frequent (A) Likely (B) Occasional (C) Seldom (D) Unlikely (E) 

SEVERITY

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Catastrophic (I) → Extremely High Extremely High High High Moderate

Critical (II) → Extremely High High High Moderate Low 

Marginal (III) → High Moderate Moderate Low Low

Negligible (IV) → Moderate Low Low Low Low

RISK ESTIMATE

Some past interpretations of the FM 101-5-1 unit status definitions have placed the lethal concentration 

for half of the population (LC50) as the point at which a Catastrophic hazard - Extremely High risk would 

begin. This interpretation ignores two facts: (1) with a 50 % mortality rate due to chemical exposure, 

there would also be a large percentage of personnel with significant health effects other than death that 

would likely cause incapacitation and (2) medical support would be required to tend to those who were 

injured. As a result, at an LC50 concentration, unit strength would be much less than 50 percent resulting 

in possible complete combat ineffectiveness. Therefore, the MEGs presented in this TG are based on 

thresholds for the various types of effects noted (e.g., the 1-hour severe Air-MEG refers to approximately

a 1% lethality concentration (LC01) for an exposed population). Some may view this as a conservative 

interpretation of the FM 101-5 unit status codes and FM 100-14 risk definitions, but this does address a 

more comprehensive assessment of the true, overall impact on unit resources and combat effectiveness. 

 27 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

TABLE 3-4. RISK LEVEL DEFINITIONS 

Risk Level Defined Consequence (FM 100-14) Unit Status (FM 101-5-1)

Extremely 

High

Expected loss of ability to accomplish the 

mission. 

Black (Unit Requires Reconstitution). 

Unit below 50% strength. 

High Expected significant degradation of mission 

capabilities in terms of the required mission

standard, inability to accomplish all parts of the 

mission, or inability to complete the mission to

standard if hazards occur during the mission.

Red (Combat Ineffective). 

Unit at 50 – 69 % strength. 

Moderate Expected degraded mission capabilities in terms 

of the required mission standard will have a 

reduced mission capability if hazards occur 

during mission. 

Amber (Mission Capable, with minor 

deficiencies). Unit at 70 - 84% strength. 

Low Expected losses have little or no impact on

accomplishing the mission. 

Green (Mission Capable). 

Unit at 85% strength or better. 

The unit rates provided under Unit Status are to be determined by the commander. Charts similar to the example 

OEH Hazard Probability and Severity Ranking Charts presented above should be aligned with the acceptable risk 

levels provided by the commander. 

Step 2.3.2 Determine Confidence in Risk Estimate 

A confidence level should be assigned to each risk estimate. The degree of confidence will be 

particularly important when determining possible courses of action. Confidence levels should be simple 

categories that can be rationally explained (e.g., high, medium, low). The confidence level assigned to a 

risk estimate should integrate uncertainty associated with each of the elements of the risk assessment. 

Key areas of uncertainty that should be considered include: 

• Sampling or field data quality 

• Actual exposures of field personnel 

• Field unit attributes (e.g., demographics, activity patterns) 

• Comparability of standard guideline assumptions (e.g., exposure duration, exposure 

frequency, and route of exposure) to expected field exposure patterns 

• Expected symptoms of exposure (i.e., hazard severity), including consideration of exposure 

to multiple hazards 

• Other uncertain, or missing, information relevant to the process 

• Whether the predicted health outcome is plausible, given weight of evidence or real-world 

experiences 

Table 3-5 provides example criteria for determining a risk estimate confidence level. The final 

determination of confidence should be based on well-reasoned judgment of the staff officer conducting 

the risk assessment. As stated previously, it is important for the user to realize that - due to limitations in 

toxicity data, the nature of chemical exposures, and human variability - OEH chemical risk assessments 

should almost never be ranked with high confidence. For the most part, the MEGs are conservatively 

designed so that confidence in estimated Low Risks will tend to be greater than those estimated to be High 

Risk. 

 28 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

TABLE 3-5. EXAMPLE CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING CONFIDENCE LEVELS

Confidence Level Criteria 

High

Sampling data quality is good. 

Field activity patterns are well known.

True exposures are reasonably approximated. 

Knowledge of the symptoms of hazard exposure relative to

guideline is well known. 

No important missing information. 

The predicted health outcome is plausible or already

demonstrated. 

Medium

Field data quality is good. 

Field exposures are likely to be overestimates of true 

exposures due to incomplete data coverage relative to actual 

exposure durations. 

Detailed information is lacking regarding true personnel

activity patterns in the field. 

Symptoms are well known for each individual hazard, but 

some scientific evidence suggests that the combined effects 

of all hazards may exacerbate symptoms. 

Predicted health outcome is plausible. 

Low 

Important data gaps and/or inconsistencies exist.

Exposure conditions are not well defined. 

Field personnel activity patterns are basically unknown. 

Predicted health outcome is not plausible because it is not

consistent with real-world events/experience. 

Step 2.3.3 Determine Threat Category

During Step 1 (Hazard Identification), a preliminary threat analysis was conducted for each of the 

identified chemical hazards. During Step 1 the goal was to determine which of the hazards have a 

credible potential to become HEALTH THREATS or MEDICAL THREATS in order to focus additional 

data collection and risk characterization efforts. At this point in the process, the preliminary analysis 

should be re-evaluated based on the more complete assessment of the nature of the hazards and the 

conditions of exposure. The placement of the hazards into health threat categories (no threat, health 

threat, and medical threat) is the last step in risk characterization. It is important for the command to 

understand that some hazards pose a greater potential to operations than others, even though the risk 

estimates may be similar. The command will have a preference to control medical threats over health 

threats. This sub-step is designed to provide the command with a useful ranking of the hazards faced by

the unit and mission. 

3.3.3 Step 3 — Developing and Comparing Controls

Risks are managed by either choosing the least risky COA and/or by incorporating control measures into 

one or more of the COAs that will address any identified environmental and occupational risks. Chemical 

hazard risk management strategies will fall into one of five general categories (Table 3-6). 

 29 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

TABLE 3-6. RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

RISK MANAGEMENT

STRATEGIES ATTRIBUTES

No Action An implicit acceptance of the risk by the command. 

Reduce Risk Allowing exposures to occur but using control measures to reduce hazard severity 

and/or probability so as to reduce the true risk to a more acceptable level. 

Avoid/Prevent Exposure 

Use of engineering or administrative methods to prevent or completely avoid 

exposures of concern. 

Interim Controls and 

Risk Re-assessment 

Any combination of the above measures can be used as an interim action to address 

predicted risks that are of low confidence while obtaining additional data to 

increase the confidence in the risk estimate(s) before final decisions are made. 

Health Surveillance 

Use of medical and environmental surveillance systems to monitor ambient 

conditions (e.g., routine air monitoring) or personnel (e.g., bio-monitoring). This is 

not a means to directly control chemical hazards, but it can provide information to 

support or change a chosen risk management strategy. 

Step 3.1 Develop Chemical Hazard Controls 

Selection of possible control measures will be situation-specific and will involve a balancing of resources 

based on costs and benefits, consideration of time constraints, and appreciation of other real-world issues 

such as political sensitivities. To be effective each control developed must meet criteria for suitability,

feasibility, and acceptability (FM 100-14). For a control to be suitable it must actually remove the hazard 

or mitigate the residual risk to an acceptable level. Feasible controls are those that the unit is capable of 

implementing. Acceptable controls are those that justify the costs of resources and time. Acceptability of 

controls is a command decision. Table 3-7 provides examples of control measures that can be used for 

dealing with chemical hazards. 

 30 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

TABLE 3-7. EXAMPLES OF CHEMICAL HAZARD CONTROL MEASURES 

ADMINISTRATIVE ENGINEERING PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

Moving location of operations

Substitute use of less hazardous 

materials

MILITARY PROTECTIVE MASK (M40,M-17)**

Managing deployment

length/work schedules 

Use of ventilation/increase 

dispersion Commercial respiratory protection

Providing prophylactics/medical

interventions that will reduce 

severity of effect 

Isolate areas/build barriers or 

enclosures to prevent chemical

release or human exposures 

Eye protection

Enforcing personal hygiene 

standards 

Use of filters (air or water 

purification systems) Chemical protective Clothing

Active dust suppression measures 

Normal battle dress uniforms

(BDUs)/gloves

** NOTE: The military protective mask is only approved for against NBC-warfare agents; it may not offer adequate 

protections against other TICs. 

Step 3.2 Estimate Residual Risks 

Once suitable and feasible hazard control options are identified, the residual risk(s) associated with the 

implementation of the controls must be assessed. This process is a basic re-iteration of Steps 1 and 2 of 

the process. Possible control measures, or other risk management strategies, should be communicated to 

the command with the associated residual risk estimates. 

Step 3.3 Recommend Actions to Increase Confidence in Risk Estimates 

While in almost all cases there will be data gaps that can be improved with additional data, it is 

understood that there are logistical and time constraints that will require decisions to be made without the 

opportunity to increase confidence with more data. Because risk assessments are inherently uncertain, 

ways to reduce critical uncertainties should be explored if the risk assessment confidence levels are low to

medium. This is particularly important if the generated risk estimates are high or extremely high, as 

control measures will require significant actions that dramatically impact the mission or involve notable 

resource expenditures, and there is reason to believe that specific types of data will be able to improve the 

confidence level. In these cases, additional data can either reduce the risk estimate or provide stronger 

justification of a need for drastic control measures. 

3.3.4 Steps 4 and 5 - Implementing Controls; Supervising And Evaluating 

Implementing the course of action selected during Step 3 requires a command decision, but to be 

successful will generally require continuous input and assessment by various staff elements who may at 

times need to recommend alternative decisions. Courses of action may include decisions to accept 

exposures or to avoid them by leaving an area, minimize them through use of protective measures, and/ or 

document them by performing routine monitoring. Each of these will have impacts to the mission, 

whether it is from use of limited resources (such as conducting regular monitoring) or impacts to morale 

and overall physical wellness. PM responsibilities should consider these impacts during Step 3, but must 

evaluate the situation once the action is initiated. Additional requirements, such as health risk 

communications briefings to personnel and/or command staff, may be identified through these continued 

evaluations. Some of the Hypothetical Case Scenario Examples in Appendix F demonstrate these final 

steps of the ORM process. 

 31 
USACHPPM TG 230 May 2003 

This page intentionally left blank.

 32 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

APPENDIX 

A REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1996. Toxicological Profiles. Prepared by 

Clement International Corporation under Contract No. 205-88-0608. Prepared for U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C. 

Allied Command Europe (ACE) Directive 80-64, ACE Policy for Defensive Measures Against Toxic 

Industrial Chemical Hazards During Military Operations, 20 December 1996.

Department of the Army (DA). Risk Management. DA Field Manual 100-14, 23 April 1998.

Department of the Army (DA). Sanitary Control and Surveillance of Field Water Supplies, Draft (Technical 

Bulletin, Medical 577, Draft May 1999. 

Department of Defense (DOD). DOD Strategy to Address Low-Level Exposures to Chemical Warfare 

Agents (CWAs), May 1999. [This document responds to the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 1999 (H. Rpt. 105-736, sec. 247: Chemical Warfare Defense, Public Law 105-261, 17 

October 1998. p. 39 and p. 591]. 

DOD Directive 6490.2 (1997) Joint Medical Surveillance, 1997

DOD Instruction (DODI) Number 6050.5, DOD Hazard Communication Program, 1990. 

DODI Number 6055.1, DOD Safety and Occupational Health (SOH) Program, August 1998.

DODI Number 6490.3, Implementation and Application of Joint Medical Surveillance for Deployments, 

1997. 

Hazard Substances Databank (HSDB), website: http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB

Headquarters Department of Army (HQDA), Policy Letter 1-01-1 Force Health Protection (FHP): 

Occupational and Environmental Health (OEH) Threats. June 2001. 

Institute of Medicine, Potential Radiation Exposure in Military Operations. 1999. National Academy

Press, Washington, DC.

Joint Publication 3-11, Joint Doctrine for Operations in Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) 

Environments, 11 July 2000

Joint Publication 4-02, Doctrine for Health Services Support in Joint Operations; 28 February 2000 

Joint Staff Memorandum MCM-0006-02, Updated Procedures for Deployment Health Surveillance and 

Readiness, 1 February 2002 

National Research Council (NRC), 1986(b), Criteria and Methods for Preparing Emergency Exposure 

Guidance Level (EEGL), Short-Term Public Emergency Guidance Level (SPEGL), and Continuous 

Exposure Guidance Levels, National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 

National Research Council, Strategies to Protect the Health of Deployed U.S. Forces. 1999. National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

 A-1 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

National Research Council, Committee on Toxicology; Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) for 

Selected Airborne Chemicals, Volume 3, National Academy Press, 2003 

National Science and Technology Council/Presidential Review Directive 5 (NSTC/PRD 5). 1998. A 

National Obligation: Planning for Health Preparedness for and Readjustment of the Military, 

Veterans, and Their Families after Future Deployments. Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

Executive Office of the President. 

Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, MCM-251-98, Deployment Health Surveillance and 

Readiness, 4 December 1998 

Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 2500. NATO Handbook On The Medical Aspects Of NBC 

Defensive Operations. AMEDP-6(B),(Feb 1996) (FM 8-9). 

Title 40 CFR 141, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, July 1996. 

Title 29 CFR 1910.1025. Occupational and Safety and Hygiene Administration (OSHA). 

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM), TG 230A, Short-Term 

Chemical Exposure Guidelines for Deployed Military Personnel, May 1999 Version; USACHPPM, 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. 

USACHPPM TG 248, Guide for Deployed Military Personnel on Health Risk Management, August 

2001. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 

USACHPPM Memorandum, MCHB-TS-THE; Status of the request to review the oral toxicity of agent 

VX hydrolysis product EA-2192; 25 Jan 1999. 

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM), TG 251, 

Environmental Health Field Sampling Guide for Deployments, DRAFT (2001); USACHPPM, 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 

U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM) 1995. Metabolic Cost of Military 

Physical Tasks in MOPP 0 and MOPP 4. Natick, MA. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996a. 822-R-96-001, Drinking Water Regulations and 

 Health Advisories, Office of Water, United States Environmental Protection Agency, October 1996. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996b. Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide. Office 

 of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington D.C 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Guidelines for Reporting Daily Air Quality – Pollutant 

Standards Index (PSI); Draft 1998. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997a. Health Effects Summary Tables (HEAST). 

 1997. USEPA 540/R-97-036, Pb97-921199. Office Of Research And Development, Office of 

 Emergency And Remedial Response, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1999a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 

 Environmental Criteria And Assessment Office, Office Of Health And Environmental Assessment, 

 Cincinnati, Ohio

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1999b. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.

 A-2 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

APPENDIX 

B 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

AND ACRONYMS

Glossary of Terms (Acronyms begin on B-7) 

Acidosis 

Decrease of alkali in the blood, which may result in a decrease in the pH. Symptoms include very deep 

respirations, dehydration, drowsiness, stupor, or coma. 

Anorexia 

Loss of appetite. 

Anoxia 

Lack of oxygen. 

Anuria 

Complete urinary suppression or failure of kidney function. 

Ataxia 

Inability to coordinate muscles in movement. 

Azotemia 

An excess of urea and other nitrogenous waste in the blood resulting from kidney damage or failure. 

Blepharospasm 

A twitching or spasmodic contraction of eyelid. 

Bradycardia 

Abnormally slow heartbeat below a rate of 60 beats per minute. 

Cachexia 

A state of ill health, malnutrition and wasting. 

Cardiac Arrhythmia 

Absence of heartbeat. 

Cardiac Dysrrhthmia 

Irregular heartbeat. 

Cardiac Ischemia 

Abnormally low flow of blood to the heart. 

 B-1
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

Chloracne 

Acne-like disruptions over the body resulting from exposure to certain chlorinated hydrocarbons such as 

dioxins. 

Cholestasis 

Blockage of the flow of bile resulting in increases of bilirubin in the blood. 

Cyanosis 

Bluish discoloration of the skin resulting from a deficiency of oxygen in the blood. 

Desquamation 

Shedding of outer layer of skin. 

Dysphagia

Difficulty in swallowing. 

Dysphonia

Difficulty in speaking; hoarseness. 

Epigastric 

Refers to the upper central portion of the abdomen between the lower ribs and the umbilicus (belly 

button). 

Epistaxis 

Nose bleed. 

Erythemia 

Redness of the skin. 

Gastroenteritis 

Inflammation of the stomach and intestines, usually accompanied by vomiting and diarrhea. 

Hematuria 

Blood in the urine. 

Hemoglobinuria 

The presence of hemoglobin the urine. 

Hemolytic Anemia 

Abnormal destruction of red blood cells resulting in a decrease in the number of cells in the blood and 

presence of free hemoglobin, which can lead to acute renal failure. 

Hemoptysis

Spitting of blood arising from hemorrhage of the larynx, trachea, bronchial tubes, or lungs. 

Hyperplasia 

Abnormal but non-cancerous increase in the number of cells in a tissue or organ. 

Hypertension 

 B-2
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

Elevated blood pressure. 

Hyperthermia 

Elevated body temperature.

Hypotension

Reduced blood pressure. 

Hypothermia

Decreased body temperature. 

Hypoxemia

Insufficient oxygenation of the blood. 

Immunosuppression 

Suppression of the immunologica response, leading to decreased resistance to disease. 

Jaundice 

A yellow staining or darkening of the skin, whites of the eyes, and excreta due to increased bile pigments 

in the blood and tissues. 

Lassitude 

Lethargy, apathy, exhaustion. 

Leukopenia 

Reduction in number of circulating white blood cells (the cells which fight infection). 

Malaise 

Discomfort, uneasiness indicative of infection or other disease. 

Methemoglobinemia 

Condition in which the oxidation state of iron in hemoglobin is abnormal leading to decreased availability

of oxygen to the body tissues. 

Miosis 

Contraction of the pupil (pin-pointed pupil). 

Monocytosis 

Excessive number of monocytes (a type of white blood cell) in the blood. 

Mucosa 

Mucous membrane; membrane lining bodily channels that communicate with air (i.e., mouth, respiratory 

tract, eye); glands of mucous membranes secrete mucous. 

Mydriasis 

Dilation of the pupil. 

Narcosis 

Stupor or deep unconsciousness; can be caused by exposure to a number of chemicals. Differs from

anesthesia which refers to the loss of sensation (e.g., pain) or touch and can be local or general. 

 B-3
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

Nephritis 

Inflammation of the kidney. 

Pallor 

Paleness of the skin. 

Palpitation 

Perceptible irregular or rapid beating or pulsation of the heart. 

Paresthesia 

Burning prickling, tingling, or tickling sensation. 

Paroxysmal

Recurring in sudden, periodic attacks or intensification of symptoms of a disease.

Photophobia 

Unusual intolerance to light. 

Polyneuropathy

Disease involving a number of peripheral nerves (e.g., nerves in the hands, feet or legs). 

Porphyria Cutanea Tarda 

A metabolic disorder in which reddish pigments or porphyrins are produced in the liver. The excess 

pigments accumulate in the skin where they are activated by visible light which causes photosensitive 

skin reactions characterized by skin erosions and blistering. These painful sores resolve slowly and may

result in scarring, hair loss, and skin atrophy. Excess porphyrins are excreted in the urine which becomes 

colored dark red or brown as a result. 

Precordial 

Pertaining to the region over the heart and lower part of the thorax.

Prostration

Marked loss of strength; exhaustion. 

Pulmonary Edema 

Buildup of fluid in the lung. 

Retrosternal 

Behind the sternum. 

Spasticity

Hypertonicity of muscles causing stiff and awkward movements. 

Spermatogenesis 

Development of sperm cells. 

Stenosis 

Constriction or narrowing of a passage or orifice. 

 B-4
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

Syncope 

A transient form of unconsciousness during which the person slumps to the ground resulting from

cerebral anoxia (insufficient oxygen in the brain). 

Tachycardia 

Excessively rapid heartbeat. 

Tinnitus 

Noise (typically ringing) in the ears. 

Urogenital tract 

Denotes the organs involved in reproduction and urination. 

Ventricular Fibrillation 

Rapid contractions or twitching of the muscle fibers that replace normal contraction of the ventricular 

chambers of the heart. 

Vertigo 

Dizziness; sense of spinning. 

Vesiculation 

Formation of a small blister-like small elevation on the skin containing serous fluid. 

 B-5
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

This page intentionally left blank

 B-6
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

Acronyms 

ABS Skin Absorption Factor 

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 

AF Adherence Factor

AMEDD Army Medical Department 

AO Area of Operation 

AQI Air Quality Index 

ARNG Army National Guard 

AT Annual Training

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BAP Benzo(a)pyrene

BC Base Camp

BDU Battle Dress Uniform 

BUN Blood Urea Nitrogen 

BW Body Weight

CHID Chemical Hazard Information for Deployments 

ChE Inh Cholinesterase Inhibitor 

cm2 square centimeter 

cm3 Cubic centimeter 

CNS Central Nervous System

CO Carbon Monoxide

COA Course of Action 

CONUS Continental United States

cPAHs Carcinogen Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

CRC Circulatory System

 B-7
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

CS Case Study

CSFi Carcinogen Inhalation Slope Factor 

CVS Cardiovascular System

CWA Chemical Warfare Agent 

DA Department of the Army

DESP Deployment Environmental Surveillance Program

DNBI Disease and Non-Battle Injury

DOD Department of Defense 

DODI Department of Defense Instruction 

ED Exposure Duration

EEG Electroencephalogram

EF Exposure Frequency

EKG Electrocardiogram

ENDO Endocrine System

FDWS Field Drinking Water Standards 

FHP Force Health Protection

FM Field Manual

GI Gastrointestinal

gm gram

g/kg gram per kilogram

g/L gram per Liter 

GPL General Population Limit 

HC Hexachloroethane

HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables 

HEM Hemopoietic System

 B-8
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

HQDA Headquarters Department of the Army

hr Hour

HSDB Hazardous Substance Databank 

IDLH Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health 

IMM Immune System

IOM Institute of Medicine 

IPB Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

kg kilogram

L Liter

L/day Liters/day

LC50 Lethal Concentration for 50 percent of the exposed population 

LC01 Lethal Concentration for 1 percent of the exposed population 

LD Lethal Dose

LD50 Lethal Dose for 50 percent of the exposed concentration 

LDLO Lethal Dose –low (approximate low percentage e.g. 1-5%) 

lethalities amongst exposed 

LOAEL Lowest-Observed Adverse Effect Level 

LOEL Lowest-Observed Effect Level 

LOG Logistics

LRS Lower Respiratory System

MEGs Military Exposure Guidelines 

METT-TC Mission, Enemy, Terrain and Weather, Troops, Time, Civilian 

MRL Minimal Risk Level 

Min Minimal

m3

/day cubic meter per day

 B-9
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

μg/dl microgram per decaliter 

μg/kg microgram per kilogram

μg/L microgram per Liter 

mg milligram

mg/cm2 milligram per square centimeter 

mg/day milligram per day

mg/kg milligram per kilogram

mg/kg/day milligram per kilogram per day

mg/L milligram per Liter 

mg/m3 milligram per cubic meter 

ml milliliter

μm micrometer

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NBC Nuclear, Chemical, Biological 

NCO Non-commissioned Officer

ND Not determined 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOAEL No-Observable Adverse Effect Level 

NRC National Research Council 

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units 

O3 Ozone 

OCONUS Outside the Continental United States 

OEH Occupational and Environmental Health 

OPORD Operation Order

OPLAN Operation Plan

 B-10 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

ORM Operational Risk Management 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

Pb Lead

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenols

PEGL Permissible Exposure Guidelines Level 

PEL Permissible Exposure Limit 

PM Particulate Matter

PNS Peripheral Nervous System 

PPE Personal Protective Equipment 

ppb parts per billion 

ppm parts per million

QSTAG Quadripartite Standardization Agreement 

RBC Risk Based Concentration 

RD Reference Document

Recon Reconnaissance

RfC Reference Concentration

RO Reverse Osmosis

ROWPU Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit 

RS Respiratory System

SA Surface Area

SASO Stability and Support Operations 

Sev Severe

SGOT Serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase 

SGPT Serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase 

 B-11 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003

Appendix B: Glossary and Acronyms

Sig Significant

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SOH Safety and Occupational Health 

STANAG Standardization Agreement

TB MED Technical Bulletin, Medical 

TEF Toxicity Equivalence Factor

TG Technical Guide

TICs Toxic Industrial Chemicals

TLVs Threshold Limit Values 

TON Threshold Odor Number 

TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act 

TT Treatment Technique

TWA Time-Weighted Average

TWPS Tactical Water Purification System

UD Under Development

UF Uncertainty Factor

URS Upper Respiratory System 

USACHPPM U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

UT Urogenital Tract

WOE Weight-of-Evidence

WPL Worker Population Limit 

WQAS-PM Water Quality Analysis Set-Preventive Medicine 

yr Year

ZnCl2 Zinc Chloride

 B-12 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX C: Air-MEG Tables 

APPENDIX 

C

MILITARY EXPOSURE 

GUIDELINES FOR AIR

CONTENTS

Table C-1. Air Military Exposure Guidelines for Chemical Warfare Agents................................C-3

Table C-2. Short-Term, Air Military Exposure Guidelines (14 Days or Less)..............................C-9

Table C-3. Long-Term, Air Military Exposure Guidelines (1-Year Deployment)...........................C-35 

Table C-4. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Military Exposure Guidelines for Priority Pollultants.C-72 

Table C-5. U.S. General Population Index Criteria for Particulate Matter (PM10)*........................C-73 

Chemical Index ......................................................................................................C-74 

 C-1 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX C: Air-MEG Tables 

This page intentionally left blank.

 C-2 
US

AP

TABLE C-1. AIR MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS 

Air-MEG Chemical 

CAS No. 

Health 

Effect 

Level 

10-Minute 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

1-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

8-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

24-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Potential Symptoms 

and 

Target 

Organs/Systems 

MINIMAL 0.0069 [0.0010] 0.0028 [0.00042] 0.0010 [0.00015] 0.0003 [0.00005] 

SIGNIFICANT 0.087 [0.013] 0.035 [0.0053] 0.013 [0.0020] 0.004 [0.00067] 

GA 

(Tabun) 

77-81-6

SEVERE 0.76 [0.11] 0.26 [0.039] 0.10 [0.015] 0.03 [0.005] 

Running nose; tightnessof chest; miosis and dimvision; difficultybreathing; drooling andexcessive sweating; nausea, vomiting; CNSeffects. 

Local effects to pupil of the eye; Respiratory system, CNS 

Based on r(see NRC 24-hour M8-hour AEextrapolatIDLH = 0173, 2003

Table C-1. Air-MEG Values for CWA C-3 
US

AP

Air-MEG Chemical 

CAS No. 

Health 

Effect 

Level 

10-Minute 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

1-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

8-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

24-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Potential Symptoms 

and 

Target 

Organs/Systems 

MINIMAL 0.0069 [0.0012] 0.0028 [0.00048] 0.0010 [0.00017] 0.0003 [0.000057] 

SIGNIFICANT 0.087 [0.015] 0.035 [0.0060] 0.013 [0.0022] 0.004 [0.00073] 

GB 

(Sarin) 

107-44-8

SEVERE 0.38 [0.064] 0.13 [0.022] 0.051 [0.0087] 0.02 [0.0029]

Running nose; tightnessof chest; dimness of vision and miosis; difficulty in breathing;drooling and excessivesweating; nausea, vomiting; cramps and involuntary defecation orurination; twitching, jerking and staggering;headache, confusion,drowsiness; at highexposures, coma and convulsion, leading to cessation of breathingand death 

Local effects to pupil of the eye; Respiratory system, CNS, gastrointestinal system

Minimal L

headactightnemalaisevolunte

for nightasks injudgme

Significan

dyspneChE inelectrochange

limit peoperatiinvolvijudgme

Severe Le

experimlethalit

IDLH = 0

173, 20

Table C-1. Air-MEG Values for CWA C-4 
US

AP

Air-MEG Chemical 

CAS No. 

Health 

Effect 

Level 

10-Minute 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

1-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

8-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

24-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Potential Symptoms 

and 

Target 

Organs/Systems 

MINIMAL 0.0035 [0.00046] 0.0014 [0.00018] 0.00050 [0.000065] 0.0002 [0.000022] 

SIGNIFICANT 0.044 [0.0057] 0.018 [0.0022] 0.0065 [0.00085] 0.002 [0.00028] 

GD 

(Soman) 

96-64-0 

SEVERE 0.38 [0.049] 0.13 [0.017] 0.051 [0.0066] 0.02 [0.0022]

See GB for Symptoms.

Local effects to pupil of the eye; Respiratory system, CNS, gastrointestinal system

Based on r(NRC 20024-Hour MAEGL by of 8-hour IDLH = 0173, 2003

MINIMAL 0.0035 [0.00049] 0.0014 [0.00020] 0.00050 [0.000070] 0.0002 [0.000023] 

SIGNIFICANT 0.044 [0.0062] 0.018 [0.0024] 0.0065 [0.00091] 0.002 [0.00030] GF 329-99-7 

SEVERE 0.38 [0.053] 0.13 [0.018] 0.051 [0.0071] 0.02 [0.0024]

See GB for Symptoms.

Local effects to pupil of the eye; respiratory system, CNS, gastrointestinal system

Based on r(NRC 20024-Hour MAEGL by of 8-hour IDLH = 0173, 2003

Table C-1. Air-MEG Values for CWA C-5 
US

AP

Air-MEG Chemical 

CAS No. 

Health 

Effect 

Level 

10-Minute 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

1-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

8-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

24-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Potential Symptoms 

and 

Target 

Organs/Systems 

MINIMAL 0.40 [0.06] 0.067 [0.01] 0.008 0.001 0.003 [0.00033] 

SIGNIFICANT 0.60 [0.09] 0.10 [0.02] 0.013 0.002 0.004 [0.00067] 

Sulfur 

mustard 

[HD]

505-60-2

SEVERE 3.9 [0.59] 2.1 [0.32] 0.27 [0.04] 0.09 [0.013] 

Delayed development of irritation to eyes, mucous membranes;potent alkylating agent; mutagenic. Conjunctivitis, blindness, edema ofeyelids; necrosis of respiratory tract and exposed skin; nausea, vomitingH. Eyes, respiratory system, skin 

24-Hour M8-hour AEextrapolatIDLH = 2 2003)

Table C-1. Air-MEG Values for CWA C-6 
US

AP

Air-MEG Chemical 

CAS No. 

Health 

Effect 

Level 

10-Minute 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

1-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

8-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

24-Hour 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Potential Symptoms 

and 

Target 

Organs/Systems 

MINIMAL 0.00057 [0.000052] 0.00017 [0.000016] 0.000071 [0.0000065] 0.000024 [0.0000022]

SIGNIFICANT 0.0072 [0.00065] 0.0029 [0.00027] 0.0010 [0.000095] 0.00033 [0.000032] VX 50782-69-9

SEVERE 0.029 [0.0027] 0.010 [0.00091] 0.0038 [0.00035] 0.0013 [0.00012] 

AChE inhibitor; CNSeffects: headache, runny nose and nasalcongestion, nausea, vomiting, giddiness, anxiety, difficulty insleeping/thinking, muscle twitching, weakness, abdominalcramps. 

Local effects to pupil of the eye; Respiratory system, CNS, gastrointestinal system

Minimal a

Derivestudy otransienvoluntemay lim

operatiinvolvijudgme

Severe Le

potency experimlethalit2003). 

24-Hour M

8-hour extrapo

IDLH = 0

173, 20

Footnotes on next page. Table C-1. Air-MEG Values for CWA C-7 
US

AP

FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE C-1 – AIR-MEGS FOR CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS 

AchE: Acetylcholinesterase AEGL: Acute Exposure Guideline Level CNS: Central nervous systemCt: Concentration × time 

GPL: General population limit IDLH: Immediately dangerous to life and health WPL: Worker population limit RBC: Red blood cell ppm: parts per million mg/m3 : milligrams per cubic meter 

National Research Council, Committee on Toxicology, Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals, Academy Press, prepublication copy, March, 2003. DA Pam 40-173, Occupational Health Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Exposure to Nerve Agents, Medical Seversion, January 2003. DA Pam 40-8, Occupational Health Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Exposure to Mustard Agents, Medical Services

January 2003.

Table C-1. Air-MEG Values for CWA C-8 
US

AP

TABLE C-2. SHORT-TERM, AIR MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES (14 DAYS OR LESS) 

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Acetone cyanohydrin75-86-5 

16.4C

[4.7] ND ND 8 [2] 0.4 [0.1]

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; dizziness, weakness, headache, confusion,convulsions; liver, kidney injury; pulmonary edema, asphyxia. 

Eyes, skin, rs, CNS, CVS, liver, kidneys, GI tract 

Acrolein107-02-8

0.07 

[0.03]

0.23 

[0.1]

3.2 

[1.4]

0.07 

[0.03]

0.023 

[0.01]

Irritation eyes, skin, mucousmembrane; decreased pulmonary function; delayed pulmonaryedema; chronic respiratory disease. 

Eyes, skin, RS, heart 

Acrylic acid79-10-7 

3 

[1]

136 

[46]

531 

[180] 

3 

[1] ND 

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; skin burns and skin sensitivity. 

Eyes, skin, RS 

Acrylonitrile 107-13-1

22 

[10]

76 

[35]

163 

[75]

4.4 

[2]

0.22 

[0.10]

Irritation eyes, skin; asphyxia; headache; sneezing; nausea, vomiting; weakness, lightheadedness; skinvesiculation; scalingdermatitis. 

Eyes, skin, CVS, liver, kidneys, CNS 

Aldrin 309-00-2 ND ND 25 0.25S [0.02] 0.006S [0.0004]

Headache, dizziness; nausea, vomiting, malaise; limb jerks; convulsions; coma; hematuria: azotemia. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, skin 

Allyl alcohol 107-18-6

5 

[2.1]

10 

[4.2]

159 

[67]

5S

[2.1]

0.012S

[0.05]

Eye irritation, tissue damage; irritation upper respiratory Eyes, skin, RS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-9 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

system, skin; pulmonary edema. 

Ammonia 7664-41-7 

17 

[25]

77 

[110] 

766 

[1100]

17 

[25]

0.35 

[0.5]

Irritation eyes, nose, throat; difficulty breathing, bronchospasm; pulmonaryedema; pink frothy sputum;skin burns.

Eyes, skin, RS 

Aniline 62-53-3 

30 

[8]

46 

[12]

76 

[20]

3.8 

[1] ND 

Weakness, dizziness, ataxia, irritated eyes, liver cirrhosis; bladder cancer 

Blood, eyes, CVS,liver, kidneys, RS 

Arsenic trichloride 7784-34-1 

ND ND ND 0.01* [0.003] 0.01* [0.003] Irritation of nose and throatR. Eyes, RS 

Arsine 7784-42-1 NA 0.54 [0.17] 1.6 [0.5] 0.17 [0.05] 0.004 [0.0012]

Headache, malaise; difficulty breathing; nausea, vomiting;bronze skin; hematuria; jaundice. 

Blood, liver, kidneys 

Benzene 71-43-2 

160 

[50]

479 

[150] 

3195

[1000]

1.6 

(0.5) 

0.16 

[0.05]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, respiratory system; giddiness; headache, nausea, staggered gait; fatigue, loss of appetite, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); dermatitis; bone marrow depressant/depression. 

Eyes, skin, RS, blood, CNS, bone 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-10 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Boron tribromide10294-33-4

10C

[1] ND ND 10C [1] 10C [1] Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; dyspnea, pulmonary edema. Eyes, skin, RS 

Boron trifluoride 7637-07-2 

0.6 

[0.22]

16 

[5.8]

39 

[14]

0.6 

[0.22]

2 

[0.73]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, respiratory system; epistaxis (nosebleed); eye, skin burns; pneumonia; kidney damage. 

Eyes, skin, RS, kidneys 

Bromine 7726-95-6 

0.16 

[0.024] 

1.6 

[0.24]

56 

[8.5]

0.063 

[0.0095]

0.063 

[0.0095]

Dizziness, headache; lacrimation, epistaxis; cough, pulmonary edema, pneumonia;abdominal pain, diarrhea; measle-like eruptions; eye, skin burns.

RS, eyes, CNS, skin 

Bromine pentafluoride 7789-30-2 

ND ND ND 0.7 [0.1] 0.7 [0.1]

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; corneal necrosis; skin burns; difficulty breathing, pulmonary edema; liver, kidney injury. 

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys 

Butyl isocyanate (n-) 111-36-4

0.04 

[0.01]

0.2 

[0.05]

4.1 

[1] ND ND Skin irritation, eczema, conjunctivitisH. Skin and eyesH 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-11 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 

3 

[1]

156 

[50]

1557

[500] 

3S

[1]

0.76S

[0.24]

Dizziness, headache,nervousness, loss of appetite, polyneuropathy, ocular changes, coronary heart disease, gastritis, kidney, liverinjury, dermatitis, reproductive effects. 

CNS, PNS, CVS,eyes, kidneys,liver, skin, REPR 

Carbon monoxide 630-08-0 NA 95 [83] 380 [330] 28 [25] 3.3 [3]

Headache, rapid breathing, nausea, weakness, dizziness, confusion, hallucinations;cyanosis; depressant/depression S-Tsegment of electro-cardiogram, angina, syncope. 

CVS, lungs, blood, CNS 

Carbontetrachloride56-23-5 

75 

[12]

352 

[56]

1069

[170] 

33 

[5.2]

1.3 

[0.2]

Irritation eyes, skin; CNS depressant/depression; nausea, vomiting; liver, kidney injury;drowsiness, dizziness, incoordination.

CNS, eyes, lungs, liver, kidneys, skin. 

Carbonyl fluoride 353-50-4 ND ND ND 5 [2] [0.05] 0.13 

Irritation eyes, skin, mucousmembrane, respiratory system; eye, skin burns; excessivetearing; cough, pulmonaryedema, difficulty breathing. 

Eyes, skin, RS, bone 

Chlorine7782-50-5 

1.5 

[0.5]

5.8 

[2]

58 

[20]

1.5 

[0.5]

0.29 

[0.1]

Burning of eyes, nose, mouth;excessive tearing, rhinorrhea;coughing, choking, substernal pain; nausea, vomiting;hypoxemia; dermatitis. 

CNS, eyes, lungs, liver, kidneys, skin 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-12 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Chlorine dioxide 10049-04-4

0.4 

[0.15]

3 

[1.1]

6.6 

[2.4]

0.4 

[0.15] ND 

Irritating to eyes, nose, and throat, coughing, pulmonary edema, chronic bronchitis 

Eyes, RS 

Chlorinetrifluoride 7790-91-2 

0.5 

[0.12]

11.7 

[3.1]

53 

[14]

0.5 

[0.12]

0.15 

[0.04]

Respiratory irritation; inanimals: excessive tearing, corneal ulcer; pulmonary edema. 

Skin, eyes, RS 

Chloroacetaldehyde 107-20-0

3.2C

[1]

71 

[22]

144 

[45]

3.2C

[1]

3.2C

[1]

Irritation skin, eyes, mucousmembrane; skin burns; eye damage; pulmonary edema;skin, respiratory systemsensitization.

Eyes, skin, RS 

Chloroacetone78-95-5 

3.8C

[1] ND ND 3.8C [1] 3.8C [1] Excessive tearing, irritation skin and respiratory tract, pulmonary edemaH. Eyes, skin, RS 

Chloroacetophenone[CN]532-27-4

ND ND 15 0.32 [0.05] 0.32 [0.05]

Excessive tearing, irritation ofthe skin, rashes in tender skinareas of the armpits, knees, elbows, area of the crotch and buttocksT. 

Skin, eyesT 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-13 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Chloroacetyl chloride 79-04-9 

0.23 

[0.05]

2.3 

[0.5]

46 

[10]

0.23S

[0.05]

0.23S

[0.05]

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; eye, skin burns; cough, wheezing, difficulty breathing; excessive tearing. 

Eyes, skin, RS 

Chlorobenzylidenemalonitrile o- [CS]2698-41-1 

0.39C

[0.05] ND 2 [0.26] 0.39C [0.05] 0.39C [0.05]

Extremely irritating to the nose and throat with immediate lacrimatory effects; nausea and vomiting; shortness of breath,burning of the skin especially effecting the eyes, nose, mouth, and tender areas around the knees, elbows, crotch, and buttocksT. 

Eyes, skin, CNS, RST 

Chloroform67-66-3 NA 430 [88] 3174 [650] 48 [10] 0.5 [0.1]

Irritation eyes, skin; dizziness, mental dullness, nausea, confusion; headache, fatigue;anesthesia; enlarged liver. 

Liver, kidneys,heart, eyes, skin, CNS. 

Chloromethane (methyl chloride) 74-87-3 

NA 828 [400] 2070 [1000] ND ND

Dizziness, vomiting, visualdistortion; staggering slurred speech; convulsions; liver andkidney damage, repro effects;liquid contact: frostbite. 

CNS; liver, kidneys; REPR 

Crotonaldehyde4170-30-3 

0.55 

[0.19]

12.6 

[4.4]

40 

[14]

0.55S

[0.19]

0.54S

[0.19]

Irritation of the eyes and respiratory system; in animals:difficulty breathing, pulmonary

Eyes, skin, RS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-14 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

edema, skin irritation. 

Cyanogen 460-19-5

22 

[20]

78 

[71]

166 

[150] 

20 

[10]

0.51 

[0.24]

Irritation eyes, nose, upper respiratory system; excessive tearing; cherry red lips, 

bradycardia; headache, vertigo, convulsions; dizziness, loss of appetite, weight loss; smell ofbitter almonds on breath. 

Eyes, RS, CNS, CVS, blood 

Diborane 19287-45-7

0.34 

[0.3]

1.13 

[1]

4.2 

[3.7]

0.1 

[0.1]

0.0024

[0.0024]

Chest tightness, precordialpain, shortness breathing, cough, nausea, headache,dizziness, fever, fatigue, weakness, tremor; liver, kidney damage, pulmonary edema andhemorrhage. 

RS, CNS, liver, kidneys 

Dichloroethane (1,1-) 75-34-3 

ND ND 12,144 [3000] 400 [100] 9.8 [2.4] Irritation skin; CNS depressant/ depression; liver, kidney, lung damage. Skin, liver, kidneys, lungs, CNS 

Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-)156-59-2

556 

[140] 

1985

[500] 

3375

[850] 

556 

[140] ND 

Irritating to eyes, skin, respiratory system; CNS depressant. 

Eyes, RS, CNS 

Dichloroethylene (trans-1,1-)156-60-5

1112

[280] 

3970

[1000]

6749

[1700]

1112

[280] ND 

Irritating to eyes, skin, respiratory system; CNS depressant. 

Eyes, RS, CNS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-15 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Dieldrin60-57-1 0.75 1.25 50 0.25S [0.02] 0.006S [0.0004]

Headache, dizziness; nausea, vomiting, malaise, sweating;limb jerks; convulsions; coma;in animals: liver, kidney damage. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, skin 

Diesel fuel smoke 8 80 ND 5 5 

Inflammation of lung, irritationof respiratory tract, congestion in nasal turbinate, bronchopneumonia, bronchitis, pulmonary congestion withedema and hemorrhageM. 

Lung, RSM 

Diketene 674-82-8

3.4 

[1]

17 

[5]

69 

[20] NA NA Eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritationH. Eyes, skin, RSH 

Dimethylhydrazine (1,1-)57-14-7 

ND 7.4 [3] 27 [11] NA ND

Irritating to eyes, nose, mucous membranes; pulmonary edema;hemolytic agent. Can cause nausea, vomiting, anorexia, hypoglycemia, CNS stimulation, seizures, andcoma. Liquid: skin burns 

Eyes, skin, RS, blood, CNS 

Dimethylhydrazine (1,2-)540-73-8

ND 7.4 [3] 27 [11] NA ND

Irritating to eyes, nose, mucous membranes; pulmonary edema;hemolytic agent. Can cause nausea, vomiting, anorexia, hypoglycemia, CNS stimulation, seizures, andcoma. Liquid: skin burns 

Eyes, skin, RS, blood, CNS 

Dimethyl sulfate 77-78-1 

1.5 

[0.3]

5.2 

[1]

36 

[7]

0.5S

[0.1]

0.0012S

[0.0024]

Irritation eyes, nose; headache, giddiness; conjunctivitis; photophobia, edema; dysphonia, dysphagia, productive cough; chest pain; 

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys, CNS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-16 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

difficulty breathing, cyanosis; vomiting, diarrhea. 

Endrin 72-20-8 

0.1S

[0.008] 

0.3 

[0.024] 

2 

[0.16]

0.1S

[0.008] 

0.01S

[0.00016] 

Headache, dizziness; abdominal discomfort, nausea, vomiting, stupor,aggressiveness, confusion;lethargy (drowsiness orindifference), weakness; epileptiform convulsions; insomnia; loss of appetite; inanimals: liver damage. 

CNS, liver 

Ethyl benzene100-41-4

542 

[125] 

4342

[1000]

8684-

21710 

[2000-

5000] 

435 

[100] 

10.5 

[2.4]

Irritation eyes, skin, mucousmembrane; headache; dermatitis; narcosis, coma. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS 

Ethylenimine 151-56-4

2.64 

[1.5]

8.1 

[4.6]

17.4 

[9.9]

0.92S

[0.5]

0.022S

[0.012]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; nausea, vomiting;headache, dizziness; pulmonary edema; liver, kidney damage; eye burns;skin sensitization. 

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys 

Ethylene glycol107-21-1

202 

[50]

810 

[200] 

1210

[300] ND ND Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; nausea, vomiting; Eyes, skin, RS, CNS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-17 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

headache, dizziness; abdominal pain, stupor; CNS depression,skin sensitization. 

Ethylene oxide75-21-8 

14 

[7.5]

81 

[45]

360 

[200] 

1.8 

[1]

0.048 

[0.02]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; peculiar taste; headache, nausea; vomiting, diarrhea; difficulty breathing, cyanosis, pulmonary edema; incoordination; EKG abnormalities.

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, CNS, blood, kidneys, REPR

Fluorine 7782-41-4 

2.6 

[1.7]

7.8 

[5]

20.2 

[13]

2.6 

[1.7]

1.6 

[1]

Irritation eyes, nose, respiratory system; laryngeal spasm, bronchitis spasm;pulmonary edema; eye, skinburns; liver and kidney damage in animals. 

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys 

Fog oil smoke 9 90 ND 5 5 

Mild erythema, inflammation,dermatitis, acne, eczema, and contact sensitivity; pneumonia, cough, and phlegmM. 

Skin, lungs, RSM 

Formaldehyde50-00-0 

1.2 

[1]

12.3 

[10]

31 

[25]

0.37C

[0.3]

0.37C

[0.3]

Respiratory system irritation;excessive tearing; cough, Eyes, RS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-18 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

bronchitis spasm.

GA (Tabun) 77-81-6 See Table C-1 GB (Sarin) 107-44-8 See Table C-1 GD (Soman) 96-64-0 See Table C-1 GF 329-99-7 See Table C-1 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 

32 

[3]

107 

[10]

320 

[30]

0.24S

[0.02]

0.005S

[0.0005]

In animals: irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; kidney damage. 

Eyes, skin, RS, kidneys 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-19 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene77-47-4 

0.1 

[0.01]

0.35 

[0.03]

1.6 

[0.15]

0.1 

[0.01]

0.1 

[0.01]

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; excessive tearing; sneezing, cough, difficulty breathing, salivation,pulmonary edema; nausea,vomiting, diarrhea. 

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys 

Hexachloroethane (smoke) 67-72-1 

0.3 3 ND 0.2 0.2

Acute respiratory distresssyndrome, edema, difficultybreathing, chest constriction, retrosternal pain, hoarseness, cough, lacrimationexpectoration, irritation of thenose, throat, and chest; nauseaM. 

RS, lungs, eyesM 

Hexane 110-54-3

528 

[150] 

880 

[250] 

3872

[1100]

180S

[50]

4.3S

[1.2]

Irritation eyes, nose;lightheadedness; nausea, headache; peripheralneuropathy: numbness extremities, muscle weakness; dermatitis; giddiness; chemical pneumonia (aspiration liquid). 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, PNS 

Hydrazine 302-01-2

0.13 

[0.1]

17 

[13]

46 

[35]

0.13 

[0.1]

0.013 

[0.01]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; temporary blindness; dizziness, nausea; dermatitis;eye, skin burns; in animals: bronchitis, pulmonary edema;liver, kidney damage; convulsions. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, liver, kidneys 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-20 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Hydrogenbromide 10035-10-6

9.9C

[3]

19.8 

[6]

99 

[30]

9.9C

[3]

9.9C

[3]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat. 

Eyes, skin, RS 

Hydrogenchloride 7647-01-0 

2.7 

[1.8]

33 

[22]

149 

[100] 

2.7 

[1.8]

2.7 

[1.8]

Irritation nose, throat, larynx; cough, choking; dermatitis. 

Eyes, skin, RS 

Hydrogencyanide 74-90-8 

2.2 

[2]

7.8 

[7.1]

16.6 

[15]

1.1S

[1]

0.11S

[0.11]

Asphyxia; weakness, headache, confusion; nausea, vomiting; increased rate and depth of respiration orrespiration slow and gasping;thyroid, blood changes.

CNS, CVS, thyroid, blood 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-21 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Hydrogenfluoride 7664-39-3 

0.82 

[1]

19.7 

[24]

36 

[44]

0.82 

[1]

0.41 

[0.5]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; pulmonary edema; eye,skin burns; rhinitis; bronchitis; bone changes.

Eyes, skin, RS, bones 

Hydrogenselenide 7783-07-5 

NA 0.66 [0.2] 6.6 [2] 0.2 [0.05] 0.2 [0.05]

Irritation eyes, nose, throat; nausea, vomiting, diarrhea; metallic taste, garlic breathing; dizziness, lassitude, fatigue. 

Eyes, RS, liver 

Hydrogen sulfide 7783-06-4 

0.71 

[0.51]

38 

[27]

70 

[50]

0.46 

[0.33]

0.46 

[0.33]

Irritation eyes, apnea, coma, convulsions; conjunctivitis, eye pain, lacrimation photophobia (abnormal visual intolerance tolight), corneal vesiculation;dizziness, headache, fatigue, insomnia; gastrointestinal disturbance. 

Eyes, RS, CNS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-22 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Ironpentacarbonyl 13463-40-6

ND 0.5 [0.2] 1.4 [0.6] NA 0.02 [0.0024]

Irritation eyes, mucous membrane, respiratory system; headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting; fever, cyanosis, difficulty breathing; liver, kidney, lung injury; degenerative changes in CNS.

Eyes, RS, CNS, liver, kidneys 

Lewisite 541-25-3

0.003C 

[0.00035] ND ND

0.003C 

[0.00035] 

0.003C 

[0.00035] 

Immediate pain in the eyes, resulting in profuse tearing andblepharospasm; pulmonaryirritant, erythema, pulmonaryedemaH. 

Eyes, RSH 

Lindane 58-89-9 

1.5 

[0.126] 

50 

[4.2]

50 

[4.2]

0.5S

[0.04]

0.012S

[0.001] 

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; headache; nausea; convulsions; respiratory difficulty; cyanosis; aplastic anemia; muscle spasm; in animals: liver, kidney damage. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, blood, liver, kidneys 

Mercury vapor (inorganic) 7439-97-6 

NA 2 [0.25] 4.1 [0.5] NA ND

Irritating to eyes, cough, chest pain, dypsnea, bronchitis; tremor, insomnia, irritability; headache, weakness; GIdistress; salivation, anorexia. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, kidneys 

Methyl bromide 74-83-9 

58.3 

[15]

195 

[50]

777 

[200] 

4S

[1]

0.09S

[0.024]

Irritation eyes, skin, muscle weakness, visual disturbance,dizziness; nausea, vomiting, headache; malaise; hand tremor; convulsions; difficultybreathing; skin vesiculation. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-23 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Methylene chloride 75-09-2 

695 

[200] 

2600

[750] 

13,880

[4000]

175 

[50]

2.1 

[0.6]

Irritation eyes, skin; fatigue, weakness, somnolence (sleepiness, unnatural drowsiness), lightheadedness;numbness, limbs tingle, nausea. 

Eyes, skin, CVS, CNS 

Methylene diphenyl isocyanate (4,4-) 101-68-8

0.2 

[0.02]

2 

[0.2]

25 

[2.4] ND ND

Irritating to eyes, throat; RS, cough, pulmonary secretions; chest pain, dypsnea; asthma

Eyes, RS 

Methylacrylonitrile 126-98-7

NA 3 [1.1] 9.3 [3.4] NA ND Irritating to eyes, skin; convulsions, (animal: loss of motor control in hind limbs). Eyes, skin, CNS 

Methyl hydrazine 60-34-4 ND 1.9 [1] 5.7 [3] 0.02S [0.01] 0.0005S [0.00024]

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; vomiting, diarrhea,tremor, ataxia; anoxia, cyanosis; convulsions. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, liver, blood,CVS 

Methyl isocyanate624-83-9

0.06 

[0.025] 

0.16 

[0.067] 

0.47 

[0.2]

0.05S

[0.02]

0.05S

[0.02]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; respiratory sensitization, cough, pulmonary secretions, chestpain, difficulty breathing; asthma; eye, skin damage. 

Eyes, skin, RS 

Methyl mercaptan 74-93-1 

1 

[0.5]

9.7 

[5]

45 

[23]

1 

[0.5]

0.024 

[0.012] 

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; narcosis; cyanosis; convulsions. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, blood 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-24 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Nickel carbonyl 13463-39-3 NA 0.2 [0.028] 1.1 [0.16] NA ND

Headache, vertigo, vomiting, epigastric pain; cough;cyanotic; weakness; delirium;convulsions; reproductions and teratogenic effects. 

RS, CNS, REPR 

Nitric acid7697-37-2 

1.3 

[0.5]

10 

[4]

57 

[22]

1.3 

[0.5]

1.3 

[0.5]

Irritation eyes, skin, mucousmembrane; delayed pulmonaryedema, pneumonititis, bronchitis; dental erosion.

Eyes, skin, RS 

Nitric oxide 10102-43-9

 0.61*

[0.5]

15* 

[12]

25* 

[20]

0.61* 

[0.5]

0.61* 

[0.5]

Irritation eyes, wet skin, nose, throat; drowsiness, unconsciousness;methemoglobinemia. 

Eyes, skin, RS, blood, CNS 

Nitrogen dioxide 10102-44-0

0.94 

[0.5]

23 

[12]

38 

[20]

0.94 

[0.5]

0.94 

[0.5]

Irritation eyes, nose, throat, cough, mucoid frothy sputum, decreased pulmonary function, difficulty breathing; chest pain; pulmonary edema, cyanosis,rapid breathing, tachycardia. 

Eyes, RS, CVS 

Paraquat4685-14-7 

0.15 

[0.024] 

1.0 

[0.16] * 0.1 [0.016] 0.01 [0.0016]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat, respiratory system; epistaxis; dermatitis; fingernail damage; irritationgastrointestinal tract; heart, liver, kidney damage. 

Eyes, skin, RS, heart, liver, kidneys, GI tract 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-25 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Parathion 56-38-2 

0.3 

[0.024] 

2 

[0.16]

10 

[0.8]

0.1 

[0.008] 

0.0024

[0.0002]

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; miosis; rhinorrhea; headache; chest tightness, wheezing, laryngeal spasm,salivation, cyanosis; anorexia, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea; sweating; muscle fasiculation, weakness, paralysis; giddiness, confusion, ataxia; convulsions, coma; low blood pressure; cardiac irregular/irregularities. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, CVS, blood ChE Inh 

Perchloro-methylmercaptan 594-42-3

0.09 

[0.012] 

0.27 

[0.035] 

2.3 

[0.3]

0.04 

[0.0049]

0.04 

[0.0049]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; lacrimation; cough, difficulty breathing, deepbreathing pain, coarse rales;vomiting; pallor, tachycardia;acidosis; anuria; liver, kidneydamage. 

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys 

Phenol108-95-2

17 

[4.5]

58 

[15]

181 

[47]

7.3 

[1.9] ND Irritating to eyes, nose, throat; anorexia; weakness, muscle Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-26 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

aches; dark urine; liver/kidney damage; tremor/twitching, cyanosis, convulsions. 

coPhosgene 75-44-5 

0.4 

[0.1]

1.2 

[0.3]

3.0 

[0.75]

0.4 

[0.1]

0.04 

[0.01]

Irritation eyes; dry burningthroat; vomiting; cough, foamy sputum, difficulty breathing,chest pain, cyanosis. 

Eyes, skin, respiratory system 

Phosphine 7803-51-2 NA 2.8 [2] 5 [3.6] 0.4 [0.3] 0.01 [0.0073]

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain, diarrhea; thirst; chest tightness, difficulty breathing,muscle pain, chills; stupor or syncope; pulmonary edema. 

CNS, RS 

White phosphorus(yellow) 7723-14-0 

0.3 

[0.06]

3 

[0.59]

5 

[0.99]

0.1 

[0.02]

0.0024

[0.0005]

Irritation eyes, respiratory tract; eyes, skin burns; abdominal pain, nausea,jaundice; anemia; cachexia; dental pain, salivation, jawpain, swelling.

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys, blood, bone 

Phosphorus oxychloride 10025-87-3

ND ND 5.3 [0.85] 0.6 [0.1] 0.015 [0.002] 

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; eye, skin burns; difficulty breathing, cough,pulmonary edema; dizziness, headache, weakness;abdominal pain, nausea,vomiting; nephritis. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, kidneys 

Phosphorus trichloride ND ND 4.9 [0.87] 1.5 [0.27] 1.5 [0.27] Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; pulmonary edema; eye, Eyes, skin, RS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-27 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

7719-12-2 skin burns. Red phosphorussmoke 1 10 1000 1 1

Irritation eyes, respiratory tract; eye, skin burns; abdominal pain, nausea,jaundice; anemia; cachexia; dental pain, salivation, jawpain, swelling.

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys, bone, blood 

Propylene oxide 75-56-9 

143 

[60]

690 

[290] 

1452

[610] 

26 

[11] ND 

Irritation eyes, respiratory tract; skin burns; blisters carcinogen. 

Eyes, skin, RS 

Selenium hexafluoride 7783-79-1 1.2 [0.15] 2 [0.25] 16 [2] 0.4 [0.05] 0.4 [0.05] Pulmonary irritation, edema. RS Stibine 7803-52-3 ND 2.6 [0.5] 7.7 [1.5] 0.5 [0.1] 0.5 [0.1]

Headache, weakness; nausea, abdominal pain; lumbar pain, hemoglobinuria, hematuria, hemolytic anemia; jaundice; pulmonary irritation. 

Blood, liver, kidneys, RS 

Styrene 100-42-5

213 

[50]

1065

[250] 

4260

[1000] ND ND

Irritation eyes, nose, respiratory tract; dizziness, headache, weak, unsteady gait, narcolepsy; defatting of derm;liver and reproductive effects. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, liver, REPR 

Sulfur dioxide7446-09-5 ND 8 [3] 39 [15] 5 [2] 2.6 [1] Irritation eyes, nose, throat; rhinorrhea (discharge of thin nasal mucus); choking, cough; Eyes, skin, RS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-28 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

reflex bronchoconstriction. 

Sulfur mustard [HD]505-60-2

See Table C-1 

Sulfuric acid7664-93-9 

2 

[0.5]

10 

[2.5]

30 

[7.5]

1 

[0.25]

1 

[0.25]

Severe lung damage; loss ofvision; corrosion of mucousmembranes; nausea, vomiting.

RS 

Sulfuryl fluoride2699-79-8 ND ND 835 [200] 20 [5] 0.5 [0.12]

Conjunctivitis, rhinitis, pharyngitis, paresthesia; liquid;frostbite: in animals: narcosis, tremor, convulsions;pulmonary edema; kidneyinjury. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, kidneys 

Telluriumhexafluoride 7783-80-4 

0.6 

[0.06]

10 

[1] ** 0.2 [0.02] 0.2 [0.02]

Results in bluish blackcoloration of webs offingers/streaks on face; possible smell of garlic fromsweat/breathing; headache; difficulty breathing; inanimals: pulmonary edema 

RS 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-29 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-)79-34-5 

20.6 

[3]

34.3 

[5]

686 

[100] 

7 

[1]

0.2 

[0.024] 

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain; tremor fingers; jaundice, hepatitis; monocytosis (increased blood monocytes);kidney damage. 

Skin, liver, kidneys, CNS, GI tract 

Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4

237 

[35]

1559

[230] 

8136

[1200]

237 

[35]

4.2 

[0.61]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat, respiratory system; nausea; flush face, neck; vertigo (an illusion of movement), dizziness, incoordination; headache,somnolence (sleepiness,unnatural drowsiness); skinerythema (skin redness); liverdamage. 

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys, CNS 

Tetrafluoroethane (1,1,1,2-) 811-97-2

33,360

[8000]

54,210

[13000] 

112,590 

[27000] 

33,360

[8000] ND 

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat, respiratory system; dizziness, headache, hypoxia; pulmonary and cerebral edema. 

Eyes, RS, CNS, CVS 

Tetraethyl lead 78-00-2 

0.13 

[0.01]

0.75 

[0.06]

4.0 

[0.30]

0.1S

[0.013] 

0.0024S

[0.0003]

Insomnia, lassitude, anxiety; tremor, hyper-reflexia, spasticity; bradycardia, hypotension, hypothermia, pallor, nausea, loss of appetite, weight loss; confusion,hallucinations, psychosis,mania, convulsions, coma; eye irritation.

CNS, CVS, kidneys, eyes 

Tetramethyl lead75-74-1 ND ND 40 0.1S [0.013] 0.0024S [0.0003]

Insomnia, restlessness, anxiety; hypotension; nausea, loss ofappetite; delirium, mania, convulsions; coma. 

CNS, CVS, kidneys 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-30 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Titaniumtetrachloride7550-45-0 

5 

[0.64]

20 

[2.6]

100 

[12.9]

0.5 

[0.064] 

0.012 

[0.0015]

Cornea damage, congestion of the mucous membrane of the pharynx, vocal cords, and trachea; stenosis of larynx, trachea and upper bronchi; skinirritationH. 

Skin, eyes, URSH 

Toluene 108-88-3

754 

[200] 

1923

[510] 

10933 

[2900]

754 

[200] 

11 

[3]

Irritation eyes, nose; fatigue, weakness, confusion, euphoria, dizziness, headache; dilated pupils, excessive tearing;nervousness, muscle fatigue,insomnia; paresthesia; dermatitis; liver, kidney damage. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, liver, kidneys 

Toluene 2,4-diisocyanate584-84-9

0.14 

[0.02]

0.59 

[0.083] 

3.6 

[0.51]

0.07 

[0.01]

0.036 

[0.005] 

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; choke, paroxysmalcough; chest pain; vomiting,abdominal pain; bronchospasm, pulmonaryedema; difficulty breathing, asthma; conjunctivitis, excessive tearing; dermatitis, skin sensitization. 

Eyes, skin, RS 

Trichloroethane (1,1,1-) 71-55-6 

1256

[230] 

3276

[600] 

20,748

[3800]

1256

[230] ND 

Irritation eyes, nose, CNS depression; liver kidneydamage, dermal effects. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, liver, kidneys 

Trichloroethylene 79-01-6 

537 

[100] 

2687

[500] 

26,870

[5000]

270 

[50]

6.6 

[1.2]

Headache, fatigue, and irritability. CNS 

Trichloropropane (1,2,3-) 

181 

[30]

302 

[50]

603 

[100] 

60S

[10]

1.5S

[0.24]

Irritation eyes, nose, throat; CNS depressant/depression; in 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, liver, 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-31 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

96-18-4 animals: liver, kidney injury. kidneys Tungsten hexafluoride 7783-82-6 

ND ND ND 1 [0.125] 0.024 [0.003] 

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain, convulsions, and kidneydamage; irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and skin. 

Kidney, CNS,eyes, skin, URS 

Vinyl acetate 108-05-4

17.6 

[5]

264 

[75]

1760

[500] ND ND

Irritation to eyes, skin, nose, throat; hoarseness, cough; loss of smell; eye burns; skinblisters. 

Eyes, skin, RS 

VX 50782-69-9 See Table C-1 

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-32 
US

AP

1-Hour Air-MEG mg/m3 [ppm]

Health Effect Level 

Chemical

CAS No. 

Minimal Significant Severe

8-Hour

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

14 Day

Air-MEG

mg/m3

[ppm]

Potential Symptoms ΙN Target Organs N and Systems 

Xylene (mixed) 1330-20-7 

650 

[150] 

868 

[200] 

3906

[900] 

435 

[100] 

10.6 

[2.4]

Lightheadedness, nausea, headache, and ataxia at low doses and confusion;respiratory depression andcoma at high doses; above 200ppm, conjunctivitis, nasal irritation, and sore throat; it is a potent respiratory irritant at high concentrations; dermatitis with prolonged cutaneous exposure.H 

CNS, eyes, skin, RSH

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-33 
US

AP

FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE C-2 – SHORT-TERM AIR MEGS 

c – Ceiling value (ACGIH, 1998). s – Skin notation; dermal exposures have the potential for significant contribution to overall dose. † - Compounds classified per ACE Policy for Defensive Measures against Toxic Industrial Chemical Hazards during Milita

 (NATO/PFP, 1996). CHID – Chemical Hazard Information for Deployments. Additional Fact Sheet information is under development for notaEKG - electrocardiogramH – Hazardous Substances Data Base. I – Acute Exposure Symptoms which may occur at exposures above MEGs. M – National Research Council, Committee on Toxicology. 1997. Toxicity of Military Smokes and Obscurants, National A

 Washington, DC N – National Institute of Safety and Occupational Health (NIOSH) Pocket Guide (unless otherwise noted). NA – Not Available; data insufficient to derive a value. ND – Not Determined; data not yet reviewed to derive a value. NJ – New Jersey Substance Fact Sheet.NOAEL – No Observable Adverse Effect Level R – Chemical Hazard Response Information System. RTECS – Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances. T – Compton, James A. F. 1987. Military Chemical and Biological Agents, The Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ. The primary sources of odor thresholds in air were the Odor Thresholds for Chemicals with Established Occupational Hea

published by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, Akron, OH, 1989, and the N. J. Hazardous Substances Fact Sh

TABLE 2-4-1. TARGET ORGANS TABLE 2-4-2. TARGET SYSTEMS 

TARGET ORGANS TARGET SYSTEMS 

Eyes Brain CNS – Central Nervous System CVS – Cardiovascular System

Skin Heart PNS – Peripheral Nervous System ChE Inh – Cholinesterase Inhibitor

Blood Pancreas GI tract – Gastrointestinal Tract UT – Urogenital Tract 

Bladder Adrenal Glands RS – Respiratory System CRC – Circulatory System

Thyroid Lungs LRS – Lower Respiratory System IMM – Immune System

Bone Liver URS – Upper Respiratory System REPR – Reproductive System

Fetus Kidneys ENDO – Endocrine System HEM – Hemopoietic System

Spleen LYMP – Lymphatic System

Table C-2. Short-Term Air-MEGs C-34 
US

AP

TABLE C-3. LONG-TERM, AIR MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES (1 YEAR DEPLOYMENT) 

Chemical 

CAS No. 

Air-MEG 

mg/m

[ppm] 

1-Year 

3

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Acenaphthene83-32-9 0.14 [0.023] NA Skin and eye irritation, coughing and wheezing. Skin, eyes, RS, kidney, liver 0.50 [0.08]Acenaphthylene208-96-8 0.028 

[0.0045]

D ND ND NA

Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 0.0062 [0.0034] B2

Irritation of the eyes, nose,throat; eye, skin burns; dermatitis; conjunctivitis; cough; CNS depression; delayed pulmonary edema;kidney, reproductive, teratogenic effects; cancer. 

RS, eyes, skin, kidneys, CNS,REPR 

0.0002-4.14 

Green, sweet, 

fruity odor 

Acetone 67-64-1 29.0 [12.2] D 

Eye, nose and throat irritation,headache, dizziness, CNS depression, dermatitis. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS 

30.9 

[13]

Fruity odor 

Acetone cyanohydrin 75-86-5 0.068 [0.020] NA 

Irritation of the eyes, skin, respiratory system; dizziness, weakness, headache,confusion, convulsions; liver,kidney injury; pulmonaryedema, asphyxia. 

CNS, eyes, skin, RS, CVS, liver, kidneys, GI tract 

Cyanide, bitter 

almond odor

Cancer 

Group 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-35 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

Acetonitrile 75-05-8 0.34 [0.20] D 

Irritation of nose, throat; asphyxiation, nausea, vomiting; chest pain; weakness; stupor, convulsions; liver, kidney damage. 

Liver, kidneys,RS, CVS, CNS 

70 

Ether-like odor 

Acrolein107-02-8

0.000014

[0.0000060] C 

Irritation eyes, skin, mucousmembranes; decreased pulmonary function; delayed pulmonary edema; chronic respiratory disease; cancer. 

Eyes, skin, RS, heart 

0.0525-37 

Burnt sweet odor 

Acrylamide 79-06-1 0.0037 [0.0013] B2

Irritation of eyes, skin ataxia, numb limbs, abnormalsensations; muscular weakness; absent deep tendonreflex; fatigue, reproductive effects (mammary gland,uterus, testes), cancer, lethality 

CNS, PNS, REPR, ENDO, RS, GI tract, eyes, skin

NA 

Acrylic acid79-10-7 0.14 [0.048] NA 

Irritation of eyes, skin, respiratory system; eye, skin burns, skin sensitization;reproductive effects; lung, liver, kidney. 

Liver, kidneys,eyes, skin, RS, REPR 

0.282-3.12

Rancid, sweet 

odor

Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 0.11 [0.049] B1

Irritation eyes, skin; asphyxia; headache; sneezing; nausea, vomiting; weakness, lightheadedness; skinvesiculation; scalingdermatitis; brain tumors; lung and bowel cancer. 

RS, eyes, skin, CVS, liver, kidneys, CNS 

8.1-78.75 

Onion-garlic 

pungency 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-36 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Aldrin 309-00-2 0.00098 [0.000066] B2

Headache, dizziness; nausea, vomiting, malaise; myoclonic jerks of limbs; clonic, tonicconvulsions; coma; hematuria, azotemia, thyroid and adrenaleffects, cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, skin, LRS, ENDO 

0.2536-0.4027 

Allyl chloride107-05-1 0.077 [0.025] C 

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, mucous membranes;pulmonary edema, liver, kidney injury; cancer. 

CNS, eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys 

1.41-75 

Green garlic, 

oniony odor

Ammonia 7664-41-7 0.35 [0.5] NA 

Irritation eyes, nose, throat; dyspnea, bronchospasm;pulmonary edema; pink frothysputum; skin burns. 

RS, eyes, skin

0.0266-39.6 

Pungent, 

irritating odor 

Aniline 62-52-3 0.19 [0.049] B2

Headache, weakness, dizziness; cyanosis; dyspnea on effort; tachycardia; irritation of eyes; methemoglobinuria, cirrhosis; tumors of the spleen; cancer. 

Blood, CVS, eyes, liver, kidneys, LRS 

0.0002-350 

Pungent, 

amine-like odor

Antimony trioxide1309-64-4 0.00014 [0.000020] NA 

Irritation eyes, respiratory system, antimony pneumoconiosis. 

RS, liverI NA

Anthracene 120-12-7 35 [4.2] D 

Skin, nose, throat, and eye irritation, itching, burning,coughing, and wheezing, photosensitizer. 

Skin, eyes, RS Weak aromatic

odor

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-37 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.0011 [0.00036] A 

Ulceration of nasal septum;dermatitis; GI disturbances;peripheral neuropathy;respiratory irritation; hyperpigmentation of skin;lung and lymphatic cancer. 

RS, skin, CVS, liver, kidneys NA 

Arsine 7784-42-1 0.000034 [0.000011] NA 

Headache, malaise; dyspnea; nausea, vomiting; bronze skin; hemolysis; jaundice;peripheral neuropathy.

Blood, liver, kidneys, lungs, CVS 

0.84-2

Garlic-like odor

Azobenzene 103-33-3 0.15 

[0.021] 

B2

Azobenzene induced invasivesarcomas in the spleen and other abdominal organs inmale and female F344 rats following dietary administration. It is genotoxic and may be converted to benzidine, a known human carcinogen, under the acidic conditions in the stomachI; 

cancer. 

GI tract NA 

Barium7440-39-3 0.0034 [0.00061] NA 

Irritation to eyes, upper respiratory system, acute lung and gastrointestinal effects; baritosis. 

Eyes, skin , RS, GItract, fetus NA

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-38 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Benzene 71-43-2 0.039 

[0.012] 

A 

Irritation of eyes, skin, nose, respiratory system; giddiness; headache, nausea, staggered gait; fatigue, anorexia, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); dermatitis; bone marrow depression, leukemia; cancer. 

HEM, eyes, skin, RS, blood, CNS 

4.5-270 

Sweet, solvent 

odor

Benzidine 92-87-5 0.000072 [0.0000095] A 

Hematuria; secondary anemiafrom hemolysis; acute cystitis; acute liver disorders; dermatitis; painful irregular urination; cancer. 

Bladder, skin, kidneys, liver, blood 

NA 

Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.054 [0.0058] B2

Benzo(a)anthracene producedtumors in mice exposed bygavage; intraperitoneal,subcutaneous or intramuscularinjection; and topical applicationI; cancer. 

RS, liver, GI tract I NA 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-39 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Benzo(a)pyrene50-32-8 0.0054 [0.00053] B2

Repeated Benzo(a)pyreneadministration has beenassociated with increasedincidences of total tumors andof tumors at the site ofexposure in dietary, gavage, inhalation, intratracheal instillation, dermal andsubcutaneous studies innumerous strains of at least four species of rodents and several primatesI; cancer. 

GI tract, RS, skinI Faint aromatic odor

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 0.054 [0.0053] B2

Benzo(b)fluoranthene produced tumors in mice after lung implantation, intraperitoneal orsubcutaneous injection, andskin paintingI; cancer. 

RS, liver, skinI

NA 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-0 0.54 [0.053] B2

Benzo(k)fluoranthene produced tumors after lungimplantation in mice and whenadministered with a promoting agent in skin-painting studiesI; 

cancer. 

RS, skin, liverI NA 

Beryllium7440-41-7 0.000014 [0.000037] B1

Sensitization, irritation of eyes; dermatitis; cumulative lung damage berylliosischronic exposure: anorexia, low weight, weakness, chest pain, cough, clubbing offingers, cyanosis, pulmonary insufficiency; lung cancer I,N. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNSI,N NA 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-40 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate117-81-7 0.12 [.00767] B2

Eye irritation, liver damage, possible teratogenic and carcinogenic effects. 

Eyes, skin, RS.,CNS, liver, REPR, GI tract 

Odorless 

Bis-2-Chloro-1-methylethyl ether 108-60-1

0.0014

[0.0002]

C Cancer LiverH NA 

Bis-2-Chloroethyl ether 111-44-4 0.015 [0.0025] B2 Cancer LiverH

[0.049] 

Pungent, sweet, 

chloroform-like 

odor

Boron 7440-42-8 0.014 [0.031] NA Respiratory irritation, bronchitisH. RSH NABoron trifluoride 7637-07-2 0.0048 [0.0017] NA 

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, respiratory system; epistaxis (nosebleed); pneumonia; kidney damage. 

Eyes, skin, RS, kidneys 

4.5 

Pungent, 

irritating

Bromoethylene 593-60-2

0.0021

[0.00047] B2

Irritation eyes, skin; dizziness, confusion, incoordination, narcosis, nausea, vomitingN; 

liver injury and cancerH. 

Eyes, skin, CNS, liver, GI tractN

Characteristic 

pungent odor

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-41 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Bromoform75-25-2 0.13 [0.012] B2

Irritation of eyes, skin, respiratory system, CNS depression, liver, kidneydamage, cancer of the GI tract. 

GI tract, eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys 

5300

Odor similar to 

chloroform

Butadiene (1,3-) 106-99-0 0.017 [0.0077] B2

Irritation of the eyes, nose andthroat; drowsiness, lightheadedness; teratogenic, reproductive effects; cancer. 

Eyes, RS, REPR, heart, HEM, CVS 0.352-2.86 

sec-Butylbenzene135-98-8 0.025 [0.00462] NA 

Irritation of eyes, nose, throat, and skin, CNS depression, incoordination, nausea,general anesthetic effects. 

Eyes, RS, skin NA 

Cadmium (elemental) 7440-43-9 0.00024 [0.000053] B1

Pulmonary edema, dyspnea,cough, tight chest, substernal pain, headache, chills, muscular aches, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, emphysema, proteinuria, anosmia (loss of sense of smell), mild anemia, cancer. 

RS, kidneys, REPR, blood, GItract 

NA 

Cadmium (compounds) 

0.000049 NA 

Cancer; kidney effects; metal fume fever tumors of lung, trachea, bronchus (cancer deaths) in human occupationalepidemiology study. 

RS, kidneys NA 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-42 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 

0.48 

[0.15] NA 

Dizziness, headache,nervousness, anorexia, polyneuropathy, psychosis, Parkinson-like syndrome, ocular changes, coronary heartdisease, gastritis, kidney, liverinjury, dermatitis, reproductive effects. 

PNS, CNS, CVS,eyes, kidneys,liver, skin, REPR 

0.0243-23.1 

Disagreeable 

sweet odor 

Carbon monoxide 630-08-0

3.3 

[3]

Headache, tachypnea, nausea, weakness, dizziness, confusion, hallucinations,cyanosis, electrocardiogramalterations, angina, syncope 

CNS, CVS, fetus NA 

Carbon tetrachloride56-23-5 

0.32 

[0.051] B2

Irritation eyes, skin; CNS depression; nausea, vomiting;liver, kidney injury; drowsiness, dizziness, incoordination, cancer. 

Eyes, skin, liver, CNS, RS, kidneys 

300-1500

Sweet, pungent 

odor

Chlordane 57-74-9 

0.00048 

[0.000029] B2

Blurred vision; confusion,ataxia, delirium; cough;abdominal pain, nausea,vomiting, diarrhea; irritability, tremor, convulsions; anuria;lung, liver and kidney damage;cancer. 

Liver, ENDO, IMM, CNS, eyes, kidneys 

0.0084-0.0419 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-43 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Chlorine dioxide 10049-04-4 0.0068 [0.0025] NA 

Irritation of eyes, nose, throat; cough, wheezing, bronchitis, pulmonary edema; chronic bronchitis. 

RS, eyes 

0.3 

Sharp, pungent

odor

Chloroacetophenone (2-) (CN) 532-27-4

0.00021 

[0.000032] 

NA 

Lacrimation, irritation of the skin, rashes in tender skinareas of the armpits, knees, elbows, areas of the crotch and buttocksT. 

RS, skin, eyesT 

0.102-0.15

Sharp and 

irritating odor 

Chlorobenzilate510-15-6 0.0612 [0.0046] B2 Cancer LiverH NAChloro-1,3-butadiene (2-)126-99-8 0.048 [0.013] NA Upper respiratory system effects. URS, CNS, blood, liverAc NA Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (1-) 75-68-3 

34.2 

[8.3] NA 

None identified up to a human equivalent concentration of14,710 mg/m3I

 CNS, CVS, LRS, fetus NA 

Chlorodifluoromethane 75-45-6 

3.42 

[9.7] NA 

Irritation respiratory system; confusion, drowsiness, ringingin ears; heart palpitations, cardiac arrhythmias; asphyxiation; liver, kidney,spleen injury. 

Kidneys, ENDO,RS, CVS, CNS, liver 

NA

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-44 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Chloroethane 75-00-3 6.8 [2.6] NA Effects on fetus. Fetus, CNS, CVS 

[4.2]

Pungent, etherlike odor

Chloroform67-66-3 0.21 [0.043] B2

Irritation eyes, skin; dizziness, mental dullness, nausea, confusion, headache, fatigue;anesthesia; enlarged liver; cancer. 

Kidneys, liver, heart, eyes, skin, CNS 

250-1000

Pleasant, etherlike odor 

Chloromethane 74-87-3 2.7 [1.3] C TumorsH; cancer. KidneysH

[10]

Faint, sweet odor

Chloropropane (2-)75-29-6 0.68 [0.21] NA Liver effects LiverH NAChromium Metal and Cr III compounds 7440-47/16065-83-1 0.012 NA Irritation; dermatitis. Eyes, skin, RS NA Chromium (VI) (water soluble) CrVI 18540-29-9

0.000068 NA 

Nasal irritation and atrophy; decreased pulmonary function;liver, kidney effects; cancer. 

RS; liver; kidneys NA 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-45 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Chromium (VI) (insoluble) CrVI 18540-29-9 0.000068

A 

Irritation to eyes; dermal sensitization; lung, liver, kidney effects, cancerN,I. 

Skin, eyes, LRS, liver, kidneys, blood, IMMN,I 

NA 

Chrysene218-01-9 5.5 [0.58] B2

Chrysene producedcarcinomas and malignantlymphomas in mice after intraperitoneal injection andskin carcinomas in mice following dermal exposureI; 

cancer. 

Liver, LRS, skin I NA

Cumene98-82-8 2.74 [0.6] D 

Irritation to eyes, skin, mucousmembranes; dermatitis; headache, narcosis, coma. 

CNS, URS, eyes, skin 

0.04-6.4

Sharp, aromatic 

odor

Cyclopentadiene 542-92-7 2.1 [0.76] NA Irritation of eyes, nose; liver, kidney effects. Liver, kidneys, eyes, URS 

5.07 

Turpentine-like 

odor

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-46 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

P,p’-DDT 50-29-3 0.049 [0.0034] B2

Irritation eyes, skin; paresthesia tongue, lips, face;tremor; apprehension, dizziness, confusion, malaise, headache, fatigue; convulsions; paresis hands; vomiting, cancer. 

Liver, eyes, skin, CNS, PNS, kidneys, LRS, LYM 

5.07 

Slight aromatic

odor

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 0.0054 [0.00048] B2

Bibenzo(a,h)anthracene produced carcinomas in mice following oral or dermalexposure and injection site tumors in several species following subcutaneous or intramuscular; cancer. 

Skin, RS, REPR I NA 

Dibromo-3-chloropropane (1,2-) 96-12-8 

0.00014 

[0.000014] B2

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; drowsiness; nausea;vomiting; pulmonary edema;liver, kidney effects, cancer. 

RS, eyes, skin, liver, kidneys, blood, REPR 

0.1-0.29

Pungent odor

Dichlorobenzene (1,2-) 95-50-1 1.4 [0.23] D Irritation eyes, nose; liver, kidney damage, skin blisters. Eyes, skin, URS, liver, kidneys 

12-300

Pleasant, 

aromatic odor 

Dichlorobenzene (1,4-) 106-46-7 1.7 [0.28] B2

Eye irritation, periorbital swelling; profuse rhinitis; headaches, anorexia, nausea, vomiting; low weight, jaundice, cirrhosis; liver and kidney cancer. 

Liver, URS, eyes, kidneys 

90-180

Mothball odor 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-47 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Dichloro-2-butene (1,4-)764-41-0 0.0018 [0.00036] B2 Cancer URSH Sweet, pungent odorDichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 99.0 [24.4] NA 

Dizziness, tremor, asphyxiation, unconsciousness, cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, liver effects. 

Liver, CVS, PNS NA 

Dichloroethane (1,1-)75-34-3 3.42 0.85 C 

Irritation skin; CNS depression, liver, kidney, lungdamage; cancer. 

Kidneys, skin, liver, LRS, CNS 

445.5-810

Chloroform-like 

odor

Dichloroethane (1,2-)107-06-2 0.18 [0.045] B2 Liver effects, narcosisAc; cancer. Liver, CNS 24-440 Sweet odor Dichloroethylene (1,1-) 75-35-4 0.096 [0.024] C Cancer Kidneys, liver, CNS 

2000-4000 

Sweet, 

chloroformish 

odor

Dichloropropane (1,2-) 78-87-5 0.022 [0.0048] NA 

Nasal mucosa hyperplasia, CNS, liver, kidney effects. URS, CNS, liver, kidneysAc

1.1667- 

606.666 

Sweet odor 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-48 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Dichloropropene (1,3-) 542-75-6 0.014 [0.0030] B2

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; eyes, skin burns; lacrimation; headache, dizziness; liver, kidneydamage; cancer. 

URS, CNS, liver, kidneysAc

Sharp, sweet, 

chloroform-like 

odor

Dichlorvos 62-73-7 0.0018 [0.0002] B2

Irritation eyes, skin; miosis, aching eyes, rhinitis; headaches; chest tight, wheezing, laryngeal spasms, salavation; cyanosis; anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea sweating; muscle fasciculations, paralysis, giddiness, ataxia, convulsions,low blood pressure, cardiac irregularities; cancer. 

Eyes, skin, ChE Inh, CNS, RS, CVS 

Mild, aromatic

odor

Dicyclopentadiene 77-73-6 0.014 [0.0025] NA 

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; incoordination,headaches; sneezing, cough;skin blisters; kidney, lungdamage. 

Eyes, skin, kidneys, RS, CNS,eyes, skin

0.03-0.054

Sharp, sweet 

odor

Dieldrin60-57-1 0.0010 0.000067 B2

Headache, dizziness; nausea, vomiting, malaise, sweating;myoclonic limb jerks; clonic,tonic convulsions; coma; liver, kidney damage, cancer. 

Liver, CNS, kidneys, skin, RS, ENDO 

[0.04]

Mild, chemical 

odor

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-49 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Diesel engine emissions 0.0034 NA 

Eye irritation; pulmonaryfunction changes; lunginflammation; lung tumors. 

Eyes, URS NA 

Difluoroethane (1,1-)75-37-6 27.4 [10.0] NA 

Nasal olfactory epitheliumatrophy at high doses; CNS depression at extremely high doses. 

URS; CNS NA 

Dimethylformamide (N,N-) 68-12-2 0.062 [0.021] NA 

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; nausea, vomiting, colic; liver damage, enlarged liver; high blood pressure; face flushing;dermatitis; kidney, heart damage. 

Liver, GI tract, RS, eyes, skin, kidneys, CVS 

300 

Faint amine-like 

odor

Diphenylhydrazine (1,2-)122-66-7 0.022 [0.0029] B2 Cancer LiverI NA Epichlorohydrin106-89-8 0.0068 [0.0018] B2

Irritation eyes, skin with deeppain; nausea, vomiting;abdominal pain; respiratory distress, cough; cyanosis reproductive effects; cancer. 

RS, eyes, skin, kidneys, liver, REPR 

50-80 

Chloroform-like 

odor

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-50 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Epoxybutane (1,2-)106-88-7 0.014 [0.0046] NA Irritation nose, respiratory system; effects on blood. Respiratory system, bloodI Disagreeable odorEthoxyethanol (2-) 110-80-5 1.4 [0.37] NA 

Irritation eyes, respiratory system; blood changes; liver,kidney, lung damage; reproductive, teratogenic effects. 

Blood, eyes,kidneys, liver, HEM, REPR, RS 

[2.7]

Mild, agreeable, 

ether-like odor

Ethyl benzene100-41-4 2.95 [0.68] D 

Irritation eyes, skin, mucousmembrane; headache; dermatitis; narcosis, coma. 

Fetus, liver, kidneys, blood, eyes, skin, RS, CNS 

8.7-870 

Aromatic odor

Ethyl chloride75-00-3 6.8 [2.6] NA 

Incoordination, inebriation;abdominal cramps; cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac arrest; liver, kidney damage. 

Fetus, liver, kidneys, RS, CNS 

[4.2]

Pungent, etherlike 

Ethylene dibromide 106-93-4 0.0014 [0.00018] B2 Reproductive effects, cancer. REPR 

[8.1-10]

Sweet odor 

Ethylene glycol monobutylether 111-76-2

0.14 

[0.028] 

NA Altered hematology. BloodH

[0.1]

Mild, ether-like 

odor

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-51 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Ethylene oxide75-21-8 

0.048 

[0.027] B1

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; peculiar taste; headache, nausea; vomiting, diarrhea; dyspnea, cyanosis, pulmonary edema;incoordination; EKG abnormalities; convulsions, liver, kidney damage inanimals; cancer. 

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, CNS, blood, kidneys, REPR

520-1400

Sweet olefininic 

odor

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 1.4 [0.17] D ND ND NAFluorene 86-73-7 1.4 [0.17] D Irritation of skin and eyes. Skin, eyes. NA Formaldehyde50-00-0 0.25 [0.20] B1

Irritation eyes, nose, throat, respiratory system; lacrimation; cough,bronchospasm; cancer. 

RS, eyes 

1.47-73.5 

Pungent, hay

odor

Furfural 98-01-1 0.34 [0.087] NA 

Irritation eyes, skin, upper respiratory tract; headache; dermatitis. 

RS, eyes, skin

0.024-

20 

Almond odor

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-52 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Glycidaldehyde765-34-4 0.0068 [0.0023] B2 Body weight changes, kidney effects. KidneysH Pungent, aldehyde-like odorHeptachlor76-44-8 0.0037 [0.00024] B2 Tremor, convulsions; liver damage, cancer. Liver, CNS 

0.306 

Camphor-like

odor

Heptachlor epoxide 1024-57-3 0.0018 [0.00012] B2 Cancer LiverI NA Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.000049 [0.0000052] B2

Liver effects; metabolic disorders (e.g. thyroid disorders), cancerAc,I

Liver, ENDO, kidneysI NA 

Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.0052 0.00049 C 

Irritation, eyes, skin, respiratory system; kidneydamage; liver cancer in animals. 

Eyes, skin, RS, kidneys 

12 

Turpentine-like 

odor

AlphaHexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 319-84-6

0.0027

[0.00022] B2 Cancer LiverI NA 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-53 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Beta Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 319-85-7

0.0090

[0.00076] 

C Cancer LiverI NA 

Technical Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) 608-73-1

0.00094 

[0.00079] 

B2 Cancer LiverI NA 

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 0.076 [0.0068] D 

Irritating to eyes, skin, respiratory system; lacrimation; sneezing, cough, dyspnea, salivation, pulmonary edema; nausea,vomiting, diarrhea; liver, kidney injury in animals. 

RS, eyes, skin, liver, kidneys 

1.5-3.3 

Pungent, 

unpleasant odor

Hexachlorodibenzodioxin mix19408-74-3 0.0000037 B2 Cancer LiverI NA 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-54 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 1.20 [0.12] C 

Irritating to eyes, skin, mucousmembranes; kidney; liver;CNS, cancer.

Eyes, skin, RS, liver, kidneys, CNS 

[0.15]

Camphor-like

odor

Hexamethylene diisocyanate (1,6-) 822-06-0

0.00014 

[0.00002] 

NA 

Irritation eyes, skin, mucousmembranes, respiratorysystem; cough, dyspnea,bronchitis, wheezing, pulmonary edema, asthma. 

RS, eyes, skin Sharp, pungent odor

Hexane (other isomers) 

[12.2]

NA 

Irritation eyes, nose, throat; CNS effects (peripheral neuropathy for hexane) 

NA 

110-54-3 4.3 NA 

Irritation eyes, nose; lightheadedness; nausea, headache;peripheral neuropathy:numbness extremities, muscle weakness; dermatitis; giddiness.

CNS, eyes, skin, URS, PNS Gasoline-like 

odor

43 CNS; eyes, URS 

[130] 

Hexane (n-)

[1.2]

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-55 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Hydrazine 302-01-2 0.00098 [0.00075] B2

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; temporary blindness; dizziness, nausea; dermatitis;eyes, skin burns; bronchitis, pulmonary edema; liver, kidney damage, convulsions;cancer. 

RS, eyes, skin, CNS, liver, kidneys 

3-4 

Ammonical, 

fishy odor

Hydrogen chloride 0.014 

[0.0092]

NA 

Irritation nose, throat, larynx; cough, choking; dermatitis; larygeal spasm; pulmonaryedema. 

RS, eyes, skin

[0.77]

Pungent, 

irritating odor 

Hydrogen cyanide 74-90-8 0.0021 [0.0019] NA 

Asphyxia, weakness, headache, confusion; nausea, vomiting; increased rate and depth of respiration orrespiration slow and gasping;thyroid, blood changes.

CNS, CVS, ENDO, blood 

0.9-5 

Bitter, almond, 

slightly sharp 

odor

Hydrogen sulfide 7783-06-4 0.15 [0.11] NA 

Irritation eyes, respiratory system; apnea; conjunctivitis, eye pain, lacrimation photophobia (abnormal visual intolerance to light), corneal vesiculation; dizziness, headache, fatigue, insomnia, convulsions, coma; GI disturbances. 

URS, eyes, CNS 0.0007-0.014 

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 0.054 

[0.0048]

B2

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene produced tumors in mice following lung implants, subcutaneous injection and dermal exposure; cancer. 

RS, skin I NA 

7647-01-0 193-39-5

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-56 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Lead 7439-92-1 0.0015 NA

Weakness, lassitude, insomnia, facial pallor; anorexia, constipation,abdominal pain; anemia; tremor, paralysis wrist/ankles; kidney disease; irritation eyes; hypo/hyper tension. 

CNS, PNS, blood, CVS, kidneys,REPR, fetus, GI tract, eyes 

NA 

Manganese 7439-96-5 0.00034 [0.00015] D 

Dry throat, cough, chest, tightness, dyspnea, rales, flulike fever, low-back pain; vomiting; malaise; fatigue; kidney damage; Parkinson’s asthenia (weakness), insomnia, mental confusions; metal fumes fever. 

CNS, RS, blood, kidneys NA 

Mercury (inorganic)7439-97-6 0.00021 D 

Irritating to eyes, skin; cough, chest pain, dyspnea,bronchitis, pneumonitis; tremor, insomnia, irritability, indecision, headache, fatigue, weakness; stomatitis, salivation, GI distress, anorexia, low-weight, proteinuria. 

Eyes, skin, CNS, RS, kidneys NA 

Methoxyethanol (2-)109-86-4 0.14 

[0.044] 

NA Reproductive effects (testes). REPR, CNS, blood 

[2.3]

Mild, ether-like 

[0.000025] 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-57 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Methylacrylonitrile 0.067 

[0.025] 

NA 

Irritation eyes, skin; lacrimation; CNS effects,convulsions, loss of motor control; liver. 

Liver, CNS, eyes, skin 

6-42

Bitter almond 

odor

Methyl Bromide 74-83-9 0.09 [0.024] NA Lesions of the nasal cavity. URS, heart, GI tract, CNS, blood NA Methylcyclohexane 108-87-2 39.3 [9.79] NA 

Irritating to eyes, skin, nose, throat; light-headedness, drowsiness, narcosis, kidneys. 

Kidneys, eyes, skin, URS, CNS 

2000

Faint, benzenelike odor

Methylenebis-2- chloroaniline (4,4-) 101-14-4 [0.00024] B2

Hematuria, cyanosis, nausea, methemoglobinemia, kidneyirritation, cancer. 

LRS, liver, blood, kidneys NA 

Methylene chloride 75-09-2 

2.1 

[0.59] B2

Irritating to eyes, skin; fatigue, weakness, somnolence, lightheadedness; numb tingling limbs; nausea, cancer. 

Liver, eyes, skin, CNS, CVS, LRS, REPR, GI tract Sweet odor 

Methylenediphenyl isocyanate (4,4-) 101-68-8

0.0013

[0.00012] 

NA 

Irritating to eyes, nose, throat; respiratory sensitization,cough, pulmonary secretions, chest pain, dyspnea, asthma. 

RS, eyes NA 

126-98-7

I

0.0027

540-2160

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-58 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Methyl ethyl ketone 14.4 

[4.88]

D Irritation, CNS, reproductive effects . AC Fetus, CNS 

0.7375-147.5 

Sweet, acetonelike odor

Methyl isobutyl ketone 108-10-1 0.55 NA Irritation, narcosis, liver, kidneys . AC Liver, kidneys, CNS 

0.41-192.7

Sweet, sharp 

odor

Methyl styrene (mixture) 25013-15-4 0.027 [0.0057] NA RS 

Strong

disagreeable

odor

Methyl tert-butyl ether 1634-04-4 2.1 [0.57] NA Liver, kidney, effects, prostration . I Liver, kidneys, eyes Terpene-like odorNaphthalene 91-20-3 0.0071 [0.0014] C 

Irritation eyes, nose, throat; respiratory sensitization,cough, pulmonary secretions, chest pain, dyspnea; asthma; hyperplasia and metaplasia ofrespiratory and olfactory epithelium, hematotoxicity, renal failure; cancer 

RS, eyes, blood, kidneys 

1.5-125 

Mothball, tarlike 

78-93-3 

[0.13]

Irritation nasal cavity, respiratory system. 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-59 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Nickel (elemental/metal) 7440-02-0 0.037 [0.015] NA Dermatitis, pneumoconiosis, kidney effects. Skin , LRS, kidney NA Nickel (soluble compounds) 0.00014 NA 

Irritation; dermatitis, chronic active inflammation and lungfibrosis, CNS effects. 

CNS, LRS, skin NA 

Nickel (insoluble compounds) 0.0049 NA LRS, skin NA Nickel carbonyl 13463-39-3 0.00085 

[0.0012]

NA Irritation; CNS; respiratory effects; cancer. LRS, CNS, skin NA 

Nickel subsulfide 12035-72-2

0.001 NA Cancer (lung); irritation; dermatitis. LRS, skin NA 

Nickel refinery dust 

0.020 A

Sensitization dermatitis, allergic asthma, pneumonitis, cancer. 

LRS, skin NA 

Irritation; dermatitis, cancer (lung). 

[0.001] 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-60 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Nitroaniline (2-) 88-74-4 0.0014 [0.00024] NA Hematological effects. BloodH Musty odorNitrobenzene 98-95-3 [0.0027] D 

Irritation eyes, skin, anoxia; dermatitis; anemia; methemoglobinemia; liver, kidney damage, testicular effects. 

Eyes, skin, blood, ENDO, kidneys, liver, CVS REPR 

0.0235-9.5

Shoe polish, 

pungent odor

Nitrogen dioxide 0.1 NA 

Irritation eyes, nose, throat; cough, mucoid frothy sputum, decreased pulmonary function, chronic bronchitis, dyspnea; chest pain, pulmonary edema,cyanosis, tachypnea,tachycardia 

 RS, eyes, CVS NA 

Nitropropane (2-)79-46-9 

0.0018

[0.00049] B2

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, respiratory system; headache, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea; kidney, liver damage, cancer. 

Eyes, skin, liver, RS, CNS 

17.5- 

1029

Pleasant, fruity 

odor

Nitroso-di-n-butylamine (N-)924-16-3 0.003 B2 Cancer.

Bladder, GI tract, LRS, liverI NA 

0.014 

[0.053] 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-61 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Nitrosodiethylamine (N-) 55-18-5 0.00011 [0.000027] B2

I

Liver, GI tract, RSI NA 

Nitrosodimethylamine (N-) 62-75-9 0.00034 [0.00011] B2

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps; headache;fever; enlarged liver, jaundice; decreased liver, kidney,pulmonary function, cancer. 

LRS, liver, kidneys , GI tract I NA 

Nitrosopyrrolidine (N-) 930-55-2 0.0079 [0.0019] B2

Liver cancer, lung adenomas, papillary mesotheliomas of the testes . I

Liver, LRS, REPRI

Ozone 10028-15-6 0.052 [0.027] NA 

Irritation eyes, mucus membranes: pulmonaryedema; chronic respiratory disease; headache 

Eyes, RS NA 

Particulate [<2.5μ (PM-2.5)] 0.04 

Irritation eyes, skin, throat, respiratory system, pulmonaryalveolar proteinosis, pulmonary fibrosis

 Eyes, skin, LRS NA 

Acts transplacentally, trendsfor tumors of the nasopharynx, lower jaw, stomach, kidney,ovaries, seminal vesicles, and esophagus. Dose-related increases in incidence of upper GI tumors and liver cell tumors were observed in mice, and tracheal and liver cell tumors were observed inhamsters ; cancer. 

NA

NA 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-62 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Particulate [<10μ (PM10)] 0.07 NA Irritation eyes, skin, throat, respiratory system, Eyes, skin, URS NA Phenanthrene 85-01-8 [0.0058] D 

Skin, eyes, nose, and throat irritation, blistering, respiratory effects, skinphotosensitization. 

Skin, eyes, RS Faint aromatic 

odor

Phosphine 7803-51-2 0.0021 [0.0015] D 

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain, diarrhea; thirst; chest tightness, dyspnea musclepain, chills; stupor or syncope; pulmonary edema. 

CNS, LRS, GI tract Disagreeable 

odor of rotten 

fish or garlic 

Phosphoric acid 7664-38-2 0.024 [0.0061] NA 

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; dermatitis;eye, skin burns.

LRS, eyes, skin NA

Phthalic anhydride 85-44-9 0.082 [0.014] NA 

Irritation eyes, skin, upper respiratory system; conjunctivitis; nasal ulcer bleeding; bronchitis, bronchial asthma; dermatitis; liver, kidney damage. 

RS, eyes, skin, liver, kidneys 

[0.05]

Acrid odor 

Polychlorinated biphenyls 1336-36-3 0.0084 Cancer

Liver, GI tract, blood, skin, ENDOI

Mild aromatic 

odor 

0.042 

0.028-3.6

B2

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-63 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

n-Propylbenzene 103-65-1

0.025 

[.0052] D 

Irritation of eyes, nose, throat, and skin, CNS depression, incoordination, nausea,general anesthetic effects. 

Eyes, RS, skin NA 

Propylene glycolmonomethyl ether 107-98-2

14 

[3.7]

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; headache, nausea, light-headedness, drowsiness,incoordination; vomiting, diarrhea. 

CNS, eyes. skin, URS 

[10]

Sweet, ether-like 

odor

Propylene oxide 75-56-9 [0.12] B2

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; CNS depression, liver damage, blisters, burns, cancer . Ns, Ac, N

Eyes, skin, URS,CNS, liver 

24.75-500

Sweet, alcoholic 

odor

Pyrene 129-00-0 0.105 D Skin irritation. Skin NAStrontium7440-24-6 1.51 [0.42] NA 

Skin and eye irritation, altered heart function, bone abnormalities.

Bone, heart, skin, eyes 

NA 

0.29 

[0.013] 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-64 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Styrene 100-42-5 2.0 [0.48] NA 

Irritation, eyes, nose, respiratory system; headache, fatigue, dizziness, confusion,malaise, drowsiness, weakness, unsteady gait, narcosis; defatting dermatitis; liver injury, reproductive effects. 

CNS, eyes, skin, RS, liver, REPR

0.2021-860 

Solvent-like 

rubbery odor

Sulfur dioxide

[0.05]

NA 

Irritation eyes, mucus membranes: pulmonaryedema; chronic respiratory disease; headache 

Eyes, RS NA 

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) (2,3,7,8-) 1746-01-6 

0.00000011 

Irritation eyes; allergic dermatitis, chloracne; porphyria; GI disturbances;possible reproductive, teratogenic effects; liver, kidney damage; hemorrhage;cancer. 

Eyes, skin, liver, kidneys, RS, REPR NA 

Tetrachloroethane (1,1,1,2-) 630-20-6 0.65 [0.094] C 

Irritation eyes, skin; weakness, restlessness, irregularrespiration, muscle incoordination, liver changes;cancer. 

Liver, skin, kidneys, CNS, GI tract 

NA 

Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-) 79-34-5 0.083 [0.012] C 

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain; tremor fingers; jaundice, hepatitis; liver tenderness, dermatitis, monocytosis (increased blood monocytes);kidney damage; cancer. 

Liver, skin, kidneys, CNS, GI tract 

21-35 

Sickly sweet 

odor

0.13 

B2

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-65 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Tetrafluoroethane (1,1,1,2-) 811-97-2 55.0 [13.0] NA Reproductive effects (testes). REPR NA Toluene 4.6 

[1.2]

D 

Irritation eyes, nose; fatigue, weakness, confusion,euphoria, dizziness, headache; dilated pupils, lacrimation(discharge of tears); nervousness, muscle fatigue,insomnia; paresthesia; dermatitis; liver, kidney damage. 

CNS, URS, eyes, skin, liver andkidneys 

[2.9]

Pungent, 

benzene-like 

odor

Toxaphene 8001-35-2 [0.00088] B2

Nausea, confusion, agitation, tremor, convulsions, unconsciousness; dry, red skin, cancer. 

Liver, CNS, skin 

2.366 

Mild piney,

chlorine, 

camphor odor

Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-) 120-82-1 1.4 [0.18]

Irritation eyes, skin, mucousmembranes; liver, kidneydamage, possible teratogen. 

Liver, eyes, skin, URS, REPR 

24 

Aromatic odor

Trichloroethane (1,1,2-)79-00-5 0.30 [0.055] C 

Irritation, eyes, nose; CNS depression; liver, kidneydamage; dermatitis, cancer. 

NA 

108-88-3

0.015 

D 

Liver, eyes, URS, CNS, kidneys

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-66 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 4.8 [0.85] NA Renal and respiratory effects. Kidneys, LRS, CVS, CNSH, Ac 28-1170 Sweet odor Trichlorophenol (2,4,6-)88-06-2 1.5 B2 Leukemia ; cancer. I Blood, HEM Strong phenolic odor Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (1,1,2-) 76-13-1 

21.0 

[2.7]

NA 

Irritation skin, throat; drowsiness; dermatitis; CNS depression, asphyxiation, cardiac arrhythmias, narcosis. 

Skin, heart, CNS, CVS Sweet odor 

Triethylamine 121-44-8 0.10 [0.024] NA 

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; myocardial, kidney, liverdamage ; squamous 

metaplasia in the trachea, thymic atrophy, lung effects (perivascular edema), death . 

N

I

Eyes, skin, RS, CVS, liver, kidneys 

0.36-1.12 

Fishy, amine 

odor

[0.19]

342-1026

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-67 
US

AP

Chemical 

CAS No. 

1-Year 

Air-MEG 

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Cancer 

Group 

Potential Toxic Signs 

and Symptoms S,N 

Target 

Organs and 

Systems 

Odor/ 

ThresholdO

mg/m3

[ppm] 

Trimethylbenzene (1,2,4-) 95-63-6 3.06 [0.62] NA Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, Blood Distinctive aromatic odor Trimethylbenzene (1,3,5-) 108-67-8 3.06 [0.62] NA 

Irritation of skin, eyes, nose,throat, bronchitis, anemia, drowsiness, fatigue, nausea 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, blood Sweet odor 

Vinyl acetate 0.14 

[0.039] 

NA 

Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; hoarseness, cough; loss of smell.

RS, eyes, skin

0.36-1.65 

Sour, sharp odor 

Vinyl Bromide 593-60-2

0.0021

[0.00047] B2

Irritation eyes, skin; dizziness, confusion, incoordination, narcosis, nausea, vomiting ; 

liver injury and cancer . 

N

H

Eyes, skin, CNS, liver, GI tractN

Characteristic 

pungent odor

Vinyl chloride75-01-4 

[0.022] 

A 

Weakness; abdominal pain, GIbleeding; enlarged liver; pallor or cyanosis of extremities; Raynaud’s syndrome, acroosteolysis; cancer. 

Liver, CNS, RS, REPR, fetus, CVS, GI tract 

[10-20]

Sweet, ethereal

odor

Xylene (mixed, o, m, p)1330-20-7 10.6 [2.4] NA 

Irritation eyes, nose throat, CNS effects; GI distress; pulmonary inflammation /edema; reproductive and developmental effects 

Eyes, URS, CNS,liver, REPR, fetus NA

Footnotes on next page. 

Irritation of skin, eyes, nose,throat, bronchitis, anemia, drowsiness, fatigue, nausea 

108-05-4

0.057 

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-68 
US

AP

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-69 

FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE C-3 – LONG-TERM AIR-MEGS 

Ac - ACGIH, 1999 TLVs and BEIs Handbook BW – body weight BAP – Benzo(a)pyrene BUN – Blood urea nitrogen (indicator of kidney infection) C - MEG based on carcinogenic effect CHID – Chemical Hazard Information for Deployments. Additional Fact Sheet information is under development for nota

E- Critical studies identified by IRIS, HEAST or NCEA. See RD 230 for specific basis and calculations. EKG – Electrocardiogram H – HEAST, USEPA, 1997 I – IRIS, USEPA, 1999 LOAEL - Lowest-observed adverse-effects level M - National Research Council, Committee on Toxicology. 1997, Toxicity of Military Smokes and Obscurants, National A

 Washington, D.C N - National Institute of Safety and Occupational Health (NIOSH) Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, 1994, and IRIS/HENA - Not Available; for cancer class an NA is sometimes assumed to be a “non-carcinogen” but specific studies may not h

ND - Not Determined 

NOAEL - No-observed adverse effects level NOEL - No-observed effects level Ns - National Safety council, 1988, Fundamentals of Industrial Hygiene

O - The primary sources of odor thresholds in air were the Odor Thresholds and Irritation Levels of Several Chemical Sub American Industrial Hygiene Association J., 47, 1986 and the N.J. Hazardous Substances Fact Sheets. Ranges represe high threshold ranges. Significant figures are reported as provided in sources. The primary sources of odor characteris Hyg. Assoc. J (47), 1086 and the Hazardous Substances Data Base. PAH – Polyaromatic hydrocarbons ppm – parts per million S - Exposure symptoms which may occur at with acute or long-term exposures above Air MEGs-L SGOT – Serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase (aspartate aminotransferase) SGPT – Serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase (alanine aminotransferase) T - Compton, James A.F. 1987. Military Chemical and Biological Agents, The Telford Press, Caldwell, NJ. TEF – Toxicity equivalence factor UD - Under development; requires further assessment 

Target Organ/Systems and Carcinogenicity information next page: 
US

AP

TABLE 2-4-1. TARGET ORGANS TABLE 2-4-2. TARGET SYSTEMS 

TARGET ORGANS TARGET SYSTEMS 

Eyes Brain CNS – Central Nervous System CVS – Cardiovascular System

Skin Heart PNS – Peripheral Nervous System

Blood Pancreas GI tract – Gastrointestinal Tract UT – Urogenital Tract 

Bladder Adrenal Glands RS – Respiratory System CRC – Circulatory System

Thyroid Lungs LRS – Lower Respiratory System

Bone Liver URS – Upper Respiratory System REPR – Reproductive System

Fetus Kidneys ENDO – Endocrine System HEM – Hemopoietic System

Spleen 

Cancer Class Categories:

The scheme used by the USEPA for categorizing chemicals according to their carcinogenic potential is as follows (see Sec

Group A: Human carcinogen Group B: Probable human carcinogen: 

Group B1 - Limited evidence in epidemiological studies Group B2 - Sufficient evidence from animal studies 

Group C: Possible human carcinogen Group D: Not classifiable Group E: No evidence of carcinogenicity 

ChE Inh – Cholinesterase Inhibitor

IMM – Immune System

LYMP – Lymphatic System

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-70 
US

AP

This page intentionally left blank.

Table C-3. Long-Term Air-MEGs C-71 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX C: Air-MEG Tables

TABLE C-4. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR 

PRIORITY POLLUTANTS 

POLLUTANT NAAQS (Primary) TLV-TWA* 1 Year Air-MEG 

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

1-hour average 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) — —

8-hour average 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 25 ppm (29 mg/m3) —

1-year average — — 3 ppm (3.3 mg/m3) 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

1-year average 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) — 0.053 ppm (0.1 mg/m3) 

8-hour average — 3 ppm (5.6 mg/m3) —

Ozone (O3)

8-hour average 0.08 ppm (157 μg/m3) Moderate work: 

0.08 ppm (0.16 mg/m3

) — 

1-year average — — 0.027 ppm (0.052 mg/m3) 

Lead

8-hour average — 0.05 mg/m3 A

0.03 mg/m3 B — 

3-month Average 1.5 μg/m3 — —

1-year average — — 0.0015 mg/m3

Particulate < 10 μm (PM-10) †

8-hour average — 10 mg/m3 —

24-hour

C 150 μg/m3 — —

1-year average 50 μg/m3 — 0.07 mg/m3

Particulate < 2.5 μm (PM-2.5) †

8-hour average — 3 mg/m3 —

24-hour

D 65 μg/m3 — —

1-year average 15 μg/m3 — 0.04 mg/m3

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

3-hour average 0.50 ppm (1300 μg/m3) — —

8-hour average — 2 ppm (5.24 mg/m3) —

24-hour average 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3) — —

1-year average 0.03 ppm (80 μg/m3) — 0.05 ppm (0.13 mg/m3) 

ppm= parts per million 

* The American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) time-weighted average (TWA) concentration

for a conventional 8-hr workday and a 40-hr workweek, to which it is believed that nearly all workers may be

repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect. 

† See Table C-5 (next page) for additional information. A This is also the OSHA 8-hr permissible exposure limit (PEL) (29 CFR 1910.1025) B

 OSHA action level (29CFR 1910.1025). For those workers exposed to air concentrations at or above the 

action level for more than 30 days, OSHA mandates periodic determination of blood lead levels. C

 Three-year average of the 99th percentile of 24-hour concentrations over a given year, with one or less days 

exceeded. D Three-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations over a given year, with one or less days 

exceeded. 

Table C-4. Ambient Air-MEGs C-72 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX C: Air-MEG Tables

For reference, the USEPA general population index values for particulates are provided below. The user 

should note that these values do not portray exactly the same levels of risk represented by the MEGs in 

this Appendix. The index ranges are only provided to make relative comparisons to U.S. guidance 

regarding recommended activity levels for different levels of air quality. 

TABLE C-5. U.S. GENERAL POPULATION INDEX CRITERIA FOR PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10)* 

Level Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

General Civilian Population Health 

Effects Statements 

General Civilian Population Health 

Effects Statements 

1 255-354

Increased respiratory symptoms 

(e.g. coughing) and aggravation of 

lung disease (e.g., asthma)

Elderly, children, and people with 

lung disease (e.g., asthma) should 

restrict heavy exertion; others 

should minimize prolonged exertion

2 355 - 424

Significant increase in respiratory 

symptoms (e.g. coughing, mucous) 

and aggravation of lung disease 

(e.g. asthma)

Elderly, children, and people with 

lung disease (e.g., asthma) should 

avoid outdoors; others should 

minimize moderate to heavy

exertion 

3 425 - 604

Serious risk of respiratory

symptoms (e.g. coughing, mucous, 

shortness of breath) and 

aggravation of lung disease (e.g. 

asthma) 

All should minimize outdoor 

exertion 

* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guideline for Reporting of Daily Air Quality –Pollutant 

Standards Index (PSI) DRAFT, 1998. 

Table C-4. Ambient Air-MEGs C-73 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX C: Air-MEG Tables

CHEMICAL INDEX (AIR) 

Acenaphthene C-35

Acenaphthylene C-35

Acetaldehyde C-35

Acetone C-35

Acetone cyanohydrin C-9, 35 

Acetonitrile C-36

Acrolein C-9, 36

Acrylamide C-36

Acrylic acid C-9, C-36 

Acrylonitrile C-9, 36

Aldrin C-9, 37

Allyl alcohol C-9 

Allyl chloride C-37 

Ammonia C-10, 37 

Aniline C-10, C-37

Antimony trioxide C-37

Anthracene C-37 

Arsenic C-38 

Arsenic trichloride C-10 

Arsine C-10, 38 

Azobenzene C-38 

Barium C-38 

Benzene C-10, 39 

Benzidine C-39 

Benzo(a)anthracene C-39 

Benzo(a)pyrene C-40 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene C-40 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene C-40 

Beryllium C-40 

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate C-41 

Bis-2-chloro-1-methylethyl ether C-41 

Bis-2-chloroethyl ether C-41 

Boron C-41 

Boron tribromide C-11 

Boron trifluoride C-11, 41 

Bromine C-11 

Bromine pentafluoride C-11 

Bromoethylene C-41 

Bromoform C-42 

Butadiene (1,3-) C-42 

Butylbenzene, sec- C-42 

Butyl isocyanate (n-) C-11 

Cadmium (elemental) C-42 

Cadium (compounds) C-42 

Carbon disulfide C-12, 43 

Carbon monoxide C-12, 43, 72 

Carbon tetracholoride C-12, 43 

Carbonyl fluoride C-12 

Chlordane C-43

Chlorine C-12

Chlorine dioxide C-13, C-44 

Chlorine trifluoride C-13 

Chloro-acetaldehyde C-13

Chloroacetone C-13

Chloroacetophenone C-13, 44

Chloroacetylchloride C-14

Chlorobenzilate C-44

Chloro-butadiene C-44

Chlorobenzylidene malonitrile o- C-14 

Chloro-difluoroethane C-44

Chlorodifluoromethane C-44

Chloroethane C-45

Chloroform C-14, 45

Chloromethane C-14, C-45

Chloropropane C-45

Chromium C-45, 46

Chrysene C-47

Crotonaldehyde C-14

Cumene C-46

Cyanogen C-15

Cyclopentadiene C-46

DDT C-47

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene C-47

Dibromo-3-chloropropane C-47

Diborane C-15

Dichlorobenzene (1,2-) C-47 

Dichlorobenzene (1,4-) C-47 

Dichloro-2-butene C-48

Dichlorodifluoromethane C-48

Dichloroethane C-15, 48

Dichloroethylene C-48

Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-) C-15 

Dichloroethylene (trans-1,1-) C-15 

Dichloropropane C-48

Dichloropropene C-49

Dichlorvos C-49

Dicyclopentadiene C-49

Dieldrin C-16, 49

Diesel engine emissions C-50 

Diesel fuel smoke C-16 

Difluoroethane C-50

Diketene C-16

Dimethylformamide C-50

Dimethyl hydrazine (1,1-) C-16 

Dimethyl hydrazine (1,2-) C-16 

Dimethyl sulfate C-16 

Diphenylhydrazine C-50

 C-74 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX C: Air-MEG Tables

Endrin C-17

Epichlorohydrin C-50

Epoxybutane C-51

Ethoxyethanol C-51

Ethyl benzene C-17, 51 

Ethyl chloride C-51 

Ethylene dibromide C-51 

Ethylene glycol C-17 

Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether C-51 

Ethylenimine C-17 

Ethylene oxide C-18, 52 

Fluoranthene C-52 

Fluorene C-52 

Fluorine C-18 

Fog oil smoke C-18 

Formaldehyde C-18, 52 

Furfural C-52 

Glycidaldehyde C-53 

GA (Tabun) C-3 

GB (Sarin) C-4 

GD (Soman) C-5 

GF C-5 

Heptachlor C-53 

Heptachlor epoxide C-53 

Hexachlorobenzene C-53 

Hexachlorobutadiene C-19, 53 

Alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane C-53 

Beta- Hexachlorocyclohexane C-54 

Technical Hexachlorocyclohexane C-54 

Hexachloro-cyclopentadiene C-20, 54 

Hexachlorodibenzodioxin mix C-54 

Hexachloroethane (smoke) C-20, 55 

Hexamethylene diisocyanate C-55 

Hexane C-20, 55 

Hydrazine C-20, 56 

Hydrogen bromide C-21 

Hydrogen chloride C-21, 56 

Hydrogen cyanide C-21, 56 

Hydrogen fluoride C-22 

Hydrogen selenide C-22 

Hydrogen sulfide C-22, 56 

Indenopyrene C-56 

Iron pentacarbonyl C-23 

Lead C-57, 72 

Lewisite C-23 

Lindane C-23 

Manganese C-57 

Mercury C-23, C-57 

Methoxyethanol C-57 

Methylacrylonitrile C-58 

Methyl bromide C-23, 58 

Methylcyclohexane C-58 

Methylenebis-2-chloroaniline C-58 

Methylene chloride C-24, 58 

Methylenediphenyl isocyanate C-24, C-58 

Methylacrylonitrile C-24

Methyl ethyl ketone C-59 

Methyl hydrazine C-24 

Methyl isobutyl ketone C-59 

Methyl isocyanate C-24 

Methyl mercaptan C-24 

Methyl styrene C-59 

Methyl tert-butyl ether C-59 

Naphthalene C-59

Nickel (soluble) C-60 

Nickel (insoluble) C-60 

Nickel carbonyl C-25, C-60 

Nickel refinery dust C-60 

Nickel subsulfide C-60 

Nitric acid C-25 

Nitric oxide C-25 

Nitroaniline C-61

Nitrobenzene C-61

Nitrogen dioxide C-25, 61, 72 

Nitropropane C-61

Nitroso-di-n-butylamine C-61

Nitrosodiethylamine C-62

Nitrosodimethylamine C-62

Nitrosopyrrolidine C-62

Ozone C-62, 72

Paraquat C-25

Parathion C-26

Particulate Matter C-62-3, 72-3

Perchloro-methyl mercaptan C-26 

Phenol C-26

Phosgene C-27

Phosphine C-27

Phenanthrene C-63

Phosphine C-63

Phosphoric acid C-63 

White phosphorus (yellow) C-27 

Phosphorus oxychloride C-27 

Phosphorus trichloride C-27 

Phthalic anhydride C-63 

Polychlorinated biphenyls C-63 

n-Propylbenzene C-64

Propylene glycol monomethyl ether C-64 

Propylene oxide C-28, C-64 

Pyrene C-64

Red phosphorus smoke C-28 

 C-75 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX C: Air-MEG Tables

Selenium hexafluoride C-28 

Stibine C-28 

Strontium C-64 

Styrene C-28, C-62 

Sulfur dioxide C-28, 65,72 

Sulfur mustard (HD) C-6 

Sulfuric acid C-29 

Sulfuryl fluoride C-29 

Tellurium hexafluoride C-29 

Tetrachloroethane C-30, 65 

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin C-65 

Tetrachloroethylene C-30 

Tetraethyl lead C-30 

Tetrafluoroethane C-30, C-66 

Tetramethyl lead C-30 

Titanium tetrachloride C-31 

Toluene C-31, 66 

Toluene diisocyanate C-31 

Toxaphene C-66 

Trichlorobenzene C-66 

Trichloroethane C-31, C-66 

Trichloroethylene C-31 

Trichlorofluoromethane C-67 

Trichlorophenol C-67 

Trichloropropane C-31 

Trichloro-trifluoroethane C-67 

Triethylamine C-67 

Trimethylbenzene C-68 

Tungsten hexafluoride C-32 

Vinyl acetate C-32, C-68 

Vinyl bromide C-68 

Vinyl chloride C-68 

VX C-7 

Xylene C-33, 68 

 

 C-76 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX D: Water-MEG Tables 

APPENDIX 

D

MILITARY EXPOSURE 

GUIDELINES FOR WATER

CONTENTS

Table D-1. Short-Term, Water Military Exposure Guidelines (5 and 14 Days)......................................D-3

Table D-2. Long-Term, Water Military Exposure Guidelines (1 Year Deployment)............................D-41

Chemical Index......................................................................................................D-65 

 D-1 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX D: Water-MEG Tables 

This page intentionally left blank.

 D-2 
US

APPE

TABLE D-1. SHORT-TERM, WATER MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES (5 AND 14 DAYS) Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-3 

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Acifluorfen

5094-66-6 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.9 Liver changes. Liver NA 

Acrylamide 

79-06-1 2 0.4 .7 0.14

Sleepiness, hallucinations, disorientation, incoordination inthe legs, weakness, tremors, and possibly seizures. 

CNS, PNS NA 

Acrylonitrile 

107-13-1 0.5 0.5 0.14 0.14

Headache, irritability, lightheadedness, impaired judgment, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, weakness; higher concentrations may cause liver damage, anemia, irregular breathing, and seizures; exposurein utero may cause birth defects. 

CVS, liver, kidneys, CNS,REPR 

NA 

Adipate (diethylhexyl) 

103-23-1 28 28 9.3 9.3 Short-term effects from exposure in drinking water are unknown. Liver, REPR NA 

Alachlor 

15972-60-8 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.05 Liver, kidney, spleen NA 

Aldrin 

309-00-2 0.0004 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hyperexcitablity, tremors, limbjerks, convulsions, and ventricular fibrillation; reversible kidney and liver injury. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Odor: 

0.017 mg/L

Ametryn 

834-12-8 12 12 4 4

Incoordination, shortness ofbreath, muscle weakness, salivation, and loss of reflexes. 

Liver, CNS NA 

Ammonia 

7664-41-7 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

Very high concentrations are corrosive and can cause ulcerative esophagitis. Such levels are not likely to be found in drinkingwater. 

Odor and

taste: 

3.4 mg/L
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Ammonium sulfamate 

7773-06-0 90 90 30 30 Gastrointestinal disturbances. GI tract NA

Antimony

744-36-0 0.006 0.006 0.002 0.002

Irritation of the nose, mouth, nose and intestines; nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bloody stools, stomachcramps, difficulty breathing,weight and hair loss, dry scalyskin; heart, liver, and kidney congestion. 

GI tract, CVS, liver, kidney NA 

Arsenic 

7440-38-2 

*TB MED 577

0.3 - 0.1 -

Facial swelling, vomiting, loss of appetite, abdominal pain; diarrhea, shock, muscle cramps, headache, chill, cardiac abnormalities, anemia, decreasedwhite blood cell count, andenlargement of liver; delayedeffects include sensory and motor peripheral polyneuropathies. 

Liver, kidney,CRC, CNS, GI tract, IMM 

NA 

Atrazine 

1912-24-9 0.7 0.7 0.23 0.23

Congestion of heart, lungs and kidneys; hypotension, urine retention, muscle spasms, loss of appetite, salivation, depression ofactivity, incoordination, fever, and shortness of breath. 

Eyes, CNS, CVS NA 

Baygon

114-26-1 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02

Headache, constricted pupils, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, 

CNS, GI tract, ChE Inh. NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-4 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

salivation, sweating, tearing,runny nose, lassitude, weakness, chest tightness, loss ofcoordination, slurred speech,muscle twitching, breathingdifficulty, and incontinence; higher concentrations can cause convulsions and coma; fetal deathand birth defects have beenobserved in experimental animals. 

Bentazon 

25057-89-0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1

Vomiting, diarrhea, difficultybreathing, weakness, apathy,incoordination, and tremors. 

CNS NA

Benzene 

71-43-2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

Vomiting, loss of coordination, light-headedness, headache, anemia, shallow/rapid pulse, loss of concentration, delirium,chemical pneumonitis, dizziness, pallor, flushing, weakness, and breathlessness; high concentrations may cause convulsions, coma, or irregular heart beat. 

Eyes, skin, RS, blood, CNS, bone, IMM

Odor:

2.0 mg/L

Taste: 

0.5 - 4.5 

mg/L

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-5 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Beryllium

7440-41-7 36 36 12 12 Low acute toxicity by ingestion. Bone NA 

Boron 

7440-42-8 5 1.2 1.7 0.4

Vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea; headache, tremors, restlessness, weakness, convulsions; may affect the liver, and may cause skin rash and desquamation.

CNS, skin, kidneys NA 

Bromacil 

314-40-9 7 7 2 2

Vomiting, salivation, muscular weakness, excitability, diarrhea, and mydriasis. 

Thyroid NA

Bromochloromethane 

74-97-5 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.5

Loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, severe headache, confusion, dizziness, memory impairment, weakness, tremors and convulsions; elevated carboxyhemoglobin. 

Liver, kidneys,CNS 

Odor:

34 mg/L

Bromodichloromethane 

75-27-4 

8.4 8.4 2.8 2.8

CNS functional disturbances,including sedation, anesthesia,incoordination, and depression ofrapid eye movement sleep; increased blood levels of methemoglobin. Liver, kidney

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-6 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

tumors in animals. 

Bromoform

75-25-2 7 3 2 1

Headache, dizziness, disorientation, listlessness, amnesia and slurred speech, shock, unconsciousness, andconvulsions. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Bromomethane

74-83-9 0.2 0.2 0.07 0.07 Tremor, convulsions, shortness of breath. CNS NA

Butylate 

2008-41-5 3 3 1 1 NA

BZ 

6581-06-2 

*TB MED 577

0.007 - 0.0023 -

Elevated heart rate and blood pressure, facial flushing, dryness of the throat and mouth, loss ofappetite, weakness, fatigue, and blurred vision; higherconcentrations may cause tremors of the lips and arms, facial muscle twitches, speech difficulties, severe mental depression, and confusion. 

CNS NA

Cadmium

7440-43-9 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle cramps, salivation,sensory disturbances, liver injury,convulsions, shock, and renalfailure. 

Kidneys, liver NA 

Carbaryl 

63-25-2 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.5

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramps, diarrhea, salivation, sweating, lassitude, weakness,

CNS, REPR, CVS, ChE Inh NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-7 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

runny nose, chest tightness, blurred or dim vision, miosis, tearing, loss of coordination,slurred speech, muscle twitching, tremor, breathing difficulty, cyanosis, hypertension, jerkymovements, incontinence, convulsions, coma, and respiratory paralysis. 

Carbofuran

1553-66-2 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.02

Headache, weakness, nausea,light-headedness, miosis, blurredvision, abdominal cramps, excessive perspiration andsalivation, diarrhea, vomiting, muscle twitching, incoordination,and convulsions. 

PNS, ChE Inh NA

Carbon disulfide 

75-15-0 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.05

Dizziness, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, palpitations and weakness; highconcentrations may cause psychosis, tremor, delirium,coma, muscle spasm,convulsions, difficulty breathing, and liver damage. 

CNS, PNS, liver, REPR NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-8 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Carbon tetrachloride

56-23-5 5.6 0.2 2 0.07

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain, diarrhea, headache, drowsiness, dizziness, weakness, blurred vision, incoordination,confusion, disorientation, anesthesia, and tremors; liver and kidney damage. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Odor:

0.52 mg/L

Carboxin 

5234-68-4 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.5 Depression, difficulty breathing, seizures. CNS NA

Chloral hydrate 

302-17-0 1 0.3 0.3 0.1

Light-headedness, malaise, deep stupor, incoordination, andnausea; occasional vomiting, flatulence, stomach ulcers;respiratory depression andhypotension; large doses may cause cardiac arrhythmia. 

CNS, GI tract, CVS, liver, kidneys 

NA 

Chloramben

133-90-4 3.5 3.5 1.2 1.2 Skin or eye contact may cause irritation. NA

Chlordane 

57-74-9 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.03 Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, excitability, confusion, CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-9 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

weakness, incoordination; highconcentrations may cause delirium, muscle spasms, convulsions or seizures, coma,pulmonary edema, and difficultybreathing. 

Chloride

16887-00-6

*TB MED 577

600 600 600 600

Reduced water consumption dueto high chloride concentrations can lead to dehydration, withsymptoms including weariness, apathy, impaired coordination, delirium, heat stroke. 

NA

Chlorobenzene

108-90-7 3 3 1 1

Drowsiness, dizziness, lightheadedness, muscle spasms, and coma; impaired liver and kidney function. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Odor:

0.05 mg/L

Taste: 

0.010 - 0.0

mg/L

Chlorodibromomethane 

124-48-1

8.4 8.4 2.8 2.8

Incoordination, depression of rapid eye movement, sleep, sedation, anesthesia, increasedblood levels of methemoglobin;injury of the liver, kidneys andadrenals. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-10 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Chloroisopropyl ether

(bis-2-) 

108-60-1

5.6 5.6 2 2

Odor:

0.2 - 0.32

mg/L

Chloroform

[Tricloromethane]

67-66-3 

6 6 2 2

Dizziness, mental dullness,headache, nausea, confusion, fatigue, narcosis, liver and kidneydamage/cancer; renal necrosis. 

Kidneys, CNS,bladder, fetus NA 

Chloromethane 

[Methyl chloride] 

74-87-3 

12 0.5 4 0.17

Headache, drowsiness, giddiness, dizziness, confusion,incoordination, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, breathing difficulties; highconcentrations may cause unconsciousness, convulsions, coma, visual disturbances, and may damage the kidneys, liver, orblood. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, REPR NA 

Chlorophenol (2-)

95-57-8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3

Restlessness, rapid breathing, and muscle weakness, followed bytremors, seizures, and coma. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Odor:

0.0001 mg/

Chlorothalonil

1897-45-6 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.12

Vomiting, rapid breathing, gastrointestinal irritation, weakness, and sedation. 

CNS, GI tract, UT NA 

Chlorotoluene o95-49-8 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.9 Odor: 0.0069 mg/Chlorotoluene p106-43-4 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.9 NA

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-11 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Chlorpyrifos

2921-88-2 0.04 0.04 0.014 0.014

Headache, fatigue, dizziness,mental confusion, disorientation, tearing, salivation; cyanosis, constricted pupils, blurred vision, weakness, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, muscle spasms and twitching, convulsions, coma, loss of reflexes, and incontinence. May possibly cause delayed peripheralneuropathy and birth defects.

CNS, PNS, ChE Inh NA 

Chromium (total) 

7440-47-3

2 2 0.7 0.7

Hexavalent chromiumcompounds are more toxic thantrivalent chromium compounds;ingestion of hexavalent chromiumcompounds may cause intensegastrointestinal irritation, violent epigastric pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, circulatorycollapse, unconsciousness, and death; liver and kidney damage are possible with large exposures. 

Kidneys, liver NA 

Cyanazine 

21725-46-2 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.05

Weakness, nausea and difficulty breathing; may affect kidney function. Birth defects have been 

Blood, kidneys NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-12 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

observed in the offspring ofexperimental animals. 

Cyanide 

57-12-5 

*TB MED 577

6 6 2 2

Headache, breathlessness,weakness, palpitation, nausea,vomiting, giddiness, tremor, rapid heart beat, dizziness, confusion, anxiety, agitation, confusion,cardiac arrhythmias, seizures, stupor, and coma. 

CNS, RS, CVS, liver, kidneys 

NA 

2,4-D 

(2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) 

94-75-7 

1.5 0.4 0.5 0.14

Nervous system damage, vomiting, diarrhea, lethargy, incoordination, weakness, paralysis, stupor, miosis, stiffness in the extremities, muscle twitching and spasms, loweredblood pressure, convulsions; transient liver and kidneydamage; may cause birth defects and reduced fertility. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Dalapon 

75-99-0 4.2 4.2 1.4 1.4

CNS depression, lassitude, loss of appetite, diarrhea, vomiting,slowing of pulse. 

GI tract, CNS NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-13 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

DCPA 

[Dacthal] 

1861-32-1 

105 105 35 35

Diazinon 333-41-5 0.03 0.03 0.009 0.009

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, weakness, excessive tearing and salivation, ocular pain, blurring/ dimness ofvision, miosis, loss of muscle coordination, slurred speech,muscle twitching, disorientation, drowsiness, difficulty breathing, hypertension, hypotension,cardiac arrhythmias, randomjerky movements, incontinence, convulsions, and coma. 

Eyes, RS, CNS, CVS, blood, ChE Inh

Dibromoacetonitrile 

3252-43-5 2.8 2.8 0.94 0.94 

Dibromochloropropane 

96-12-8 

0.28 0.07 0.09 0.024

Gastrointestinal distress; may damage the kidney, liver, and testes. 

Liver, kidneys,spleen, REPR, GI tract, CNS 

Odor: 0.01 

3.1 mg/L

Dicamba 

1918-00-9 0.4 0.4 0.14 0.14

Vomiting, loss of appetite, headache, dizziness, weakness, difficulty breathing, muscleweakness and spasms. 

CNS NA

Dichloroacetic acid 

79-43-6 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5

Decreased plasma lactate and glucose levels; highconcentrations may cause birth defects. 

REPR NA

Dichloroacetonitrile 

3018-12-0 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.5

Nausea, vomiting, weakness, stupor, convulsions, and delirium;liver and kidney damage. 

CVS, CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Dichlorobenzene m541-73-1 12.6 12.6 4.2 4.2 Headache, drowsiness, unsteadiness; irritation of gastric CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-14 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

mucosa, nausea, vomiting,diarrhea, abdominal cramps and cyanosis. 

Dichlorobenzene o95-50-1 12.6 12.6 4.2 4.2

Headache, nausea, vomiting, anddiarrhea; higher doses can produce dizziness, sleepiness, loss of coordination and judgment; methemoglobinemia, hemolytic anemia, and kidney damage. 

Liver, kidneys,CNS NA 

Dichlorobenzene p106-46-7 15 15 5 5

High concentrations may cause nausea, vomiting, headaches,liver and kidney injury, anemia, and jaundice. 

Liver, kidneys,CNS NA 

Dichlorodifluoromethane 

75-71-8 

60 60 20 20 Relatively non-toxic by ingestion. CNS, CVS NA 

Dichloroethane (1,2-)

107-06-2 1 1 0.3 0.3

Headache, dizziness, drowsiness, cyanosis, nausea, vomiting anddiarrhea; high concentrations can cause gastrointestinal disorders, transient kidney damage, liverinjury, and reduced blood pressure. 

Kidneys, liver, CNS, CVS 

Odor:

29 mg/L; 

Taste: 

29 mg/L

Dichloroethylene (1,1-) 

75-35-4 2.8 1.4 1 0.5 Dizziness, headache, nausea, liver and kidney dysfunction. Liver, kidneys, CNS NA 

Dichloroethylene 

(cis-1,2-)

156-59-2

5.6 4.5 2 1.5 CNS depression, decreased red blood cell count. CNS, blood NA 

Dichloroethylene 

(trans-1,2-)

156-60-5

28 2 9.4 0.7

CNS depression, difficultybreathing, incoordination,decreased red blood cell count. 

CNS, blood NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-15 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Dichloromethane 

[Methylene chloride]

75-09-2 

14 2.8 5 1

Dizziness, sleepiness, fatigue,weakness, light-headedness,numbness, tingling in limbs. 

CVS, CNS, blood NA 

Dichlorophenol (2,4-) 

120-83-2 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01

Abdominal pain, vomiting, bloody diarrhea; pallor, sweating,weakness, headache, dizziness; possibly fleeting excitement andconfusion, tremors, convulsions, unconsciousness; dark-coloredurine, kidney damage, methemoglobinemia andhemolytic anemia. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Dichloropropane (1,2-) 

78-87-5 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.04

Headache, dizziness; damage to the liver, kidneys, adrenal glands, bladder, and the gastrointestinal tract; hemolytic anemia. 

Liver, kidneys,GI tract NA 

Dichloropropene (1,3-) 

542-75-6 0.042 0.042 0.014 0.014

Weakness, headache, dizziness, lethargy, incoordination, and depressed respiration; maydamage the lungs, liver, and kidneys and cause lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. 

RS, CNS, liver, kidneys, GI tract 

NA 

Dieldrin

60-57-1 0.0007 0.0007 0.00023 0.00023

Early signs of toxicity are headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, malaise, sweating,tremors, limb jerks, EEG changes, convulsions, and coma; secondary effects include hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, and fever; sleep, memory, behavioraldisturbances, headache, and convulsions may persist for months following exposure. 

CNS Odor: 0.04 mg/L

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-16 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Di(2-ethylhexyl)

phthalate

117-81-7

14 14 4.7 4.7

Mild gastrointestinal disturbances, nausea, dizziness;may cause birth defects. 

CNS, liver, REPR NA 

Diisopropylmethylphosphonate 

[DIMP]

1445-75-6 

30 30 10 10

High concentrations may cause lethargy and other signs of CNS depression. 

CNS NA

Dimethrin 

70-38-2 16.8 16.8 5.5 5.5

Drowsiness, dizziness, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, gastritis, loss of appetite, fatigue, and weakness. 

CNS, liver, GI tract NA 

Dimethyl methyl

phosphonate 

756-79-6

2.5 2.5 0.8 0.8

High concentrations may cause lethargy and other signs of CNS depression. 

CNS NA

Dinitrobenzene (1,3-)

99-65-0 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02

Methemoglobinemia associated with headache, irritability, dizziness, weakness, nausea,lethargy, shortness of breath, liver damage. 

Blood, liver, CNS, CVS NA 

Dinitrotoluene (2,4-) 

121-14-2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2

Methemoglobinemia withsymptoms of nausea, vomiting, headache, weakness, dizziness, and drowsiness; highconcentrations may cause difficulty breathing, hypotension,arrhythmia, damage to liver and testes, and anemia; exposure mayaffect developing fetus. 

Blood, CNS,testes NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-17 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Dinitrotoluene (2,6-) 

606-20-2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2

Methemoglobinemia withsymptoms of nausea, vomiting, headache, weakness, dizziness, and drowsiness; highconcentrations may cause difficulty breathing, hypotension,arrhythmia, damage to liver and testes; exposure may affect fetus. 

Blood, CNS,REPR NA 

Dinoseb 

88-85-7 0.42 0.42 0.14 0.14

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain, marked thirst, fatigue, sweating, facial flushing, rapid heart beat, hyperthermia, respiratory distress, cyanosis, restlessness, anxiety, muscle cramps, excitement, convulsions, and coma. 

CNS, REPR NA 

Dioxane (1,4-) 

123-91-1 5.6 0.56 2 0.2 Nausea, headache, liver and kidney damage. Liver, kidneys, CNS NA 

Diphenamid 

957-51-7 0.4 0.4 0.13 0.13

Vomiting, salivation, incoordination, prostration,spasms and convulsions. 

CNS, liver NA 

Diphenylamine 

122-39-4 1.6 1.6 0.6 0.6

Fast pulse, hypertension, methemoglobinemia, bladderinjury; may cause birth defects. 

CVS, bladder, REPR NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-18 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Disulfoton

298-04-4 0.014 0.014 0.005 0.005

Headache, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, weakness, dizziness, confusions, slurred speech, salivation, tearing, profuse sweating, shortness ofbreath, tightness of the chest,changes in heart rate, cyanosis, miosis, blurred vision, runny nose, slow pulse, muscletwitching, tremors, muscle cramps, incoordination, convulsions, coma, and shock. 

Eyes, RS, CNS, CVS, ChE Inh

NA 

Dithiane (1,4-) 

505-29-3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 Incoordination, lacrimation, lethargy, diarrhea. GI tract, CNS NA 

Diuron

330-54-1 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.5

Diuretic effects; high concentration may cause CNS depression; has caused birthdefects and fetal deaths inexperimental animals. 

Blood, CNS NA 

EA 2192 0.015 - 0.005 -

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, cramps, headache, giddiness,dizziness, excessive salivation, tearing, miosis, blurred or dimvision, difficulty breathing, cardiac arrhythmias, loss of muscle coordination, muscletwitching, random jerking movements, convulsions, coma. 

CNS, ChE Inh NA 

Endothall

145-73-3 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.4

Hypotension, depressed breathingand heart rate, vomiting, diarrhea, dilated pupils, loss ofcoordination, transient excitation followed by general depression, 

CNS NA

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-19 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

sluggishness, spasmodic twitching, seizures. 

Endrin 

72-20-8 0.035 0.02 0.01 0.007

Headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, hypersalivation,insomnia, lethargy, weakness, agitation and confusion; highconcentrations may cause convulsions, stupor, tremors, and coma; headache, dizziness, sleepiness, weakness, and loss of appetite may persist for 2 to 4 weeks. 

CNS NA

Epichlorohydrin

106-89-8 0.2 0.2 0.07 0.07

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain, skin irritation; muscular relaxation or paralysis, tremor, convulsions; liver and kidneydamage, cyanosis, impairment ofmale fertility and/orspermatogenesis. 

Kidneys, liver, CNS, skin, REPR 

Odor:

0.5 – 3 

mg/L

Ethyl benzene

100-41-4 45 4.5 15 1.5

Headache, nausea, weakness, dizziness, sleepiness, fatigue, loss of coordination, and coma. 

CNS 

Odor:

0.062 mg/L

Taste: 

0.025 mg/L

Ethylene dibromide 

106-93-4 0.01 0.01 0.004 0.004

Liver and kidney damage, vomiting, excitement and other CNS effects. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, REPR NA 

Ethylene glycol

107-21-1 26 8 9 2.5

Weakness, dizziness, inebriation, stupor; high concentrations maycause convulsions, coma, hypertension, rapid breathing,rapid heartbeat, and severe kidneydamage. 

CNS, CVS, kidneys NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-20 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

ETU 

(Ethylene thiourea) 

96-45-7 

0.35 0.35 0.1 0.1

Thyroid hyperplasia with changes in levels of thyroid hormones;may cause birth defects. 

Thyroid,REPR, liver, IMM 

NA 

Fenamiphos 

22224-92-6 0.013 0.013 0.004 0.004

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramps, diarrhea, salivation, headache, dizziness, weakness, runny nose, blurred vision, constricted pupils, incoordination,slurred speech, muscle twitches, random jerky movements, mentalconfusion, disorientation, drowsiness, difficulty breathing, cardiac irregularities, incontinence, convulsions, andcoma. 

CNS, CVS, ChE Inh NA 

Fluometron 

2164-17-2 2.1 2.1 0.7 0.7 Depression, deep rapid breathing, vomiting, coma. CNS, blood, thyroid, liver, ChE Inh NA 

Fluorotrichloromethane 

75-69-4 

9.8 9.8 3.3 3.3 Transient jaundice and liver 

enzyme elevation. 

CNS, CVS, liver NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-21 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Fonofos 

944-22-9 0.03 0.03 0.009 0.009

Loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, weakness, confusion, blurredvision, constricted pupils, slurred speech, profuse sweating,salivation, and runny nose; cardiac irregularities, difficulty breathing, muscle twitching, paralysis, convulsions, coma, or respiratory arrest may occur.

CNS, CVS, blood, ChE Inh 

NA 

Formaldehyde

50-00-0 14 8 5 2.6

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain, diarrhea, lethargy, dizziness,hypotension, seizure. 

GI tract, CVS 

Odor:

20 mg/L; 

Taste: 

 50 ppm

GA 

[Tabun] 

77-81-6 

*TB MED 577

0.14 - 0.046 -

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramps, diarrhea, headache, giddiness, dizziness, weakness, excessive tearing, blurred or dimvision, miosis, loss of muscle coordination, slurred speech,muscle twitching, confusion,disorientation, drowsiness, difficulty breathing, excessivesalivation, cardiac arrhythmias, random jerking movements, incontinence, convulsions, coma. 

CNS, ChE Inh NA 

GB 

[Sarin]

107-44-8

*TB MED 577

0.028 - 0.0093 - See GA. CNS, ChE Inh NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-22 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

GD 

[Soman]

96-64-0 

*TB MED 577

0.012 - 0.004 - See GA. CNS, ChE Inh NA

Glyphosate 

1071-83-6 25 25 8 8

Vomiting, diarrhea, abdominalpain; large doses may cause hypotension, tachycardia (rapidheart rate) and palpitations. 

Kidneys NA

Heptachlor

76-44-8 0.014 0.014 0.005 0.005

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, irritation of the gastrointestinal tract; higher exposures may cause liver damage, hyperexcitability, tremors, convulsions, and paralysis. 

CNS, liver, GI tract NA 

Heptachlor epoxide 

1024-57-3 0.014 - 0.005 -

Apprehension, agitation, muscle twitching and spasms, tremor, incoordination, vomiting, gastrointestinal upset, abdominal pain; higher doses may cause liver damage, and convulsions. 

CNS, liver NA 

Hexachlorobenzene 

118-74-1 0.08 0.08 0.026 0.026

Headache, nausea, cyanosis, muscle spasm, convulsions, liver injury, birth defects. 

CNS, blood,liver, kidneys NA 

Hexachlorobutadiene 

87-68-3 0.4 0.4 0.14 0.14 Kidney damage, possible CNS depression. Kidneys, liver, CNS NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-23 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Hexachloroethane 

67-72-1 7 7 2.4 2.4

Vomiting, diarrhea, severemucosal injury, liver necrosis, cyanosis, unconsciousness, loss of reflexes. 

CNS, liver NA 

Hexane (n-)

110-54-3 18 6 5 2

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalswelling, weakness, dizziness, lightheadedness, headache, loss ofcoordination, damage to the peripheral nerves. 

CNS, PNS NA 

Hexazinone 

51235-04-2 10.5 10.5 3 3 Vomiting, liver injury. Liver NA 

HMX 

2691-41-0 7 7 2.3 2.3

Changes in the blood, methemoglobinemia, liver damage. 

CNS, blood,CVS, kidneys,liver 

NA 

Isophorone 

78-59-1 6 6 2 2

Headache, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, incoordination, malaise, and narcosis. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Isopropyl methylphosphonate 

1832-54-8 

120 120 40 40

High concentrations may cause diarrhea, reduced motor activity, lung injury. 

GI tract, lungs NA 

Lead compounds 

No specified CAS. 

(measured as

Total Lead) 

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Anxiety, irritability, insomnia, lack of appetite, anemia, headache, muscle weakness, restlessness, reproductive effects in developing fetus arepronounced. Possible kidney and reproductive effects after longerchronic exposures. 

CNS, fetus NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-24 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Lewisite 

542-25-3

*TB MED 577

0.08 - 0.027 -

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, intense thirst, restlessness, weakness, hypotension, and hypothermia. 

GI tract, heart, brain, kidneys NA 

Lindane 

58-89-9 

*TB MED 577

0.6 0.6 0.2 0.2

Irritability, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, dizziness, malaise, headache, nausea, fever, cyanosis, vomiting, and loss of musclecoordination; higher exposure can cause muscle spasms, seizures, and convulsions. 

CNS, REPR NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-25 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Magnesium

7439-95-4 

*TB MED 577

100 100 30 30

Single doses can have laxative effects that can lead to dehydration, with symptoms ofdiscomfort, weariness, apathy, impaired coordination, deliriumand heat stroke. 

GI tract NA 

Malathion

121-75-5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

Miosis, blurred vision, tearing,increased salivation, weakness, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, giddiness,confusion, loss of musclecoordination, runny nose, headache, chest tightness, difficulty breathing, pulmonaryedema, muscle twitching, coma, respiratory distress, cardiac irregularities, and convulsions. 

Lungs, liver, CNS, heart, ChE Inh

NA 

Maleic hydrazide 

123-33-1 14 14 5 5 Tremors and muscle spasms. CNS NA 

MCPA

94-74-6 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.05

Fatigue, weakness, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting,diarrhea, lethargy, constrictedpupils, hypotension, slurred speech, muscle twitches, randomjerky movements, paralysis andconvulsions; kidney and liverinjury, reduced white and red blood cell counts. 

CNS, kidneys,liver, blood NA 

Methomyl

16752-77-5 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.03

Severe headache, nausea,vomiting, diarrhea, abdominalcramps, sweating, salivation, blurred vision, constricted pupils, muscle twitching, incoordination,weakness, difficulty breathing, 

CNS, CVS, liver, kidneys, ChE Inh

NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-26 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

increased heart rate; liver and kidney damage; changes inelectrocardiograph patterns are possible. 

Methoxychlor

72-43-5 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03

Muscle spasms, trembling, andconvulsions; high concentrationsmay injure the kidney and liver. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Methyl tert-butyl ether 

1634-04-4 33.6 33.6 11.3 11.3 Low acute toxicity by ingestion. 

Methyl parathion 

298-00-0 0.4 0.4 0.15 0.15

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramps, diarrhea, salivation, headache, weakness, giddiness, dizziness, runny nose, blurredvision, miosis, cardiac arrhythmias and ischemia, difficulty breathing; muscle twitch, convulsions, liver andkidney damage, coma andrespiratory paralysis are possible at high concentrations. 

Eyes, CNS, CVS, liver, kidneys, ChE Inh

NA 

Metolachlor 

51218-45-2 3 3 1 1

Headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, sweating, weakness, anemia, incoordination, CNS depression, dark urine, liver and kidney

CNS, liver, kidneys, blood NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-27 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

damage, jaundice, methemoglobinemia, cyanosis, hypothermia, convulsions; affect fertility. 

Metribuzin

21087-64-9 6.3 6.3 2 2 CNS depression; thyroid, kidney and liver injury. CNS, thyroid, kidneys, liver NA 

Molybdenum trioxide 

7439-98-7 0.03 0.03 0.009 0.009

Weight loss, diarrhea, poor muscle coordination, headaches, muscle or joint aching.

Liver, kidneys,blood NA 

Naphthalene 

91-20-3 0.74 0.74 0.25 0.25

Headache, profuse perspiration, confusion, listlessness, lethargy, muscle twitching, coma; nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea; hemolytic anemia, methemoglobinemia; cataracts, liver and kidney damage. 

Eyes, blood,liver, kidneys, CNS 

NA 

Nickel 

7440-02-0 1 1 0.5 0.5

Soluble nickel salts may cause gastrointestinal distress, nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, vomiting, giddiness, weariness, and headache; metallic nickel is generally considered not to beacutely toxic if ingested. 

GI tract, CNS NA 

Nitroguanidine 

556-88-7 15 15 5 5

High concentrations may cause inactivity, incoordination,tremors, difficulty breathing, andcyanosis. 

CNS NA

Nitrophenol p100-02-7 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.4

Fever, CNS depression, sweating,weakness, headache, dizziness, tinnitus, irregular pulse, hypotension, shallow respiration,cyanosis. 

CNS, blood Odor: 43.4 mg/L 

Oxamyl

[Vydate] 0.35 0.35 0.1 0.1 Tremors, blurred or dim vision, increased salivation, tearing, NA

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-28 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

23135-22-0 incontinence, diarrhea, abdominal 

cramps, nausea, vomiting, anddifficulty breathing; convulsions, coma, and respiratory paralysis are possible at high concentrations; protracted malaise and weakness may persist afterapparent recovery. 

Paraquat

1910-42-5 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.05

Abdominal cramping, nausea,vomiting, bloody diarrhea, headache, difficulty swallowing, fever, decreased blood pressure;higher concentrations can cause heart, kidney and liver injury and extensive lung damage withdifficulty breathing, pulmonaryfibrosis and edema; may reduce fertility in males. 

Lungs, liver, kidneys, GItract 

NA 

Pentachlorophenol

87-86-5 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.14

Weakness, thirst, loss of appetite, vomiting, shortness of breath,chest pain, sweating, headache, dizziness, high fever,hypotension, and gastrointestinal upset; high concentrations may cause lung, liver, and kidney damage and convulsions. 

CNS, heart Odor: 0.03 mg/L

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-29 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Phenol

108-95-2 8 8 3 3

Corrosion of the mouth, throat, and stomach, pallor, nausea, vomiting, severe abdominal pain, cold sweats, cardiac arrhythmia, wide fluctuations in bloodpressure, respiratory distress,reduced body temperature, circulatory collapse. 

Liver, kidneys,CVS 

Odor:

0.3 mg/L

Picloram

1918-02-01 28 28 9.4 9.4 Nausea, diarrhea, weakness, damage to the CNS. CNS NA

Prometon 

1610-18-0 0.2 0.2 0.07 0.07 Mild skin and eye irritant. CNS NA 

Pronamide 

23950-58-5 1 1 0.4 0.4

May cause cholestasis (blockage of bile flow in the liver) whichcan lead to liver damage. 

Liver NA

Propachlor

1918-16-7 0.7 0.7 0.24 0.24 Weakness, salivation, tremors; liver and kidney injury. CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Propazine 

139-40-2 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.5

Loss of appetite, depression; highconcentrations may cause dizziness, cramps and difficultybreathing. 

CNS, blood,liver NA 

Propham

122-42-9 7 7 2 2 NA

RDX 

121-82-4 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.05

Headache, irritability, fatigue, weakness, tremor, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, confusion, amnesia, insomnia, convulsions, liver injury. 

CNS, liver NA 

Silver 

7440-22-4 0.07 0.07 0.023 0.023

High concentrations may cause abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting, corrosion of the 

Skin, eyes, CNS NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-30 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

gastrointestinal tract, shock andconvulsions. 

Simazine 

122-34-9 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01

Incoordination, tremor, weakness, muscle spasms, difficulty breathing. 

CNS, kidneys,liver NA 

Strontium

7440-24-6 36 36 12 12 Excess salivation, vomiting, colic, and diarrhea. Bone NA

Styrene 

100-42-5 30 3 10 1

Headache, fatigue, dizziness,confusion, malaise, drowsiness, weakness, unsteady gait, impaired manual dexterity, loss ofconcentration.

CNS NA

Sulfate 

14808-79-8

*TB MED 577

300 300 100 100

Single doses can have laxative effects which can lead to dehydration, with symptoms ofdiscomfort, weariness, apathy, impaired coordination, delirium.

GI tract NA 

Sulfur mustard 

[HD]

505-60-2

*TB MED 577

0.14 - 0.047 -

Nausea, vomiting of blood, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever,headache, cardiac arrhythmias, dizziness, malaise, loss of appetite, lethargy, convulsions, leukopenia, anemia, immunosuppression. 

GI tract, CNS, blood NA 

2,4,5-T 

[Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid] 

93-76-5 1 1 0.4 0.4

Chloracne, nausea, headache, fatigue, muscular aches and pains; may affect the developing fetus. 

Skin, REPR NA 

T-2 toxin 

21259-20-1

*TB MED 577

0.026 - 0.0087 -

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, generalized burning erythema, mental confusion. 

GI tract, CNS NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-31 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

TCDD (2,3,7,8-)

1746-01-6 1E-06 1E-07 5E-07 5E-08

Headache, nausea, vomiting, severe muscle pain, liver damage, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, hair loss, hyperpigmentation, polyneuropathy, neurobehavioraleffects, possible immunosuppression, thymicatrophy. 

Liver, skin, kidneys, blood, REPRsystem

NA 

Tebuthiuron

34014-18-1 3.5 3.5 1 1 Reversible pancreatic changes. Pancreas NA 

Terbacil 

5902-51-2 0.35 0.35 0.1 0.1 Pallor, prostration, vomiting, and rapid respiration. Liver NA

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-32 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Terbufos

13071-79-9 0.007 0.007 0.002 0.002

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramps, diarrhea, excessive salivation, headache, dizziness, weakness, excessive tearing and salivation, ocular pain, blurredvision, constricted pupils, incoordination, slurred speech, muscle twitches, mental confusion, drowsiness, difficultybreathing, cyanosis, cardiac irregularities, incontinence, convulsions, and coma. 

CNS, CVS, ChE Inh NA 

Tetrachloroethane 

(1,1,1,2-) 

630-20-6

3 3 1 1

Weakness, fatigue, nausea, headache, incoordination; liverinjury, decreased red blood cellcounts, increased percent of largemononuclear cells in blood. 

CNS, liver blood NA 

Tetrachloroethylene 

127-18-4 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.9

Nausea, dizziness, incoordination, headache, sleepiness, liverdamage. 

Liver, CNS NA 

Thallium

7440-28-0 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.003

Metallic taste in the mouth,fatigue, anxiety, irritability, gastroenteritis, diarrhea or constipation, vomiting, abdominal pain, chest pain, paresthesia of the hands and feet, tremor, convulsions, pain and loss ofmuscle strength in the limbs, hair loss, vision loss; damage to the lungs, kidneys, and nervoussystem; hypertension, EKG changes and other cardiovascular effects. 

Eyes, CNS, PNS, GI tract, lungs, liver, kidneys 

NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-33 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Toluene 

108-88-3 30 3 10 1

Fatigue, nausea, weakness,confusion; higher concentrationscan cause headache, vomiting, diarrhea, depressed respiration, loss of muscle coordination. 

CNS 

Odor:

0.04 – 1

mg/L

2,4,5-TP

93-72-1 0.3 0.3 0.09 0.09

Fatigue, weakness, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain,diarrhea, muscle twitching, weakened reflexes, constricted pupils; high concentrations can produce profuse sweating,hypotension, painful neuritis, metabolic acidosis, fever, rapid heart beat, hyperventilation, and coma. 

Liver, kidneys,CNS NA 

Trichloroacetic acid 

76-03-9 5.6 5.6 1.9 1.9

Gastrointestinal disturbances, acidosis, vomiting, diarrhea, andlassitude; decreased plasmalactate and glucose levels, and hypotension; high concentrationsmay cause CNS depression. 

GI tract, liver, kidneys NA 

Trichloroacetonitrile 

545-06-2 0.07 0.07 0.023 0.023 NA

Trichlorobenzene 

(1,2,4-) 

120-82-1

0.2 0.2 0.06 0.06

Lethargy, incoordination, changes in liver, kidneys and adrenal glands. 

Liver, kidneys,adrenal glands NA 

Trichlorobenzene 

(1,3,5-) 

108-70-3

0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3

Lethargy, incoordination, changes in liver, kidneys, and adrenal glands. 

Liver, kidneys,adrenal glands NA 

Trichloroethane 

(1,1,1-) 

71-55-6 

140 60 50 20

Headache, weakness, dizziness, increased reaction time, impaired judgment; high concentrationscan cause severe vomiting and diarrhea, cardiac arrhythmias and 

CNS, CVS, liver NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-34 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

liver damage. 

Trichloroethane 

(1,1,2-) 

79-00-5 

0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2

Headache, weakness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea; drowsiness, loss of coordinationand judgment; possible liver andkidney damage. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Trichloroethylene 

79-01-6 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.9

Headache, dizziness, blurred vision, fatigue, giddiness, tremor, sleepiness, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, cardiac arrhythmias, mild liver dysfunction; may cause birthdefects. 

CNS, CVS, liver, kidneys, REPR 

NA 

Trichloropropane 

(1,2,3-) 

96-18-4 

0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3

CNS damage, liver and kidneychanges, lethargy, cardiovascular abnormalities.

CNS, liver, kidney, CVS,blood 

NA 

Trifluralin1582-09-8 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.04 Liver and kidney changes, anemia, CNS depression. CNS, liver, kidney, blood NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-35 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Trinitroglycerol 

55-63-0 0.007 0.007 0.002 0.002

Severe throbbing headache, nausea, hypotension, lightheadedness; high exposure can cause flushing of the face and neck, vomiting, dizziness, delirium, confusion,methemoglobinemia, hallucinations, and difficulty breathing. 

CVS, blood,CNS, testes NA 

Trinitrotoluene (2,4,6-)

118-96-7 0.025 0.025 0.008 0.008

Red pigmentation in the urine,abdominal pain, methemoglobinemia, anemia, ataxia, cyanosis, tremors; high concentrations may cause convulsions; liver damage, gastrointestinal tract irritation;male reproductive effects. 

Liver, blood,GI tract, CNS NA 

Vinyl chloride

75-01-4 3.6 3.6 1.2 1.2

Headache, dizziness, loss of muscle coordination, inebriation,euphoria, fatigue, numbness and tingling of the extremities, drowsiness, and visualdisturbances. 

CNS NA

VX 

50782-69-9

*TB MED 577

0.015 - 0.005 -

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, headache, giddiness, dizziness, excessive salivation, tearing, miosis, blurredor dim vision, miosis, difficultybreathing, cardiac arrhythmias, loss of muscle coordination, muscle twitching, random jerkingmovements, convulsions, coma. 

CNS, ChE Inh NA 

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-36 
US

APPE

5 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day MEG † 

(mg/L) Chemical

CAS No. 5-day 2-week 5-day 2-week

Potential Symptoms Target Organs and Systems Odor, Tast

Threshold 

Xylenes 

1330-20-7 60 60 20 20

Headache, weakness, dizziness, confusion, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, shivering,incoordination, loss of appetite, tremors, disturbed vision, salivation, and difficulty breathing; liver and kidney damage, and cardiac arrhythmias are possible. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, blood, GI tract 

Odor:

0.3 – 1.0 

mg/L

Zinc chloride 

[measured as Zinc] 

7646-85-7 

8 8 3 3 Severe stomach irritation, nausea,

vomiting, and diarrhea. GI tract NA 

Footnotes on next page.Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-37 
US

APPE

FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE D-1 – SHORT-TERM WATER-MEG VALUES 

† In temperate conditions, the estimated rate of consumption is 5 liters/day. In arid regions, the estimated rate of consumption is 15 lit

‡ The sources for odor and taste thresholds in water were the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Health Advisory for individual ch

Library of Medicine’s Hazardous Substance Database (HSDB). § The notes column shows estimated oral doses that can cause the toxic effects indicated when available. The reported doses were con

 mg/L concentrations in water (shown in parentheses) for 5 L/day consumption rates. Divide by 3 to convert to 15 L/day consumptio Estimated lethal doses and approximate toxic effect levels were obtained from the TOMES database software system, from Gosselin  (1976), from Hayes, Pesticides Studied in Man and from the EPA Health Advisory Source documents. 

*TB MED 577 -- These values were taken from *TB MED 577, they are STANDARDS and should not be exceeded. 

*Department of the Army (Da). Sanitary Control And Surveillance Of Field Water Supplies, Final Draft Technical Bulletin, Medical (TOther values obtained from following hierarchy sources [USEPA HA-ADJ > ATSDR MRL-ADJ> USEPA RFD–ADJ] unless otherwis

more details): 

ATSDR primary sources : 

- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1996. Toxicological Profiles. Prepared by Clement Internatio

Contract No. 205-88-0608. Prepared for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Washington

US EPA primary sources:

-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996a. 822-R-96-001, Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories, States Environmental Protection Agency, October 1996.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996b. Soil ScreenGuide. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington D.C -U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1999a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Environmental Criteria 

Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. 

CHID – Chemical Hazard Information for Deployments. Summarized information in fact sheet format is under development for notate

EEG – electrocardiogramNA – Not Available Target organ/systems, carcinogenicity, and units information next page........................ Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-38 
US

APPE

TABLE 2-4-1. TARGET ORGANS TABLE 2-4-2. TARGET SYSTEMS 

TARGET ORGANS TARGET SYSTEMS 

Eyes Brain CNS – Central Nervous System CVS – Cardiovascular System

Skin Heart PNS – Peripheral Nervous System ChE Inh – Cholinesterase Inhibitor

Blood Pancreas GI tract – Gastrointestinal Tract UT – Urogenital Tract 

Bladder Adrenal Glands RS – Respiratory System CRC – Circulatory System

Thyroid Lungs LRS – Lower Respiratory System IMM – Immune System

Bone Liver URS – Upper Respiratory System REPR – Reproductive System

Fetus Kidneys ENDO – Endocrine System HEM – Hemopoietic System

Spleen LYMP – Lymphatic System

Units used:

g = grammg = milligram L = liter mL = milliliter mg/kg/day == milligram chemical per kilogram body weight (ingested) per dayμg/kg = micrograms per kilogram = ppb = parts per billionmg/L = milligram per liter = ppm = part per millionCancer Class Categories:

The scheme used by the USEPA for categorizing chemicals according to their carcinogenic potential is as follows (see Section 2.4.3):

Group A: Human carcinogenGroup B: Probable human carcinogen:

Group B1 - Limited evidence in epidemiological studies Group B2 - Sufficient evidence from animal studies 

Group C: Possible human carcinogenGroup D: Not classifiable Group E: No evidence of carcinogenicity

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-39 
US

APPE

This page intentionally left blank.

Table D-1. Short-term Water-MEGs D-40 
US

APPE

TABLE D-2. LONG-TERM, WATER MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES (1 YEAR DEPLOYMENT) 

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Acenaphthene

83-32-9 8.4 2.8 NA May cause slight changes in the liver. Liver NA 

Acenaphthylene

208-96-8 4.2 1.4 D

As with other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxicity followingshort-term exposure is minimal. Longterm exposure to PAHs can produce avariety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mild liver or kidney damage, anemia and other changes in the blood cells. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

NA 

Acetone 

67-46-1 14 4.7 D Headache, dizziness, CNS depression. CNS Odor: 20 mg/

Alachlor 

15972-60-8 0.14 0.05 B2

May damage the liver, kidney and spleen; cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, spleen 

NA

Aldrin 

309-00-2 0.0004 0.00013 B2

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hyperexcitability, tremors, limb jerks, convulsions, and ventricular fibrillation;reversible kidney and liver injury; cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Odor: 

 0.017 m

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-41 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Anthracene 

120-12-7 140 47 D 

Contact may make the skin moresusceptible to the effects of sunlight. Long-term exposure to PAHs can producea variety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mild liver or kidney damage, anemia and other changes in the blood cells. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM, skin 

NA 

Aroclor-1016

12674-11-2 0.001 0.0003 NA 

Nausea, vomiting, liver damage, facialedema, abdominal pain, weight loss, diarrhea; headache, dizziness, depression, weakness, transient visual disturbances;chloracne; birth defects, peripheral nerve damage. Cumulative toxicity; liver and kidney damage. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Aroclor-1254

11097-69-1 0.0007 0.0002 NA 

Nausea, vomiting, liver damage, facialedema, abdominal pain, weight loss, diarrhea; headache, dizziness, depression, weakness, transient visual disturbances;chloracne; birth defects, peripheral nerve damage. Cumulative toxicity, liver andkidney damage. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-42 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Arsenic 

7440-38-2 

*TB MED 577

0.06 0.02 A 

Facial swelling, vomiting, loss of appetite, abdominal pain; diarrhea, shock,muscle cramps, headache, chill, cardiac abnormalities, decreased white blood cell count, and enlargement of liver; delayed effects include sensory and motor peripheral polyneuropathies. Hyperpigmentation of the skin (especiallyon the palms of the hands and soles of the feet), anemia, weakness, incoordination,mental confusion, cirrhosis of the liver, hair loss, and nail changes; cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, CNS, GI tract, IMM 

NA 

Benzene 

71-43-2 0.042 0.014 A 

Vomiting, loss of coordination, lightheadedness, headache, anemia, shallow/rapid pulse, loss of concentration,delirium, chemical pneumonitis, dizziness, pallor, flushing, weakness, and breathlessness; high concentrations may cause convulsions, coma, or irregularheart beat. Fatigue, headache, dizziness, nausea, loss of appetite, weakness, nosebleeds, pallor, and bleeding gums;bone marrow damage;immunosuppression;

Eyes, skin, RS, blood, CNS, IMM 

Odor:

 2.0 mg

Taste: 

0.5 – 4

mg/L

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-43 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Benzo(a)anthracene 

56-55-3 0.14 0.05 B2

As with other PAHs, toxicity followingshort-term exposure is minimal. Longterm exposure to PAHs can produce avariety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mild liver or kidney damage, anemia and other changes in the blood cells. Longterm exposure may cause cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

NA 

Benzo(a)pyrene

50-32-8 

0.014 0.005 B2

Toxicity from short-term exposure is low. Long-term exposure may cause depression of the immune system; mildliver or kidney damage; changes in the blood composition such as aplasticanemia and pancytopenia; and cancer. Effects on the developing fetus have beenobserved in laboratory animals. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

NA 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 

205-99-2

0.14 0.05 B2

As with other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxicity followingshort-term exposure is minimal. Longterm exposure to PAHs can produce avariety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mild liver or kidney damage, anemia and other changes in the blood cells. Longterm exposure may cause cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-44 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 

207-0809

1.4 0.5 B2

Toxicity following short-term exposuresis minimal.. Long-term exposure to PAHs can produce a variety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mild liver or kidney damage, anemia and other changes in the blood cells. Long-term exposure may cause cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

NA 

Beryllium

7440-41-7 0.02 0.007 B2 Low acute toxicity by ingestion. Rickets (fragile or weakened bones); cancer. Bone NA

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- 

phthalate117-81-7

0.28 0.056 B2 Liver damage, possible teratogenic and carcinogenic effects. Skin, liver, REPR, CNS, GI tract NA 

Boron 

7440-42-8 1.7 0.4 D 

Vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea;headache, tremors, restlessness, weakness, convulsions; may affect the liver, and may cause skin rash and desquamation. 

CNS, skin, kidneys NA 

Bromodichloromethane 

74-97-5 0.3 0.1 B 

Loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting,abdominal pain, severe headache, confusion, dizziness, memoryimpairment, weakness, tremors andconvulsions; elevated carboxyhemoglobin; kidney, liver tumors in animals. 

CNS, skin, kidneys NA 

sec-Butylbenzene

135-98-8 0.15 0.05 NA

Skin irritation, CNS depression, incoordination, nausea, general anestheticeffects. 

Skin, CNS NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-45 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Cadmium

7440-43-9 0.007 0.002 NA 

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle cramps, salivation, sensory disturbances, liver injury, convulsions, shock, and renalfailure. Pain resulting from softening ordecalcification of the bones, osteoporosis, irreversible kidney disease, anemia. 

Kidneys, liver NA 

Carbon disulfide 

75-15-0 0.14 0.05 NA 

Dizziness, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, palpitations and weakness; high concentrations may cause psychosis, tremor, delirium, coma, muscle spasm, convulsions, difficulty breathing, and liver damage. Decreasedfertility in males and females.

CNS, PNS, liver, REPR s NA

Chlordane 

57-74-9 0.008 0.003 B2

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache,excitability, confusion, weakness, incoordination; high concentrations maycause delirium, muscle spasms, convulsions or seizures, coma, pulmonaryedema, and difficulty breathing. Kidneyand liver degeneration; blood dyscrasias;cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-46 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Chloride

16887-00-6

*TB MED 577 600 600 NA 

Reduced water consumption due to highchloride concentrations can lead to dehydration, with symptoms includingweariness, apathy, impaired coordination, delirium, heat stroke. 

None (palatability issue; see notes) 

NA 

Chloroform

67-66-3 1.4 0.5 B2

Dizziness, mental dullness, headache,nausea, confusion, fatigue, narcosis, liverand kidney damage/cancer; renalnecrosis. 

Kidneys, CNS, bladder, fetus 

NA 

Chloromethane 

(Methyl chloride) 

74-87-3 0.5 0.17 C 

Headache, drowsiness, giddiness, dizziness, confusion, incoordination,vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, breathing difficulties; high concentrationsmay cause unconsciousness, convulsions, coma, visual disturbances, and maydamage the kidneys, liver, or blood;cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, REPR 

NA 

Chlorothalonil

1897-45-6 0.2 0.07 B2

Vomiting, rapid breathing, GI irritation,weakness, and sedation. Cumulative toxicity; incoordination, rapid breathing, hematuria (blood in the urine), nosebleed, delayed hypersensitivity; cancer. 

CNS, GI tract, UT NA

Chromium (total) 

7440-47-3 0.3 0.1 D 

The toxicity of chromium has beenattributed primarily to hexavalentchromium compounds. 

Kidneys, liver NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-47 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Chromium III 

16065-83-1 21 7 NA 

Hexavalent chromium compounds are more toxic than trivalent chromiumcompounds. 

Kidneys, liver NA 

Chromium VI 

18540-29-9 0.3 0.1 NA 

Ingestion of hexavalent chromiumcompounds may cause GI irritation, epigastric pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, liver and kidney damage, internal bleeding, circulatory collapse, unconsciousness, and death. Reducedfertility and birth defects are possible. 

Kidneys, liver NA 

Chrysene

218-01-9 4.2 1.4 B2

As with other PAHs, toxicity followingshort-term exposure is minimal. Longterm exposure to PAHs can produce avariety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mild liver or kidney damage, anemia and other changes in the blood cells, andimmunosuppression. Long-termexposure may cause cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

NA 

Copper (II)

(Salts, Oxide) 

1317-38-0 1.0 1.0 D 

Ingestion at high concentrations can produce vomiting, diarrhea, nausea,abdominal pain and a metallic taste in the mouth. Potential kidney and liver injury after chronic exposures.

GI tract, liver, kidneys NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-48 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Cumene

98-82-8 1.4 0.47 D CNS effects, skin irritation. CNS, Skin NA 

Cyanide 

57-12-5 

*TB MED 577

6 2 NA 

Headache, breathlessness, weakness, palpitation, nausea, vomiting, giddiness, tremor, rapid heart beat, dizziness, confusion, anxiety, agitation, confusion, cardiac arrhythmias, seizures, stupor, and coma. CNS effects (insomnia, memory loss, tremors); degeneration of spinal cordand optic nerve; enlargement of thethyroid gland; reduced fertility and birthdefects are possible. 

CNS, RS, CVS, liver, kidneys 

NA 

2,4-D 

(2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) 

94-75-7 0.14 0.05 D 

Nervous system damage, vomiting, diarrhea, lethargy, incoordination,weakness, paralysis, stupor, miosis, stiffness in the extremities, muscle spasms, lowered blood pressure, convulsions; transient liver and kidney damage; may cause birth defects and reduced fertility. Cumulative toxicity. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-49 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

p,p’-DDT 

50-29-3 0.007 0.002 NA 

Vomiting, tingling of lips, tongue, andface; malaise, headache, sore throat, fatigue, tremors; apprehension, ataxia, confusion, convulsions, coma and partialparalysis. Estrogenic effects; may reducefertility. 

Eyes, skin, CNS, kidneys, liver, PNS 

NA

Diazinon 333-41-5 0.007 0.002 E 

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache,dizziness, weakness, excessive tearing and salivation, ocular pain,blurring/dimness of vision, miosis, loss ofmuscle coordination, slurred speech, muscle twitching, disorientation, drowsiness, difficulty breathing, hypertension, hypotension, cardiac arrhythmias, random jerky movements, incontinence, convulsions, and coma. Cumulative toxicity; loss of visual acuity. 

Eyes, RS, CNS, CVS, blood, ChE Inh

NA

Dibromochloromethane 

594-18-3 2.8 0.9 C 

CNS functional disturbances including sedation and anesthesia; reversible liver and kidney injury. 

CNS, liver, kidneys NA 

Dibromochloropropane 

96-12-8 0.03 0.009 B2

GI distress; may damage the kidney,liver, and testes. Kidney and liver damage, atrophy of the testes and sterility in males; cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, spleen, REPR, GI tract, CNS 

Odor:

0.01 – 3

mg/L

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-50 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Dieldrin

60-57-1 

0.0007 0.0002 B2

Early signs of toxicity are headache,dizziness, nausea, vomiting, malaise, sweating, tremors, limb jerks, EEG changes, convulsions, and coma;secondary effects include hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, and fever; sleep, memory, behavioral disturbances,headache, and convulsions may persist for months following exposure. Cumulative toxicity; fainting, muscle spasms, tremors, weight loss, reduced psychomotor skills, hemolytic anemia; reproductive effects may occur; cancer 

CNS Odor 0.04 mg

Dinitrobenzene (1,3-)

99-65-0 0.06 0.02 D 

Methemoglobinemia associated with headache, irritability, dizziness, weakness, nausea, lethargy, shortness of breath, liver damage. May cause reduced fertility and birth defects. 

Blood, liver, CNS, CVS NA 

Dinoseb 

88-58-7 0.014 0.005 D 

Nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain,marked thirst, fatigue, sweating, facial flushing, rapid heart beat, fever, weightloss, respiratory distress, cyanosis, restlessness, anxiety, muscle cramps, excitement, convulsions, and coma. Liver or kidney damage; cataracts; mayaffect fertility. 

CNS, REPR NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-51 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Disulfoton

298-04-4 0.004 0.001 E 

Headache, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, weakness, dizziness, confusion, slurred speech, salivation, tearing, profusesweating, shortness of breath, tightness ofthe chest, changes in heart rate, cyanosis, miosis, blurred vision, runny nose, slowpulse, muscle twitching, tremors, muscle cramps, incoordination, convulsions, coma, and shock. Decreased visual acuity, liver injury, altered tendonreflexes. 

Eyes, RS, CNS, CVS, ChE Inh

NA 

Endrin 

72-20-8 0.006 0.002 D 

Headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, hypersalivation, insomnia, lethargy, weakness, agitation and confusion; highconcentrations may cause convulsions, stupor, tremors, and coma; headache,dizziness, sleepiness, weakness, and lossof appetite may persist for 2 to 4 weeks. 

CNS NA

Ethyl benzene

100-41-4 1.4 0.5 D 

Headache, nausea, weakness, dizziness, sleepiness, fatigue, loss of coordination,and coma. 

CNS 

Odor:

0.062 mg

 Taste

0.025 mg

Ethylene dibromide 

106-93-4 0.0012 0.0004 B2

Liver and kidney damage, vomiting, excitement and other CNS effects; may affect fertility in males; cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, REPR 

NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-52 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Fenamiphos 

22224-92-6 0.007 0.002 D 

Nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, salivation, headache, dizziness, weakness, runny nose, blurred vision, constricted pupils, incoordination, slurredspeech muscle twitches, random jerky movements, mental confusion,disorientation, drowsiness, difficultybreathing, cardiac irregularities, incontinence, convulsions, and coma. Cumulative toxicity. 

CNS, CVS, ChE Inh NA

Fluoranthene 

206-44-0

5.6 1.9 D 

Fluoranthene can irritate the eyes. Contact may make the skin moresusceptible to the effects of sunlight. Long-term exposure to PAHs can producea variety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mild liver or kidney damage, anemia and other changes in the blood cells, and immunosuppression 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

NA 

Fluorene 

86-73-7 

5.6 1.9 D Skin or eye irritation. Skin, eyes NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-53 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Fonofos 

944-22-9 0.03 0.01 D 

Loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting,abdominal cramps, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, weakness, confusion, blurred vision, constricted pupils, slurred speech,profuse sweating, salivation, and runnynose; cardiac irregularities, difficulty breathing, muscle twitching, paralysis, convulsions, coma, or respiratory arrest may occur. Nervous behavior, tremors, liver damage, GI effects, increased nasal, salivary and lacrimal secretions. 

CNS, CVS, ChE Inh NA

Heptachlor

76-44-8 0.007 0.002 B2

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, kidney and liver damage; hyperexcitability, tremors, convulsions, and paralysis. Cumulative toxicity; blood dyscrasias. Reducedfertility has been observed in animalstudies; cancer. 

CNS, liver NA 

Heptachlor epoxide 

1024-57-3 0.0002 0.00006 B2

Apprehension, agitation, muscle twitching and spasms, tremor, incoordination, vomiting, GI upset, abdominal pain; convulsions; kidneyinjury and liver damage; cancer. 

CNS, liver NA 

Hexachlorobenzene 

118-74-1 0.004 0.0013 B2

Headache, nausea, cyanosis, muscle spasm, convulsions, liver injury, birthdefects. Porphyria cutanea tarda, enlargement of the thyroid and lymph nodes, reduced bone density, skinphotosensitization, liver, kidney, and lungdamage. 

CNS, blood,liver, kidneys NA

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-54 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Lead compounds 

No specified CAS. 

(measured as

Total Lead) 

0.015 0.015 -- 

Anxiety, irritability, insomnia, lack of appetite, anemia, headache, muscle weakness, restlessness, reproductive effects in developing fetus arepronounced. Possible kidney and reproductive effects after longer chronic exposures. 

CNS, fetus NA 

Lindane 

58-89-9 

*TB MED 577

0.6 0.2 C 

Irritability, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, dizziness, malaise, headache,nausea, fever, cyanosis, vomiting, and loss of muscle coordination; higher exposure can cause muscle spasms, seizures, and convulsions. Liver and kidney damage; may affect fertility; cancer. 

CNS, REPR NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-55 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Magnesium

7439-95-4 

*TB MED 577

100 30 NA 

Laxative effects that can lead to dehydration, with symptoms ofdiscomfort, weariness, apathy, impaired coordination, delirium, and heat stroke. 

GI tract NA 

Malathion

121-75-5 0.3 0.1 D 

Miosis, blurred vision, tearing, increasedsalivation, weakness, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, giddiness,confusion, loss of muscle coordination,runny nose, headache, chest tightness, difficulty breathing, pulmonary edema, muscle twitching, coma, respiratory distress, cardiac irregularities, andconvulsions. Chronic exposure can causefatigue, visual disturbances, headache,nausea, abdominal pain, and twitching;kidney and liver damage; may affectfertility. 

Lungs, liver, CNS, CVS, ChE Inh

NA 

Mercury (inorganic)

7439-97-6 0.002 0.0007 D 

Tremors, peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, memory loss, personality changes, kidney damage, cough, chest pain, difficultybreathing, liver damage, diarrhea, nausea,vomiting. Reduced visual acuity, tremor, ataxia, nerve fiber degeneration, loss oftaste, smell, change in motor function,loss of higher mental function, irritability, headache, fatigue, weakness, loss ofmemory, depression, insomnia, apathy, hallucinations, seizures, mania; birthdefects, kidney damage, dementia. 

CNS NA

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-56 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Mercury (Methyl)

22967-92-6 0.0042 0.0014 NA 

Paresthesia, impaired hearing, taste and small; slurred speech, unsteady gait, muscle weakness, irritability, memory loss, depression, insomnia, ataxia, loss ofvisual acuity, tremors, confusion,hallucinations, excitement, loss of consciousness; nerve degeneration. Reproductive effects are possible. 

CNS, kidneys NA 

Methyl ethyl ketone

78-93-3 8.4 2.8 D Headache, dizziness, vomiting. CNS, Skin Taste: 0.05 mg

Methyl parathion 

298-00-0 0.04 0.013 D 

Nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, salivation, headache, weakness, giddiness, dizziness, runny nose, blurred vision, miosis, cardiac arrhythmias and ischemia, difficulty breathing; muscle twitch, convulsions, liver and kidney damage, coma and respiratory paralysis are possible at high concentrations.Cumulative toxicity. 

Eyes, CNS, CVS, liver, kidneys, ChE Inh

NA 

Molybdenum

7439-98-7 0.07 0.02 NA 

Weight loss, diarrhea, poor muscle coordination, headaches, muscle or joint aching. Changes in liver function, gout,anemia. 

Liver, kidneys, blood 

NA

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-57 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Naphthalene 

91-20-3 0.5 0.17 D 

Headache, profuse perspiration, confusion, listlessness, lethargy, muscle twitching, coma; nausea, vomiting,abdominal cramps, diarrhea; hemolytic anemia, methemoglobinemia; cataracts, liver and kidney damage. 

Eyes, blood , liver, kidneys, CNS 

NA 

Oxamyl

(Vydate) 

23135-22-0 0.35 0.1 E 

Tremors, blurred or dim vision, increasedsalivation, tearing, incontinence, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, nausea, vomiting, and difficulty breathing; convulsions, coma, and respiratory paralysis are possible at high concentration; protected malaise and weakness may persist after apparentrecovery. 

ChE Inh NA 

Paraquat

1910-42-5 0.06 0.02 E 

Abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, bloody diarrhea, headache, difficultyswallowing, fever, decreased blood pressure; higher concentrations can causeheart, kidney and liver injury and extensive lung damage with difficulty breathing, pulmonary fibrosis and edema;may reduce fertility in males. Edema, interstitial bleeding; lung, kidney, and liver damage. 

Lung, liver, kidneys, GItract 

NA 

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-58 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Phenanthrene 

85-01-8 4.2 1.4 D 

Contact may make the skin moresusceptible to the effects of sunlight(photosensitization). As with other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxicity following short-termexposure is low. Long-term exposure toPAHs can produce a variety of noncancer effects including irritation of theeyes and photosensitivity, mild liver orkidney damage, anemia and otherchanges in the blood cells, and immunosuppression. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM, skin 

NA 

n-Propylbenzene 

103-65-1 0.15 0.05 D

Irritation of throat and skin, CNS depression, incoordination, nausea,general anesthetic effects. 

CNS, Skin NA 

Pyrene 

129-00-0 4.2 1.4 D 

Pyrene is irritating to exposed skin and eyes. Contact may make the skin more susceptible to the effects of sunlight. As with other polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), toxicity followingshort-term exposure is low. Long-termexposure to PAHs can produce a variety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mildliver or kidney damage, anemia and other changes in the blood cells, and immunosuppression. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM, skin 

NA 

Simazine 

122-34-9 0.07 0.02 C 

Incoordination, tremor, weakness, musclespasms, difficulty breathing; cancer 

CNS, kidneys, liver NA

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-59 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-60 

Strontium

7440-24-6 8.4 2.8 NA Skin irritation, altered heart function, bone abnormalities. Bone, CVS, skin, eyes NA

Sulfate 

14808-79-8

*TB MED 577

300 100 NA 

Ingestion can cause laxative effects which can lead to dehydration, with symptomsof discomfort, weariness, apathy, impaired coordination, and delirium.

GI tract NA 

Terbufos

13071-79-9 0.00035 0.00012 D 

Nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, excessive salivation, headache,dizziness, weakness, excessive tearing and salivation, ocular pain, blurred vision, constricted pupils, incoordination, slurredspeech, muscle twitches, mental confusion, drowsiness, difficultybreathing, cyanosis, cardiac irregularities, incontinence, convulsions, and coma. Cumulative toxicity is possible. 

CNS, CVS, ChE Inh NA

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

(2,3,7,8-) 

(TCDD) 

1746-01-6 

1.4E-08 4.7E-09 B2

Headache, nausea, vomiting, severemuscle pain, liver damage, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, hair loss, hyperpigmentation, polyneuropathy, neurobehavioral effects, possibleimmunosuppression, thymic atrophy,liver damage. Cumulative toxicity; cancer. 

Liver, skin, kidneys, blood, REPR 

NA 

Toluene 

108-88-3 3 1 D 

Fatigue, nausea, weakness, confusion;higher concentrations can cause headache, vomiting, diarrhea, depressed respiration, loss of muscle coordination.

CNS NA 

Toxaphene 

8001-35-2 0.014 0.005 B2

Salivation, restlessness, hyperexcitability, tremors, spasms and convulsions. Liver and kidney degeneration; possibleimmune system suppression; cancer. 

CNS NA
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Trifluralin1582-09-8 0.1 0.03 C 

Liver and kidney changes, anemia, CNS depression. Occasional vomiting, kidney and liver damage; decreased white and red blood cell counts; cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, blood 

NA

Trimethylbenzene

(1,2,4-) 

95-63-6 

0.7 0.23 NA

Irritation of skin, eyes, nose, throat, bronchitis, anemia, drowsiness, fatigue, nausea 

Eyes, skin, respiratorysystem., CNS, blood 

NA

Trimethylbenzene

(1,3,5-) 

108-67-8

0.7 0.23 NA

Irritation of skin, eyes, nose, throat, bronchitis, anemia, drowsiness, fatigue, nausea 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, blood 

NA

Vanadium

7440-62-2 0.1 0.03 NA 

Vanadium salts can cause abdominal cramping, diarrhea, black stools, and green tongue; bone marrow depressionleading to changes in numbers of white and red blood cells. High concentrationscan cause tremors, headache, and tinnitus. Irregular or slow heartbeat, kidney damage. 

Bone, kidneys, CNS NA 

Xylene 

1330-20-7 40 13 D 

Headache, weakness, dizziness, confusion, nausea, vomiting, abdominalpain, shivering, incoordination, loss ofappetite, tremors, disturbed vision, salivation, and difficulty breathing; liver and kidney damage, and cardiac arrhythmias are possible. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, blood, GItract 

NA

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-61 
US

APPE

Chemical

CAS No. 

5 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

15 L/day † 

1-yr MEG 

(mg/L) 

Cancer 

Group Potential Symptoms

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Odor, Ta

Threshol

Zinc 

7646-85-7 4 1.3 NA 

Severe stomach irritation, nausea,vomiting, and diarrhea (for zinc chloride). GI tract NA 

Footnotes on next page. Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-62 
US

APPE

FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE D-2 – LONG-TERM WATER-MEG VALUES 

† In temperate conditions, the estimated rate of consumption is 5 L/day. In arid regions, the estimated rate of consumptions is 15 L/da

‡ The sources for odor and taste thresholds in water were the USEPA, Health Advisory for individual chemicals and the National LibrHazardous Substance Database (HSDB). § This column shows oral doses that have been estimated to cause the indicated toxic effects. The reported doses were converted into 

(shown in parentheses) for 5 liters/day consumption rates. Divide by 3 to convert to 15 liters/day consumption rates. Estimated lethal d

toxic effect levels were obtained from the TOMES database software system, from Gosselin et al (1976), from Hayes, Pesticides StudieEPA Health Advisory Source documents. 

*TB MED 577 -- These values were taken from *TB MED 577, they are STANDARDS and should not be exceeded. *Department of the Army (DA). Sanitary Control And Surveillance Of Field Water Supplies, Final Draft Technical Bulletin, Medical (Other values obtained from following hierarchy sources [USEPA HA-ADJ > ATSDR MRL-ADJ> USEPA RFD–ADJ] unless otherwis

more details): 

US EPA primary sources:

-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996a. 822-R-96-001, Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories, States Environmental Protection Agency, October 1996.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996b. Soil ScreenGuide. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington D.C -U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1999a. Integrated Risk Information System (Iris). Environmental Criteria AOffice Of Health And Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio

-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1997a. Health Effects Summary Tables (Heast). 1997. USEPA 540/R-97-036, Pb97-921

Development, Office Of Emergency And Remedial Response, U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C

ATSDR primary sources : 

- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1996. Toxicological Profiles. Prepared by Clement Internatio

Contract No. 205-88-0608. Prepared for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Washington

CHID – Chemical Hazard Information for Deployments. Additional Fact Sheet information is under development for notated ChemicaBW – Body weightEEG – electroencephalogram (brain waves) LCLo – Lethal Concentration – low (estimate of small percentage (e.g. 1-5 %) exposed will succumb lethally 

MRL – Minimum Risk LevelNA – Not Available; PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon UD- Under development

Target organ/systems, Carcinogenicity, and units information next page........................Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-63 
US

APPE

TABLE 2-4-1. TARGET ORGANS TABLE 2-4-2. TARGET SYSTEMS 

TARGET ORGANS TARGET SYSTEMS 

Eyes Brain CNS – Central Nervous System CVS – Cardiovascular System

Skin Heart PNS – Peripheral Nervous System ChE Inh – Cholinesterase Inhibitor

Blood Pancreas GI tract – Gastrointestinal Tract UT – Urogenital Tract 

Bladder Adrenal Glands RS – Respiratory System CRC – Circulatory System

Thyroid Lungs LRS – Lower Respiratory System IMM – Immune System

Bone Liver URS – Upper Respiratory System REPR – Reproductive System

Fetus Kidneys ENDO – Endocrine System HEM – Hemopoietic System

Spleen LYMP – Lymphatic System

Units used:

g = grammg = milligram L = liter mL = milliliter mg/kg/day = milligram chemical per kilogram body weight (ingested) per day μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram = ppb = parts per billionmg/L = milligram per liter = ppm = part per millionCancer Class Categories:

The scheme used by the USEPA for categorizing chemicals according to their carcinogenic potential is as follows (see Section 2.4.3):

Group A: Human carcinogenGroup B: Probable human carcinogen:

Group B1 - Limited evidence in epidemiological studies Group B2 - Sufficient evidence from animal studies 

Group C: Possible human carcinogen Limited evidence from animal studies and inadequate or no data in humans. Group D: Not classifiable Group E: No evidence of carcinogenicity

Table D-2. Long-Term Water-MEGs D-64 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX D: Water-MEG Tables 

CHEMICAL INDEX (WATER) 

Acenaphthene D-41 

Acenaphthylene D-41 

Acetone D-41 

Acifluorfen D-3 

Acrylamide D-3 

Acrylonitrile D-3 

Adipate (diethylhexyl) D-3 

Alachlor D-3, 41 

Aldrin D-3, 41 

Ametryn D-3 

Ammonia D-3 

Ammonium sulfamate D-4 

Anthracene D-41 

Antimony D-4 

Aroclor-1016 D-42 

Aroclor-1254 D-42 

Arsenic D4,43 

Atrazine D-4 

Baygon D-5 

Bentazon D-5 

Benzene D-5, 43 

Benzo(a)anthracene D-44 

Benzo(a)pyrene D-44 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene D-44 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene D-45 

Beryllium D-6, 45 

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate D-45 

Boron D-6, 45 

Bromacil D-6 

Bromochloromethane D-6 

Bromodichloromethane D-6, 45 

Bromoform D-7 

Bromomethane D-7 

Butylate D-7 

sec-Butylbenzene D-45 

BZ D-7 

Cadmium D-7, 46 

Carbaryl D-8 

Carbofuran D-8 

Carbon disulfide D-8, 46

Carbon tetrachloride D-9 

Carboxin D-9 

Chloral hydrate D-9 

Chloramben D-10 

Chlordane D-10, 46 

Chloride D-10, 47 

Chlorobenzene D-10 

Chlorodibromo-methane D-10 

Chloroisopropyl ether D-11 

Chloroform D-11, 47 

Chloromethane D-11, 47 

Chlorophenol D-11 

Chlorothalonil D-11, 47 

Chlorotoluene o- D-11 

Chlorotoluene p- D-11 

Chlorpyrifos D-12 

Chromium (total) D-12, 47 

Chromium III D-48 

Chromium VI D-48 

Chrysene D-48 

Copper D-48 

Cumene D-49 

Cyanazine D-12 

Cyanide D-13, 49 

2,4-D (Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) D-13, 49 

Dalapon D-13 

DCPA [Dacthal] D-14 

DDT D-50 

Diazinon D-14, 50

Dibromoacetonitrile D-14 

Dibromochloromethane D-50 

Dibromochloropropane D-14, 50

Dicamba D-14 

Dichloroacetic acid D-14 

Dichloroacetonitrile D-15 

Dichlorobenzene-m D-15 

Dichlorobenzene-o D-15 

Dichlorobenzene-p D-15 

Dichlorodifluoro- methane D-15 

Dichloroethane (1,2-) D-15 

Dichloroethylene (1,1-) D-15 

Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-) D-15 

Dichloroethylene (trans-1,2-) D-16 

Dichloromethane [Methylene chloride]D-16 

Dichlorophenol (2,4-) D-16 

Dichloropropane (1,2-) D-16 

Dichloropropene (1,3-) D-16 

Dieldrin D-16, 51 

Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate D-17 

Diisopropylmethyl-phosphonate D-17 

Dimethrin D-17 

Dimethyl methyl phosphonate D-17 

Dinitrobenzene (1,3-) D-17, 51 

Dinitrotoluene (2,4-) D-17 

Dinitrotoluene (2,6-) D-18 

Dinoseb D-18, 51 

Dioxane (1,4-) D-18 

 D-65 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX D: Water-MEG Tables 

Diphenamid D-18 

Diphenylamine D-18 

Disulfoton D-19, 52 

Dithiane D-19 

Diuron D-19 

EA 2192 D-19 

Endothall D-19 

Endrin D-20, 52 

Epichlorohydrin D-20 

Ethylbenzene D-20, 52 

Ethylene dibromide D-20, 52 

Ethylene glycol D-20 

ETU (Ethylene thiourea) D-21 

Fenamiphos D-21, 53 

Fluometron D-21 

Fluoranthene D-53 

Fluorene D-53 

Fluorotrichloro-methane D-21 

Fonofos D-22, 54 

Formaldehyde D-22 

GA [Tabun] D-22 

GB [Sarin] D-22 

GD [Soman] D-23 

Glyphosate D-23 

Heptachlor D-23, 54 

Heptachlor epoxide D-24, 54 

Hexachlorobenzene D-24, 54 

Hexachlorobutadiene D-24 

Hexachloroethane D-24 

Hexane (n-) D-24 

Hexazinone D-24 

HMX D-24 

Isophorone D-24 

Isopropyl methyl-phosphonate D-24 

Lead compounds D-25, 55 

Lewisite D-25 

Lindane D-25, 55 

Magnesium D-26, 56 

Malathion D-26, 56 

Maleic hydrazide D-26 

MCPA D-27 

Mercury (inorganic) D-56 

Mercury (methyl) D-57 

Methomyl D-27 

Methoxychlor D-27 

Methyl ethyl ketone D-57 

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) D-27 

Methyl parathion D-27, 57 

Metolachlor D-28 

Metribuzin D-28 

Molybdenum D-57 

Molybdenum trioxide D-28 

Naphthalene D-28, 58 

Nickel D-29 

Nitroguanidine D-29 

Nitrophenol p- D-29 

Oxamyl [Vydate] D-29, 58 

Paraquat D-30, 58 

Phenanthrene D-59 

Pentachlorophenol D-30 

Phenol D-30 

Picloram D-30 

Prometon D-30 

Pronamide D-31 

Propachlor D-31 

Propazine D-31 

Propham D-31 

n-Propylbenzene D-59 

Pyrene D-59 

RDX D-31 

Silver D-31 

Simazine D-31, 59 

Strontium D-31, 60 

Styrene D-31 

Sulfate D-32, 60 

Sulfur mustard [HD] D-32 

T-2 toxin D-32 

TCDD D-32 

Tebuthiuron D-33 

Terbacil D-33 

Terbufos D-33, 60 

Tetrachlorodibenzo-dioxin D-60 

Tetrachloroethane (1,1,1,2-) D-33 

Tetrachloroethylene D-33 

Thallium D-33 

Toluene D-34, 60 

Toxaphene D-60 

2,4,5-TP D-34 

Trichloroacetic acid D-34 

Trichloroacetonitrile D-34 

Trichlorobenzene D-35 

Trichloroethane (1,1,1-) D-35 

Trichloroethane (1,1,2-) D-35 

Trichloroethylene D-35 

Trichlorophenoxy-acetic acid D-32 

Trichloropropane D-35 

Trifluralin D-35, 61 

Trimethylbenzene (1,2,4-) D-61 

Trimethylbenzene (1,3,5-) D-61 

Trinitroglycerol D-36 

 D-66 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX D: Water-MEG Tables 

Trinitrotoluene (2,4,6-) D-36 

Vanadium D-61 

Vinyl Chloride D-36 

VX D-36 

Xylenes D-37, 61 

Zinc D-59 

Zinc chloride D-37 

 D-67 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX E: Soil- MEG Table 

APPENDIX 

E

MILITARY EXPOSURE 

GUIDELINES FOR SOIL

CONTENTS

Table E-1. Long-Term, Soil Military Exposure Guidelines (1 Year Deployment) ................................. E-3

Chemical Index......................................................................................................E-28 

 E-1 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX E: Soil- MEG Table 

This page intentionally left blank.

 E-2 
US

A

TABLE E-1. LONG-TERM, SOIL MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES (1 YEAR DEPLOYMENT) 

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Acenaphthene

83-32-9 1300 NA May cause slight changes in the liver. Liver 

Inhalation not includvalue (PAH). MEG level, inhalation is thexposure. Refer to 1

Acenaphthylene

208-96-8 UD D

As with other PAHs, toxicityfollowing short-term exposure is minimal. Long-term exposure toPAHs can produce a variety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes andphotosensitivity, mild liver orkidney damage, anemia and otherchanges in the blood cells. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

No data are availablguidelines for this chconsidered in deriva(PAH).

Acetone 

67-64-1 16 D

Eye, nose and throat irritation,headache, dizziness, CNS depression, dermatitis. 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS 

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Alachlor 

15972-60-8 1000 B2 May damage the liver, kidney, and spleen; cancer. Liver, kidneys, spleen 

Aldrin 

309-00-2 3 B2

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, hyperexcitability, tremors, limbjerks, convulsions, and ventricular fibrillation; reversible kidney and liver injury; cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Ingestion of 25.6 mgconvulsions; a single mg/kg BW) is lethal

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-3 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Anthracene 

120-12-7 6.1 D

Contact may make the skin moresusceptible to the effects ofsunlight. Long-term exposure toPAHs can produce a variety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes andphotosensitivity, mild liver orkidney damage, anemia and otherchanges in the blood cells. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM, skin 

Inhalation not considvalue. MEG based oinhalation is the mosexposure. Refer to 1(PAH).

Aroclor-1016

12674-11-2 7.4 NA

Nausea, vomiting, liver damage, facial edema, abdominal pain, weight loss, diarrhea; headache, dizziness, depression, weakness, transient visual disturbances; chloracne; birth defects, peripheral nerve damage. Cumulative toxicity; liver and kidney damage. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

PCB. Minimal oral dsymptoms is 500 mg absorbed dermally – dermal exposure, a wpolychlorinated biphhyperpigmentation, photosensitivity. 

Aroclor-1254

11097-69-1 5.2 NA

Nausea, vomiting, liver damage, facial edema, abdominal pain, weight loss, diarrhea; headache, dizziness, depression, weakness, transient visual disturbances; chloracne; birth defects, peripheral nerve damage. Cumulative toxicity, liver and kidney damage. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Minimal oral dose eis 500 mg (7 mg/kg dermally – in one caexposure, a worker ebiphenyls developed thickening and photo

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-4 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Arsenic 

7440-38-2 1100 A

Facial swelling, vomiting, loss of appetite, abdominal pain; diarrhea, shock, muscle cramps, headache, chill, cardiac abnormalities, decreased white blood cell count, and enlargement of liver; delayedeffects include sensory and motor peripheral polyneuropathies. Hyperpigmentation of the skin(especially on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet), anemia, weakness, incoordination, mental confusion, cirrhosis of the liver, hair loss and nail changes; cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, CNS, GI tract, IMM 

CHID under develop

Benzene 

71-43-2 310 A

Vomiting, loss of coordination, light-headedness, headache, anemia, shallow/rapid pulse, loss of concentration, delirium,chemical pneumonitis, dizziness, pallor, flushing, weakness, and breathlessness; high concentrations may cause convulsions, coma, orirregular heart beat. Fatigue, headache, dizziness, nausea, loss of appetite, weakness, nosebleeds, pallor, and bleeding gums; bonemarrow damage;immunosuppression; cancer. 

Eyes, skin, RS, blood, CNS, IMM, HEM

The mean lethal oral be 13 g (186 mg/kg blistering and dermadermal exposure; skdermal exposure can under development.

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-5 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Benzo(a)anthracene 

56-55-3 2500 B2

As with other PAHs, toxicityfollowing short-term exposure is minimal. Long-term exposure toPAHs can produce a variety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes andphotosensitivity, mild liver orkidney damage, anemia and otherchanges in the blood cells. Skin contact may cause irritation, erythema (redness), warts orpolyps, and skin cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

Inhalation not considvalue. MEG based oinhalation is the mosexposure. Refer to 1(PAH).

Benzo(a)pyrene

50-32-8 250 B2

Toxicity from short-term exposure is low. Long-term exposure maycause depression of the immune system; mild liver or kidney damage; changes in the blood composition such as aplastic anemia and pancytopenia; and cancer. Effects on the developing fetus have been observed inlaboratory animals. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

Inhalation not considvalue. MEG based oinhalation is the mosexposure. Refer to 1(PAH).

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 

205-99-2 2500 B2

Toxicity from short-term exosure is low. Long-term exposure maycause depression of the immune system; mild liver and kidneydamage; anemia and other changes in the blood cells; and cancer. Skincontact may cause irritation, erythema (redness), warts orpolyps, and skin cancer. 

Liver, kidney, blood, IMM 

Inhalation not considvalue. MEG based oinhalation is the mosexposure. Refer to 1(PAH).

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-6 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 

207-08-9 3100 B2

Toxicity from short-term exosure is low. Long-term exposure maycause depression of the immune system; mild liver and kidneydamage; anemia and other changes in the blood cells; and cancer. Skincontact may cause irritation, erythema (redness), warts orpolyps, and skin cancer. 

Liver, kidney, blood, IMM 

Inhalation not considvalue. MEG based oinhalation is the mosexposure. Refer to 1(PAH).

Beryllium

7440-41-7 16000 B2

Low acute toxicity by ingestion.Rickets (fragile or weakenedbones); cancer. 

Bone Evidence of carcino

beryllium.

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

117-81-7 2900 B2

Eye irritation, liver damage, possible teratogenic and carcinogenic effects. 

Eyes, skin, RS., CNS,liver, REPR, GI tract 

Sec-Butylbenzene

135-98-8 230 NA

Irritation of eyes, nose, throat, and skin, CNS depression, incoordination, nausea, generalanesthetic effects. 

Eyes, RS, skin 

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Cadmium

7440-43-9 130 B1

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle cramps, salivation, sensorydisturbances, liver injury, convulsions, shock, and renalfailure. Pain resulting fromsoftening or decalcification of the bones, osteoporosis, irreversiblekidney disease, anemia; cancer. 

Kidneys, liver 

Ingestion of 3 mg (0cause vomiting; 30 msoluble cadmium salsymptoms; 350 mg (fatal. 

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-7 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Carbon disulfide 

75-15-0 720 NA

Dizziness, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, palpitations and weakness; highconcentrations may cause psychosis, tremor, delirium, coma, muscle spasm, convulsions, difficulty breathing, and liverdamage. Decreased fertility inmales and females.

CNS, PNS, liver, REPR 

Systemic effects can absorption following MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Chlordane 

57-74-9 62 B2

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, excitability, confusion,weakness, incoordination; highconcentrations may cause delirium, muscle spasms, convulsions or seizures, coma, pulmonary edema, and difficulty breathing. Kidney and liver degeneration; blooddyscrasias; cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Ingestion of 28 to 56 severe effects such ahuman dose lies betwof symptoms occurs hours after ingestionthe skin. 

Chloromethane 

(Methyl chloride) 

74-87-3 

3700 C

Headache, drowsiness, giddiness, dizziness, confusion,incoordination, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, breathing difficulties; highconcentrations may cause unconsciousness, convulsions, coma, visual disturbances, and maydamage the kidneys, liver, orblood; cancer.

CNS, liver, kidneys, REPR 

Symptoms of chlorodelayed in onset. Brfrom constant skin a

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-8 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Chlorothalonil

1897-45-6 1500 B2

Vomiting, rapid breathing, GIirritation, weakness, and sedation.Cumulative toxicity; incoordination, rapid breathing, hematuria (blood in the urine), nosebleed, delayed hypersensitivity; cancer. 

CNS, GI tract, UT 

Chromium (total) 

7440-47-3 5700 D

The toxicity of chromium has beenattributed primarily to hexavalentchromium compounds. 

Kidneys, liver 

Chromium III 

16065-83-1 390000 D

Hexavalent chromium compounds are more toxic than trivalent chromium compounds. 

Kidneys, liver 

Chromium VI 

18540-29-9 5300 A

Ingestion of hexavalent chromiumcompounds may cause GIirritation, epigastric pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, liver and kidney damage, internal bleeding,circulatory collapse, unconsciousness, and death. Reduced fertility and birth defects are possible; cancer. 

Kidneys, liver 

Doses of 0.5 – 1.5 g 

have been fatal. Carcarcinogenicity via odetermined and is cl

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-9 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Chrysene

218-01-9 3100 B2

Toxicity from short-term exposure is low. Long-term exposure maycause depression of the immune system; mild liver and kidneydamage; anemia and other changes in the blood cells; and cancer. Skincontact may cause irritation, erythema (redness), warts orpolyps, and skin cancer. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM 

Inhalation not considvalue. MEG based oinhalation is the mosexposure. Refer to 1(PAH).

Cumene

98-82-8 640 D

Irritation to eyes, skin, mucousmembranes; dermatitis; headache, narcosis, coma. 

CNS, URS, eyes, skin

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Cyanide 

57-12-5 110000 D

Headache, breathlessness,weakness, palpitation, nausea,vomiting, giddiness, tremor, rapid heart beat, dizziness, confusion, anxiety, agitation, confusion,cardiac arrhythmias, seizures, stupor, and coma. CNS effects (insomnia, memory loss, tremors);degeneration of spinal cord andoptic nerve; enlargement of the thyroid gland; reduced fertility and birth defects are possible. 

CNS, RS, CVS, liver, kidneys 

Concentrations betwmay cause changes iclinical effects. Sevsymptoms may occuto 3.4 mg/kg BW; co3.4 mg/kg BW life-t

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-10 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

2,4-D 

(2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)

94-75-7 

1000 D

Nervous system damage, vomiting, diarrhea, lethargy, incoordination,weakness, paralysis, stupor, miosis, stiffness in the extremities, muscle twitching and spasms, lowered blood pressure, convulsions; transient liver andkidney damage; may cause birth defects and reduced fertility. Cumulative toxicity; CNS, kidney, and liver damage. 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Ingestion of a single repeated doses of 7 mcaused no effects. Thas been estimated tSurvival following a BW has been reportabsorbed. 

P,p’-DDT 

50-29-3 52 B2

Vomiting, tingling of lips, tongue, and face; malaise, headache, sorethroat, fatigue, tremors; apprehension, ataxia, confusion, convulsions, coma and partial paralysis. Estrogenic effects; mayreduce fertility; cancer. 

Eyes, skin, CNS, kidneys, liver, PNS 

Diazinon 333-41-5 52 E

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, weakness, excessive tearing and salivation, ocular pain, blurring/dimness ofvision, miosis, loss of muscle coordination, slurred speech,muscle twitching, disorientation, drowsiness, difficulty breathing, hypertension, hypotention, cardiac arrhythmias, random jerkymovements, incontinence, convulsions, and coma. Cumulative toxicity; loss of visual acuity. 

Eyes, RS, CNS, CVS, blood, ChE Inh

Is efficiently absorb

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-11 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Dibromochloropropane 

96-12-8 210 B2

GI distress; may damage the kidney, liver, and testes. Kidney and liver damage, atrophy of the testes and sterility in males; cancer. 

Liver, CNS, kidneys, spleen, REPR, GI tract 

Dieldrin

60-57-1 5.2 B2

Early signs of toxicity are headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, malaise, sweating,tremors, limb jerks, EEG changes, convulsions, and coma; secondary effects include hypertension, cardiac arrhythmias, and fever; sleep, memory, behavioraldisturbances, headache, and convulsions may persist for months following exposure.Cumulative toxicity; fainting, muscle spasms, tremors, weight loss, reduced psychomotor skills, hemolytic anemia; reproductive effects may occur; cancer. 

CNS 

No effects were seen of 0.21 mg. Serious dose of 10 mg/kg BWprofuse vomiting or acute mean lethal doestimated to lie betwOral doses of dieldriμg over a period of effects in volunteersabsorbed through sk

Dinitrobenzene (1,3-)

99-65-0 450 D

Methemoglobinemia associated with headache, irritability, dizziness, weakness, nausea,lethargy, shortness of breath, liver damage. May cause reduced fertility and birth defects. 

Blood, liver, CNS, CVS 

The lethal dose has bbetween 5 and 50 mabsorbed through skcan cause yellowing 

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-12 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Dinoseb 

88-85-7 100 D

Nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain,marked thirst, fatigue, sweating,facial flushing, rapid heart beat, fever, weight loss, respiratorydistress, cyanosis, restlessness, anxiety, muscle cramps, excitement, convulsions, and coma. Liver or kidney damage;cataracts; may affect fertility. 

CNS, REPR 

Disulfoton

298-04-4 30 NA

Headache, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, weakness, dizziness, confusion, slurred speech,salivation, tearing, profuse sweating, shortness of breath,tightness of the chest, changes inheart rate, cyanosis, moisis, blurred vision, runny nose, slow pulse, muscle twitching, tremors, muscle cramps, incoordination, convulsions, coma, and shock. Decreased visual acuity, liver injury, altered tendon reflexes. 

Eyes, RS, CNS, CVS, ChE Inh

Oral doses of 0.75 mproduced no significThe human LD50 has 

mg/kg BW. 

Endrin 

72-20-8 45 D

Headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, hypersalivation,insomnia, lethargy, weakness, agitation and confusion; highconcentrations may cause convulsions, stupor, tremors, and coma; headache, dizziness, sleepiness, weakness, and loss of appetite may persist for 2 to 4 weeks. 

CNS 

Convulsions may be doses of 0.2 to 0.25 mg/kg can induce recan be absorbed thro

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-13 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Ethyl benzene

100-41-4 230 D

Headache, nausea, weakness, dizziness, sleepiness, fatigue, loss of coordination, and coma. 

CNS 

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Ethylene dibromide 

106-93-4 0.37 B2

Liver and kidney damage, vomiting, excitement and other CNS effects; may affect fertility inmales; cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, REPR 

A single oral dose olethal. May be abso

Fenamiphos 

22224-92-6 52 D

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramps, diarrhea, salivation, headache, dizziness, weakness, runny nose, blurred vision, constricted pupils, incoordination,slurred speech, muscle twitches, random jerky movements, mentalconfusion, disorientation, drowsiness, difficulty breathing, cardiac irregularities, incontinence, convulsions, and coma. Cumulative toxicity. 

CNS, CVS, ChE Inh May be absorbed thr

Fluoranthene 

206-44-0 42000 D

Toxicity from short-term exposure is low. Long-term exposure maycause depression of the immune system; mild liver and kidneydamage; anemia and other changes in the blood cells. Skin contact may cause irritation, erythema(redness), warts or polyps. 

Liver, kidney, blood, IMM 

Inhalation not considvalue 

Fluorene 

86-73-7 90 D Eye or skin irritation. Skin, eyes 

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-14 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Fonofos 

944-22-9 220 D

Loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting,abdominal cramps, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, weakness, confusion, blurred vision,constricted pupils, slurred speech, profuse sweating, salivation, andrunny nose; cardiac irregularities, difficulty breathing, muscletwitching, paralysis, convulsions, coma, or respiratory arrest may occur. Nervous behavior, tremors, liver damage, GI effects, increased nasal, salivary and lacrimal secretions. 

CNS, CVS, ChE Inh May be absorbed thr

GA 

(TABUN) 

77-81-6 

4.6 NA

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramps, diarrhea, headache, giddiness, dizziness, weakness, excessive tearing, blurred or dimvision, miosis, loss of muscle coordination, slurred speech,muscle twitching, confusion,disorientation, drowsiness, difficulty breathing, excessivesalivation, cardiac arrhythmias, random jerking movements, incontinence, convulsions, coma. 

CNS, ChE Inh See Table C-1 for ad

GB 

(Sarin) 

107-44-8

2.7 NA SEE GA SEE GA See Table C-1 for ad

GD 

(Soman) 

96-64-0 

0.27 NA SEE GA SEE GA See Table C-1 for ad

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-15 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Heptachlor

76-44-8 52 B2

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, kidneyand liver damage; hyperexcitability, tremors, convulsions, and paralysis. Cumulative toxicity; blooddyscrasias. Reduced fertility has been observed in animal studies; cancer. 

CNS, liver 

A dose of 1 to 3 g haserious symptoms in impairment; can be aestimated dermal tox46 g (657 mg/kg BWBW) for multiple ex

Heptachlor epoxide 

1024-57-3 1.5 B2

Apprehension, agitation, muscle twitching and spasms, tremor, incoordination, vomiting, GI upset, abdominal pain; convulsions;kidney injury and liver damage; cancer. 

CNS, liver 

Hexachlorobenzene 

118-74-1 31 B2

Headache, nausea, cyanosis, muscle spasm, convulsions, liver injury, birth defects. Porphyria cutanea tarda, enlargement of the thyroid and lumph nodes, reducedbone density, skinphotosensitization, liver, kidney,and lung damage; cancer. 

CNS, blood,liver, kidneys 

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-16 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Lead 

7439-92-1 2200 B2

Loss of appetite, malaise, insomnia, headache, irritability, muscle and joint pains, cramping abdominal pain, tremors, hallucinations, distorted perceptions, muscle weakness, gastritis, skin pallor due to anemia, and dark gray-blue lines of leadsulfide visible in gums. Hypertension, irreversible kidneydamage; may affect fertility and reproduction (fetal effects); cancer. 

CNS, blood,kidneys, GItract, CVS; REPR, fetus 

Continuous long-terthrough soil to levelresult in blood lead lwhich is the OSHA individuals planning However, OSHA all“permissible” blood workers below whicmonitoring or workprequired. The MEG of lead is recommendation for level (range 2000-50information is currenTSCA, Section 403)development.

Lead (Tetraethyl) 

78-00-2 0.026

Anxiety, irritability, insomnia, nightmares, lack of appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, muscle weakness, restlessness, visual difficulties, fatigue, bradycardia, hypotension,delusions, incoordination, mania, psychosis, hallucinations,convulsions, coma, and death;reproductive effects may bepossible. Cumulative toxicity, ataxia, tremors, polyneuropathy. 

CNS

Lewisite 

542-25-3 11 NA*

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, intense thirst, restlessness, weakness, hypotension, and hypothermia. 

GI tract, heart, brain, kidneys 

Breakdown of lewisenvironment; lewisitcontain arsenic whicarsenic). 

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-17 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Lindane 

58-89-9 560 C

Irritability, restlessness, insomnia, anxiety, dizziness, malaise, headache, nausea, fever, cyanosis, vomiting, and loss of musclecoordination; higher exposure can cause muscle spasms, seizures, and convulsions. Liver and kidneydamage; may affect fertility; cancer. 

CNS, REPR The mean lethal dos

mg/kg BW. Can be 

Malathion

121-75-5 2200 D

Miosis, blurred vision, tearing,increased salivation, weakness, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, giddiness,confusion, loss of musclecoordination, runny nose, headache, chest tightness, difficulty breathing, pulmonaryedema, muscle twitching, coma, respiratory distress, cardiac irregularities, and convulsions. Chronic exposures can cause fatigue, visual disturbances,headache, nausea, abdominal pain, and twitching; kidney and liver damage; may affect fertility. 

Lungs, liver, CNS, heart, ChE Inh

No effects were seen single oral dose of 0doses of 16 mg/day dose is believed to bBW.

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-18 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Mercury (inorganic)

7439-97-6 33 D

Tremors, peripheral neuropathy,fatigue, memory loss, personality changes, kidney damage, cough,chest pain, difficulty breathing, liver damage, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting. Reduced visual acuity, tremor, ataxia, nerve fiber degeneration, loss of taste, smell,change in motor function, loss ofhigher mental function, irritability, headache, fatigue, weakness, loss of memory, depression, insomnia, apathy, hallucinations, seizures, mania; birth defects, kidneydamage, dementia. 

CNS Dermal exposure can 

particularly if the sk

Mercury (Methyl)

22967-92-6 31 C

Paresthesia, impaired hearing, taste and smell; slurred speech, unsteady gait, muscle weakness, irritability, memory loss, depression, insomnia, ataxia, loss of visual acuity, tremors, confusion, hallucinations, excitement, loss of consciousness; nerve degeneration. Reproductive effects are possible;cancer. 

CNS, kidneys 

Single oral doses of been fatal. Methyl mabsorbed. 

Methyl ethyl ketone

78-93-3 34000 D Irritation, CNS, reproductive effects. Fetus, CNS MEG based on Csat

the most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-19 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Methyl parathion 

298-00-0 310 D

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramps, diarrhea, salivation, headache, weakness, giddiness, dizziness, runny nose, blurredvision, miosis, cardiac arrhythmias and ischemia, difficulty breathing; muscle twitch, convulsions, liver and kidney damage, coma and respiratory paralysis are possible at high concentrations. Cumulative toxicity. 

Eyes, CNS, CVS, liver, kidneys, ChE Inh

Volunteers receiving suffered no ill effectcell cholinesterase omg/day which was cminimal toxicity. Inresulted in death; the dose by the oral routCan be absorbed thr

Molybdenum

7439-98-7 1300 NA

Weight loss, diarrhea, poor muscle coordination, headaches, muscle or joint aching. Changes in liver function, gout, anemia. 

Liver, kidneys, blood 

Naphthalene 

91-20-3 220 C

Headache, profuse perspiration, confusion, listlessness, lethargy, muscle twitching, coma; nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea; hemolytic anemia, methemoglobinemia; cataracts, liver and kidney damage. 

Eyes, blood,liver, kidneys, CNS 

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG (PA

Oxamyl

(Vydate) 

23135-22-0

3000

Tremors, blurred or dim vision, increased salivation, tearing,incontinence, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, nausea, vomiting, anddifficulty breathing; convulsions, coma, and respiratory paralysis are possible at high concentrations;protracted malaise and weakness may persist after apparentrecovery. 

ChE Inh

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-20 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Paraquat

1910-42-5 1100 C

Abdominal cramping, nausea,vomiting, bloody diarrhea, headache, difficulty swallowing, fever, decreased blood pressure;higher concentrations can cause heart, kidney and liver injury and extensive lung damage withdifficulty breathing, pulmonaryfibrosis and edema; may reduce fertility in males. Edema, interstitial bleeding; lung, kidney, and liver damage; cancer. 

Lungs, liver, kidneys, GItract 

Single oral doses of fatalities. 

Phenanthrene 

85-01-8 270 D

Contact may make the skin moresusceptible to the effects ofsunlight (photosensitization). As with other polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHs), toxicity following short-term exposure is low. Long-term exposure to PAHs can produce a variety of noncancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mild liver or kidney damage, anemia and other changes in the blood cells, andimmunosuppression. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM, skin 

Inhalation not considvalue. MEG based oinhalation is the mosexposure. Refer to 1

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-21 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Polychlorinated biphenyls 

1336-36-3 2.1 B2

Exposure may cause skin and mucous membrane irritation, skin hyperpigmentation, chloracne,headache, abnormal liver function tests, hepatomegaly, malaise,peripheral neurotoxicity, liver disease and cirrhosis. Swelling of the face and eyelides, transient visual disturbances,hypothyroidism, GI distress, jaundice, and nephrotoxicity have also been reported. 

PNS, liver, kidneys 

n-Propylbenzene 

103-65-1 240 D

Irritation of eyes, nose, throat, and skin, CNS depression, incoordination, nausea, generalanesthetic effects. 

Eyes, RS, skin 

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG (PA

Pyrene 

129-00-0 31000 D

Pyrene is irritating to exposed skinand eyes. Contact may make the skin more susceptible to the effects of sunlight. As with other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), toxicity following shortterm exposure is low. Long-termexposure to PAHs can produce a variety of non-cancer effects including irritation of the eyes and photosensitivity, mild liver orkidney damage, anemia and otherchanges in the blood cells, and immunosuppression. 

Liver, kidneys, blood, IMM, skin 

Inhalation not considvalue. Refer to 1-ye

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-22 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Simazine 

122-34-9 520 C

Incoordination, tremor, weakness, muscle spasms, difficulty breathing; cancer. 

CNS, kidneys, liver 

Strontium

7440-24-6 140000 NA Skin and eye irritation, altered heart function, bone abnormalities. Bone, heart, skin, eyes 

Sulfur Mustard (HD)

505-60-2 0.51 A 

Powerful skin irritation and blistering, severe eye injury, permanent loss of vision. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea can follow ingestion. 

Eyes, skin, GI tract 

Effects (e.g skin/eye delayed 2-24 hours psuspected exposure immediate and thoroas rinsing with 0.05 

TCDD (2,3,7,8-)

1746-01-6 0.0048 B2

Headache, nausea, vomiting, severe muscle pain, liver damage, chloracne, porphyria cutanea tarda, hair loss, hyperpigmentation, polyneuropathy, neurobehavioraleffects, possible immunosuppression, thymicatrophy, liver damage. Cumulative toxicity; cancer. 

Liver, skin, kidneys, blood, REPR 

Single oral lethal dobe greater than 100 μcumulative toxic dos0.1 μg/kg BW.

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-23 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Terbufos

13071-79-9 2.6 NA

Nausea, vomiting, abdominalcramps, diarrhea, excessive salivation, headache, dizziness, weakness, excessive tearing and salivation, ocular pain, blurredvision, constricted pupils, incoordination, slurred speech, muscle twitches, mental confusion, drowsiness, difficulty breathing, cyanosis, cardiac irregularities, incontinence, convulsions, andcoma. Cumulative toxicity is possible. 

CNS, CVS, ChE Inh

Toluene 

108-88-3 520 D

Fatigue, nausea, weakness,confusion; higher concentrationscan cause headache, vomiting, diarrhea, depressed respiration, loss of muscle coordination. 

CNS 

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Toxaphene 

8001-35-2 100 B2

Salivation, restlessness, hyperexcitability, tremors, spasmsand convulsions. Liver and kidneydegeneration; possible immune system suppression; cancer. 

CNS 

The acute oral LD50 

60 mg/kg BW. Can skin; skin absorption 

Trifluralin1582-09-8 740 C

Liver and kidney changes, anemia, CNS depression. Occasional vomiting, kidney and liverdamage; decreased kidney and liver damage; decreased white and red blood cell counts; cancer. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, blood 

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-24 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Trimethylbenzene (1,2,4-) 

95-63-6 5.8 NA

Irritation of skin, eyes, nose,throat, bronchitis, anemia, drowsiness, fatigue, nausea 

Eyes, skin, RS, CNS, blood 

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Trimethylbenzene (1,3,5-) 

108-67-8 250 NA

Irritation of skin, eyes, nose,throat, bronchitis, anemia, drowsiness, fatigue, nausea 

Eyes, skin, respiratorysystem, CNS, Blood

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Vanadium

7440-62-2 1600 NA

Vanadium salts can causeabdominal cramping, diarrhea, black stools, and green tongue; bone marrow depression leading tochanges in numbers of white and red blood cells. Highconcentrations can cause tremors,headache, and tinnitus. Irregular or slow heartbeat, kidney damage. 

Kidneys, CNS, HEM 

Metallic vanadium hubiquitous in soils a

are normally ingesteingestion of 60-120 be fatal. Pentavalenthe most toxic. The are primarily those o

VX 

50782-69-9 0.079 NA

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps, headache, giddiness, dizziness, excessive salivation, tearing, miosis, blurredor dim vision, miosis, difficultybreathing, cardiac arrhythmias, loss of muscle coordination, muscle twitching, random jerkingmovements, convulsions, coma. 

CNS, ChE Inh See Table C-1 for ad

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-25 
US

A

Chemical

CAS No. 

1-yr

soil 

MEG

(mg/kg) 

Cancer 

Class Potential Symptoms †

Target 

Organs and

Systems 

Xylene 

1330-20-7 210 D

Headache, weakness, dizziness, confusion, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, shivering,incoordination, loss of appetite, tremors, disturbed vision, salivation, and difficulty breathing;liver and kidney damage, and cardiac arrhythmias are possible. 

CNS, liver, kidneys, blood, GItract 

MEG based on Csatthe most probable ro1-year Air-MEG. 

Zinc 

7646-85-7 69000 D

Severe stomach irritation, nausea,vomiting, and diarrhea (for zinc chloride). 

GI tract 

Footnotes on next page. Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-26 
US

A

FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE E-1 SOIL-MEG VALUES 

§ This column shows oral doses that have been estimated to cause the indicated toxic effects. The term BW was added to reported doses to differenti

(70 kg) and mg/kg soil as shown in the “MEG” Column. Chemicals that can be absorbed through the skin are also noted in this column. Unless other

toxicity listed in this column is based on acute dermal exposures. Estimated lethal doses and approximate toxic effect levels were obtained from the Tsystem, from Gosselin, et al (1976), from Hayes, Pesticides Studies in Man, and from the USEPA Health Advisory Source documents. Information on 

dermal exposure was obtained from the TOMES database (intranet/DVD version; expires January 2000), see RD230. 

Csat – Soil saturation concentration, the highest concentration expected in soil due to the volatility of the substance. CHID – Chemical Hazard Information for Deployments. Additional Fact Sheet information is under development for notated ChemicaBW – Body weightEEG – electroencephalogram (brain waves) LCLo – Lethal Concentration – low (estimate of small percentage (e.g. 1-5 %) exposed will succumb lethally 

MRL – Minimum Risk LevelNA – Not Available; PAH – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 

TABLE 2-4-1. TARGET ORGANS TABLE 2-4-2. TARGET SYSTEMS 

TARGET ORGANS TARGET SYSTEMS 

Eyes Brain CNS – Central Nervous System CVS – Cardiovascular System

Skin Heart PNS – Peripheral Nervous System ChE Inh – Cholinesterase Inhibitor

Blood Pancreas GI tract – Gastrointestinal Tract UT – Urogenital Tract 

Bladder Adrenal Glands RS – Respiratory System CRC – Circulatory System

Thyroid Lungs LRS – Lower Respiratory System IMM – Immune System

Bone Liver URS – Upper Respiratory System REPR – Reproductive System

Fetus Kidneys ENDO – Endocrine System HEM – Hemopoietic System

Spleen LYMP – Lymphatic System

Units used:μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram = ppb = parts per billion mg/kg = milligram per liter = ppm = part per million mg/kg/day ==milligram chemical per kilogram body weight (ingested) per dayCancer Class Categories:The scheme used by the USEPA for categorizing chemicals according to their carcinogenic potential is as follows (see Section 2.4.3):Group A: Human carcinogen Group B: Probable human carcinogen: 

Group B1 - Limited evidence in epidemiological studies Group B2 - Sufficient evidence from animal studies 

Group C: Possible human carcinogen Limited evidence from animal studies and inadequate or no data in humans. Group D: Not classifiable Group E: No evidence of carcinogenicity

Table E-1. Long-Term Soil-MEGs E-27 
USACHPPM TG 230, January 2002 Draft Final 

APPENDIX E: Soil-MEG Table 

CHEMICAL INDEX (SOIL) 

Acenaphthene E-3 

Acenaphthylene E-3 

Acetone E-3 

Alachlor E-3 

Aldrin E-3 

Anthracene E-4 

Aroclor (1016) E-4 

Aroclor (1254) E-4 

Arsenic E-5 

Benzene E-5 

Benzo(a)anthracene E-6 

Benzo(a)pyrene E-6 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene E-6 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene E-7 

Beryllium E-7 

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate E-7 

Sec-Butylbenzene E-7 

Cadmium E-7 

Carbon disulfide E-8 

Chlordane E-8 

Chloromethane E-8 

Chlorothalonil E-9 

Chromium (total) E-9 

Chromium III E-9 

Chromium VI E-9 

Chrysene E-10 

Cumene E-10 

Cyanide E-10 

Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid E-11 

DDT E-11 

Diazinon E-11 

Dibromochloropropane E-12 

Dieldrin E-12 

Dinitrobenzene E-12 

Dinoseb E-13 

Disulfoton E-13 

Endrin E-13 

Ethylbenzene E-14 

Ethylene dibromide E-14 

Fenamiphos E-14 

Fluoranthene E-14 

Fluorene E-14 

Fonofos E-15 

GA (Tabun) E-15 

GB (Sarin) E-15 

GD (Soman) E-15 

Heptachlor E-16 

Heptachlor epoxide E-16 

Hexachlorobenzene E-16 

Lead E-17 

Lead (tetraethyl) E-17 

Lewisite E-17 

Lindane E-18 

Malathion E-18 

Mercury (inorganic) E-19 

Mercury (methyl) E-19 

Methyl ethyl ketone E-19 

Methyl parathion E-20 

Molybdenum E-20 

Naphthalene E-20 

Oxamyl E-20

Paraquat E-21 

Phenanthrene E-21 

Polychlorinated biphenyls E-22 

n-Propylbenzene E-22 

Pyrene E-22 

Simazine E-23 

Strontium E-23 

Sulfur Mustard (HD) E-23 

TCDD E-23 

Terbufos E-24 

Toluene E-24 

Toxaphene E-24 

Trifluralin E-24 

Trimethylbenzene (1,2,4-) E-25 

Trimethylbenzene (1,3,5-) E-25 

Vanadium E-25 

VX E-25

Xylene E-26 

Zinc E-26 

 E-28 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

APPENDIX 

F HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDIES

The purpose of these hypothetical case studies is to illustrate how preventive medicine personnel can use 

the Military Exposure Guidelines (MEGs) as a tool to support operational risk management activities. 

These case studies are not designed to specifically represent real-life situations, but to demonstrate how, 

given certain information, the MEGs can be used in context with environmental data. The reference 

tables are provided as quick references for use during review of the case studies. 

REFERENCE TABLES 

Table F-1. Example OEH Chemical Risk Assessment Summary Table .................................................. F-3

Table F-2. Chemical Hazard Severity Ranking for Military Deployments.............................................. F-4

Table F-3. Chemical Hazard Probability Ranking Chart For Military Deployments............................... F-5

Table F-4. Risk Assessment Matrix (FM 100-14).................................................................................... F-5

CASE STUDIES 

CS-1 Wartime Chlorine Plume ............................................................................................................... F-7

CS-2 Cyanide in Proposed Water Supply............................................................................................. F-15

CS-3 Peacekeeping Site Reconnaissance ............................................................................................. F-21

CS-4 Drinking Water: Chemical Exposure and Dehydration............................................................... F-31

CS-5 Assessing Base Camp Air Quality............................................................................................... F-35

CS-6 Selecting a Drinking Water Source ............................................................................................. F-41

CS-7 Selection of Base Camp Sites...................................................................................................... F-49

 F-1
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

This page intentionally left blank.

 F-2
TABLE F-1. EXAMPLE OEH CHEMICAL RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE 

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

Symptoms:Incidence: 

Symptoms:Incidence: 

 F-3
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE F-2. CHEMICAL HAZARD SEVERITY RANKING CHART FOR MILITARY DEPLOYMENTS 

WATER < MEG 

≥ MEG that is not 

based on TB MED 577 

(See Water Note)

≥ MEG that is based 

on TB MED 577

(See Water Note)

See Water Note See Water Note 

SOIL < MEG ≥ MEG 

(See Soil Note) See Soil Note See Soil Note See Soil Note 

MAGNITUDE OF CHEMICAL 

CONCENTR

A

TION 

AIR 

< 1-yr MEG 

or 

< 14-day

MEG 

≥ 1-yr MEG or 

≥ 14-day MEG 

but 

≤ 1 to 24-hr MinMEGs 

> 1-yr MEG or 

>14-day MEG 

but 

> 1 to 24-hr

Min-MEGs 

> 1-hr Min-MEG but 

< 1-hr Sig-MEG 

>1-hr Sig-MEG 

but 

≤ 1-hr Sev-MEG

> 1 hr Sev-MEG

IN GENERAL,

THE ASSOCIATED 

HEALTH 

OUTCOME 

ATTRIBUTIBLE 

TO EXPOSURE 

(Percentages are very

uncertain and will vary

by chemical and other 

confounding factors.) 

No cases of

illness or noncancer disease

and less than

1 cancer case

in 10,000 

0 – 10 % of

personnel may

develop illness or

chronic disease 

0 – 10 % of

personnel may

develop mild 

illness or

temporary

irritation 

> 10 % of personnel 

may experience mild 

illness, irritation 

AND 

0 – 10 % of personnel 

may develop more

severe illness that 

begins to impair

functional abilities. 

10 – 25 % of

personnel may

experience severe

illness or irritation 

and more 

noticeable

degradation of

performance 

capabilities 

AND 

Other personnel 

will, at least,

suffer some mild

effects 

 > 25 % of personnel 

may experience 

severe, incapacitating

effects 

AND 

Fatalities will begin to

occur just above the 

Sev Air-MEG with 

increasing number of

fatalities as 

concentrations

increase 

ONSET OF 

SYMPTOMS After the Mission During the Mission 

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RANK NONE NEGLIGIBLE MARGINAL CRITICAL CATASTROPHIC

HAZARD 

TYPE 

NO 

HEALTH 

THREAT 

HEALTH THREAT MEDICAL THREAT 

WATER NOTE: Concentrations greater than the MEG may result in Hazard Severity from Marginal to Catastrophic if certain 

chemicals are present in high enough quantities and there is sufficient consumption. Additional information in the Notes column 

of the MEG Tables should be evaluated regarding impacts of higher levels of exposure. 

SOIL NOTE: Soil is unlikely to represent a hazard that would yield a Medical Threat. Additional information in the Notes 

column of the MEG Tables should be evaluated for data regarding higher levels of exposure. 

 F-4
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE F-3. CHEMICAL HAZARD PROBABILITY RANKING CHART FOR MILITARY 

DEPLOYMENTS 

PERCENT OF PERSONNEL THAT WILL EXPERIENCE 

EXPOSURES TO CONCENTRATIONS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE MEG* 

<10% 10<25 % 25<50 % 50<75 % >75 % 

Unlikely Seldom Occasional Likely Frequent

*Determination of the percent of personnel exposed to a chemical or mixture specifically above a guideline level

can be based on modeling, gridding, or generalized assumptions. 

TABLE F-4. RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX (FM 100-14) 

HAZARD PROBABILITY

HAZARD Frequent (A) Likely (B) Occasional (C) Seldom (D) Unlikely (E) 

SEVERITY

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Catastrophic (I) → Extremely High Extremely High High High Moderate

Critical (II) → Extremely High High High Moderate Low 

Marginal (III) → High Moderate Moderate Low Low

Negligible (IV) → Moderate Low Low Low Low

RISK ESTIMATE

 F-5
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

This page intentionally left blank. 

 F-6
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

CS-1 Wartime Chlorine Plume 

MISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

You are the preventive medicine officer located at a central base camp during a wartime mission in 

Central America. Your responsibilities include transferring information to/from the field units in your 

area and making recommendations to higher headquarters. You have just received intelligence 

information about a factory located in proximity to one of your units. 

PART A - INITIAL RISK ASSESSMENT 

A-1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 

Step A-1.1. METT-TC: Chemicals, Media, and Locations

The intelligence information includes the following: 

− Various chemicals are stored at the factory; of particular concern is chlorine. 

− Large amounts (tons) are stored, but it appears the plant is not operational. 

− Enemy troops are aware of the unit’s location. 

− The mission of the at-risk unit requires it to continue maneuvering near (within 1 mile of the 

facility) and then beyond the chemical factory. 

− Light winds are blowing toward the at-risk unit. 

You realize that the stored chlorine could be used purposefully against U.S. personnel through bombing 

or other mechanisms resulting in the release of chlorine. If a chlorine-plume were to drift downwind 

toward the unit, then the troops would be exposed. The primary exposure routes of concern are inhalation 

and direct contact with the eyes and skin. You check the Air-MEG tables and establish the health effects

associated with acute airborne/inhalation exposures to chlorine: 

− Burning of eyes, nose, mouth, and respiratory system

− Excessive tearing, runny nose 

− Coughing, choking, chest pain 

− Nausea, vomiting 

− Hypoxemia, dermatitis 

You need to notify the unit of the situation. You realize that the commanding officer will want some 

initial description of the type of threat posed by this hazard. 

Step A-1.2. Preliminary Threat Analysis 

Currently, you have limited information as to both the anticipated concentrations (severity of hazard) as 

well as the probability that a release would even occur. Because of the known presence of the chemicals 

and the possibility of a release (accidental or purposeful), you notify your commander that such a chlorine 

plume would be a HEALTH THREAT to unit personnel and should be considered a possible MEDICAL 

F-7 Wartime Chlorine Plume
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

THREAT that could result in the degradation of the unit’s capacity to accomplish their mission. You 

indicate that this is based on limited information and wish to validate this threat level by performing a risk 

assessment. Your commander indicates that there is limited time available but that if a Risk Level could 

be provided it would facilitate better Risk Management decisions such as whether this warrants moving 

unit locations. 

A-2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT

You realize that plume concentration levels and locations after a release could be estimated with air 

dispersion models and that this would provide a more realistic basis for your assessment of associated 

risks. You don’t have the capability to run such a model, however, and coordination with agencies such 

as USACHPPM, that do perform such tasks, will take more time than you have. So, even without 

quantitative data, you proceed through the risk assessment process based on the available information. 

Step A-2.1. Hazard Severity Evaluation 

Estimating hazard severity is particularly difficult in this situation. An explosion would very likely 

release a large amount of chlorine, but the amount of dissipation in the environment before reaching the 

unit is unknown. Based on the information in Appendix C, chlorine only has short-term Air-MEG and, 

therefore, it should be considered more of an immediate, acute hazard. 

From the information in Appendix C, you decide that a chlorine plume can be quite dangerous and that 

exposures could significantly degrade the unit with the acute symptoms identified in Step A-1.1, or cause 

the unit to be completely disabled with the possibility of deaths. Therefore, you decide to conservatively

estimate a severity range of CRITICAL to CATASTROPHIC. 

Step A-2.2. Hazard Probability Evaluation 

Available intelligence reports tell you that the enemy has the means and will to destroy the factory. Due 

to this battlefield environment, the S2 estimates that the probability of the enemy attacking the facility

resulting in a chlorine-plume in the direction of the unit as likely. Based on this estimate, you predict that 

50-75% of the unit could be exposed to chloride concentrations greater than the MEG, resulting in a 

hazard probability rank of LIKELY. 

Step A-2.3. Risk Characterization 

Table 1-A provides the risk characterization summary.

A-2.3.1 Risk Estimate

The above hazard rankings combine to present an operational risk of HIGH to EXTREMELY 

HIGH. This risk level forecasts a unit status of Red (Combat Ineffective) to Black (Requires 

Reconstitution), if the Command bases its decision framework on FM 101-5-1. 

A-2.3.2 Confidence Level

You consider your confidence in the risk estimate to be LOW. This is based on the following 

attributes of the available information: 

− Whether the enemy will sabotage the facility while the unit passes by is not known. 

− If the factory is sabotaged, then the resulting chlorine concentrations in the plume cannot be 

predicted, as the size of the release and local climatic conditions will influence any exposures 

F-8 Wartime Chlorine Plume
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

− A chlorine-plume scenario is plausible and the immediate health effects of excessive chlorine 

exposures are well known.

A-2.3.3 Threat Category 

During Hazard Identification, you estimated that such a chlorine plume would be a health threat 

to unit personnel and should be considered a possible medical threat that could result in the degradation of 

the unit’s capacity to accomplish their mission. During the Hazard Assessment, you based the hazard 

severity estimate of critical to catastrophic on the fact that a chlorine-plume can be quite dangerous and 

exposures could significantly degrade the unit with acute symptoms that render them incapacitated. 

Therefore, according to guidance in the Chemical Hazard Severity Chart on Table F-2, you

conclude that the threat category should be increased to a MEDICAL THREAT. 

A-3. DEVELOP AND COMPARE CONTROLS FOR COA DEVELOPMENT 

You notify the unit of your assessment and verify the unit’s exact location and number of personnel. The 

only control available is to have the unit relocate. If the unit relocates far enough away from the 

downwind side of the facility, then the hazard is eliminated. A decision is made by the unit commander 

to have the unit relocate further away until further notice. 

PART B - RE-ASSESSMENT OF RISK 

B-1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 

Step B-1.1. METT-TC: Chemicals, Media, and Locations

A short time later, you receive word that during the retreat back to base camp, the factory was bombed. 

Personnel had already moved away from the downwind side of the factory approximately one-half mile 

when the incident occurred. The commander of the unit has halted movement and is considering if the 

unit should prepare to turn back. The success of the mission requires movement forward, and since the 

hazard (the stored chlorine tanks) has been mitigated somewhat, and because an immediate, quick 

movement through the area may be unexpected, it would be an opportune time to proceed. You can 

appreciate the strategic benefits to this plan but caution the commander that residual contamination might 

present a hazard. 

Step B-1.2. Revised Threat Analysis

You inform the commander that without information regarding dispersion and evaporation of the 

chlorine, residual air contamination may still be able to cause health effects that degrade personnel 

performance. As a result you still consider the hazard to be present, and consider this a HEALTH 

THREAT, with potential to be a MEDICAL THREAT. 

F-9 Wartime Chlorine Plume
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

B-2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT

The commander informs you that he has already dispatched a member of his unit with sampling 

equipment and protective gear to obtain real-time data from the area. A few minutes later this individual 

reports back via radio and states that air levels of chlorine are averaging about 4 ppm (10 mg/m3

). 

Step B-2.1. Hazard Severity Evaluation 

You check Appendix C and determine this to be just above the 1-hour significant-effect Air-MEG (2 

ppm), and well below the severe-effect level 1-hour Air-MEG (22 ppm). Based on the suggested 

guidance in the Chemical Hazard Severity Ranking Chart in Table F-2, the hazard severity associated 

with measured concentrations greater than a Significant 1-hr MEG should be considered CRITICAL. The 

1-hr significant MEG defines a “threshold” level for irreversible, permanent, or serious health effects that 

may result in performance degradation and incapacitate a small portion of individuals. Since the detected 

level (4 ppm) is substantially below the severe health effects MEG (22 ppm), you expect that a relatively

small number of personnel would actually be affected to the point of more noticeable performance 

degradation, which may prevent them from quick maneuvering through the area. 

Due to the small portion of the unit that you would expect to be affected significantly and the likely 

possibility that chlorine levels will likely be lower by the time personnel arrive at the area, you 

downgrade the severity rank from CRITICAL to MARGINAL, on the basis of professional judgment. In 

addition, dissipation of chlorine may bring the concentrations to levels less than the 1 hr Significant AirMEG. 

Step B-2.2. Hazard Probability Evaluation 

You conclude that the probability of exposure to levels measured by the unit’s reconnaissance will be 

LIKELY to OCCASIONAL while the unit passes through the area. 

You did not select frequent because the Air-MEGs are for 1-hour average concentrations, not single grab 

samples (as was collected) and dissipation of the plume should continue. 

Note: Such a decision must be based on professional judgment on a case-by-case basis. Dissipation of 

airborne chemicals is highly dependant upon the chemical in question, weather, terrain, and other site 

considerations. 

Step B-2.3. Risk Characterization 

Table 1-B provides the risk characterization summary.

B-2.3.1. Risk Estimate

The above hazard rankings combine to present an operational risk of MODERATE. This risk level 

forecasts a unit status of Amber (Mission Capable, with minor deficiencies), if the Command bases its 

decision framework on FM 100-14 and FM 101-5-1. 

B-2.3.2. Confidence Level 

You consider your confidence in the risk estimate to be MEDIUM; that is, for a chemical risk 

assessment, relatively high level of confidence. 

Note: There are very few situations where a High degree of confidence would be reported due to the 

inherent limitations of our knowledge and simplistic assumptions of exposure processes and 

F-10 Wartime Chlorine Plume
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

toxicological/physiological/pharmocokinetic processes. For this assessment the degree of confidence is 

based on the following attributes of the available information: 

− Because the field measurement equipment is fairly accurate, data are considered good. However, 

the instrumentation is giving only a single point-in-time reference – the true levels that personnel 

would be exposed to are very possibly much less depending on time they take to get there and the 

meteorological conditions that impact the rate of chlorine dissipation. 

− Though not as weakly supported as some chemicals, the human toxicity estimates for chlorine 

have several uncertainties associated with them, usually addressed by safety factors or some

degree of built-in conservatism. 

B-2.3.3. Threat Category 

The unit will be moving through the area of concern rapidly, which may mean less than a full hour of

exposure, but there will be heavy exertion and increased breathing involved. At the detected levels, 

health effects are expected to be noticeable and in a small portion of the unit may be severe enough to 

significantly degrade performance abilities. The effects may continue after the exposure is eliminated. 

As such, as previous conclusion that the chlorine plume is a MEDICAL THREAT remains unchanged. 

B-3. DEVELOP CONTROLS AND ASSESS RESIDUAL RISKS 

Step B-3.1. Develop Controls 

You discuss options with the unit commander. This includes: 

1. No action and risk re-assessment at a later point in time with reanalysis; 

2. Use of an alternate route circumventing the area of concern; 

3. Use of the planned route using protective gear for personnel as they move through the area; or 

4. Use of the planned route without protections; accepting the risk of health effects for within the 

unit. 

Step B-3.2. Residual Risks 

The commander considers risks associated with these options. Option 1 poses other risks because of the 

delayed time in an unsafe environment where enemy ambush is plausible. Option 2 has similar

disadvantages because extending the mission with delays would also drain supplies/resources. For 

Option 3 to be viable, full-faced chemical-cartridge respirators (with chlorine cartridges) would need to 

be supplied immediately to the unit. This would not be possible due to the nature and location of the 

unit’s operation. Additionally, such protective gear would inhibit movement, reduce visibility and 

communication capabilities, add to overall fatigue, and pose potential heat stress hazards. Choosing 

Option 4 would be an acceptance of the health and operational risks defined earlier. If the commander 

selects this option, then he/she must communicate this risk to his soldiers. 

Step B-3.3. Actions to Increase Confidence in Risk Estimate 

Because of the tactical necessity for making a quick decision, time does not allow for additional analyses

to increase confidence in the analysis. No confidence-increasing actions are, therefore, recommended. 

F-11 Wartime Chlorine Plume
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 1-A. PART A RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS 

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

Possible 

Chlorine

Plume 

Medical 

Threat Likely Critical to Catastrophic High to Extremely High Low 

Symptoms: 

Burning of eyes, nose, mouth, and respiratorysystem; excessive tearing, runny nose;coughing, choking,chest pain; nausea, vomiting; hypoxemia, dermatitis Incidence: 10-25% 

Symptoms: 

Uncertain Incidence: 

Uncertain 

F-12 Wartime Chlorine Plume
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 1-B. PART B RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS 

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

Dissipating 

Chlorine

Plume 

Medical 

Threat 

Likely to

Occasional Marginal Moderate Medium

Symptoms: 

Same as above, but should be less severeIncidence: 0-25% 

Symptoms: 

Uncertain Incidence: 

Uncertain 

F-13 Wartime Chlorine Plume
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

This page intentionally left blank. 

F-14 Wartime Chlorine Plume
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

CS-2 Cyanide in Proposed Water Supply 

MISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

You are deployed very early in a peacekeeping operation. Base campsites are being selected and 

evaluated for follow-on forces as the mission expands. Planners have selected a location for a large base 

camp near a small city which has a municipal water supply. Logisticians want to use that municipal 

supply as a source of drinking water for the camp without having to rely on treatment by Army Reverse 

Osmosis Water Purification Unit (ROWPU) technology. 

The test strip from your Water Quality Analysis Set – Preventive Medicine (WQAS-PM) indicates the 

presence of cyanide at concentrations around 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L). No other contaminants of 

concern were identified. The source of cyanide could be the deliberate use of hydrogen cyanide in the 

water as a chemical weapon, or the source could be one of several industries in the area. 

1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 

Step 1.1. METT-TC: Chemicals, Media, and Locations

Intelligence has indicated that the enemy has the capability to use cyanide as a chemical weapon and the 

municipal water supply is accessible. The municipal water supply has been abandoned and few industries in the 

area are operational. There are several industries in the vicinity that could have contaminated the surface water 

used by the municipal source. 

Step 1.2. Preliminary Threat Analysis 

Based on the peacekeeping operation, the mission may require the length of deployment to extend from 6-

months to 1-year for personnel. The climate of the area fluctuates significantly throughout the year and reaches 

extreme temperatures in the summer months. Since personnel activities may require long work-shifts during the 

day when temperatures are extreme, you assume that many personnel will consume up to 15 L of water per day

(per standard assumption pertaining to military personnel water consumption in TB MED 577). 

You refer to the MEGs for cyanide in Appendix D (summarized below in Table 2-A). Guidelines are 

available for both temperate and arid climates for which standard practice are associated with assumptions 

of 5L/day and 15 L/day, respectively. Though several different exposure durations are represented, you 

note that the MEGs are the same for both short- and long-term durations. You also note, from the 

“Chemical” column of the table in Appendix D, that the MEGs for cyanide are actually TB MED 577 

standards. 

 TABLE 2-A. MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR CYANIDE IN WATER 

Consumption Rate 5-day MEG (mg/L) 2-week MEG (mg/L) 1-year MEG (mg/L) 

5 L/day 6 6 6 

15 L/day 2 2 2 

F-15 Cyanide in Proposed Drinking Water
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

Since the detected concentration of 4 mg/L exceeds the 15 L/day cyanide drinking water MEG/TB MED 

577 standard, as your preliminary threat analysis you determine that personnel exposure to cyanide from

the municipal water supply is a HEALTH THREAT. You are not sure if the health effects would be 

significant enough to result in a medical threat. You notify your commander of the situation and that you 

are in the process of more specifically assessing the risks. 

2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 

Step 2.1. Hazard Severity Evaluation 

You have already established that the detected concentration of cyanide exceeds the 15 L/day MEG/TB 

MED 577 standard below which deployed military personnel drinking the municipal water should 

experience no adverse health effects for up to 1-year of consumption, assuming no other contamination 

and no increase in the cyanide concentration. You get more details by referring to the “Notes” column of 

Appendix D or the TB MED 577. The additional information from the “Notes” includes information 

regarding various concentrations of cyanide. This information is summarized below in Table 2-B. 

TABLE 2-B. HEALTH EFFECTS FROM INGESTION OF CYANIDE IN DRINKING WATER 

Consumption 

Rate 

Safe Water 

Concentration

(mg/L) 

Changes in Blood 

Chemistry but no Clinical 

Effects (mg/L) 

Metabolic Acidosis with 

Reversible Symptoms *

(mg/L) 

Life-threatening 

Toxicity (mg/L) 

5 L/day 0-6 12-24 24-48 48+ 

15 L/day 0-2 4-8 8-16 16+ 

* For example: severe headaches, weakness, palpitation, nausea, giddiness and tremors.

Based on the Chemical Hazard Severity Ranking Chart for Military Deployments in Table F-2, the 

severity of cyanide exposures at concentrations around 4 mg/L for personnel consuming 15L/day is 

suggested to be Marginal, in part because this is a TB MED 577 standard which was developed using less 

conservative interpretations of toxicity information that other MEGs. The Marginal category is associated 

with personnel with mild effects and a few developing more significant effects that begin to impair 

functional abilities. According to the additional information summarized above, you feel confident that at 

4 mg/L, the effects caused by cyanide would not be noticeable to personnel and, therefore, would not be 

expected to degrade performance capabilities or impact the mission. In addition, there are no long-term

or delayed effects associated with the hazard. So a Marginal severity seems overly conservative. But you 

do note that the sampling was limited and that there is a possibility that concentrations could at times be 

greater than 4 mg/L. Since even short-term consumption at levels of around 8 mg/L could cause 

significant (performance-degrading effects), you decide to conservatively categorize the hazard severity

as MARGINAL. 

Step 2.2. Hazard Probability Evaluation 

Without continuous monitoring, there is no way to know if the cyanide levels will fluctuate over time or 

what the magnitude of the fluctuations would be. Since there is only one source of drinking water 

available, you assume all deployed military personnel will be exposed to cyanide. You also still think it 

F-16 Cyanide in Proposed Drinking Water
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

is reasonable to assume that most personnel will be conducting activities resulting in consumption rates 

greater than 5 L/day, so use of the 15 L/day MEG is an appropriate reference. 

Based on the Chemical Hazard Probability Ranking Chart in Table F-3, you categorize the probability of 

personnel exposure above the 15 L/day MEG to cyanide in drinking water as FREQUENT (i.e., you 

assume greater than 75% of unit will be exposed at these levels and consume water at this rate, especially

for durations for as little as 5 days). 

Step 2.3. Risk Characterization

Table 2-C provides the risk characterization summary.

 2.3.1. Risk Estimate 

Based on your classification of the cyanide hazard severity and probability, you determine the overall 

risk level by using the Risk Assessment Matrix in Table F-4. Based on the hazard probability and 

severity rankings, the overall Risk Level is HIGH. In addition to the Risk Level, you must qualify how 

confident you are with this characterization and the associated mission impact, including a final 

classification of the overall type of Threat presented by this hazard. 

2.3.2. Confidence Level 

There are significant uncertainties associated with this risk estimate due to the lack of complete

sampling data and information available. Sources of uncertainty in this case study include: 

− Reliability of sampling results/potential variability of concentrations over time, 

− uncertainties associated with toxicity information for cyanide 

− estimates of personnel exposures and activities, and 

− estimates of health effects resulting from personnel exposures. 

The lack of additional and accurate sampling for cyanide in the municipal water supply contributes 

most heavily of these uncertainties and as a result the overall confidence in the risk level estimate is 

LOW. 

2.3.3. Threat Category 

The presence of cyanide in the selected drinking water supply source presents a HIGH operational 

risk which, according to FM 100-14, corresponds to an amber unit status and is expected to significantly

degrade mission capabilities if the hazards occur during the mission. This assessment is given low 

confidence however, with error directed and being conservatively safe/protective of personnel health. 

Specifically, since only non-clinical health effects are expected at the detected cyanide level, degradation 

of personnel capabilities is not likely. However, the data indicate that levels do exceed an actual TB 

MED 577 standard that - according to doctrine - cannot be exceeded. In addition, since cyanide has the 

potential to render unit combat or mission ineffective if concentrations increase even slightly (and since 

you don’t have enough data to suggest that this is not the case) you consider the threat category as a 

HEALTH THREAT with potential to be a MEDICAL THREAT. 

3. DEVELOP AND COMPARE CONTROLS FOR COA DEVELOPMENT 

Step 3.1. Hazard Controls 

You note that cyanide cannot be removed from water by Army ROWPU technology. So, given the 

potential level of risk, you determine that, if possible, an alternative source of drinking water should be 

F-17 Cyanide in Proposed Drinking Water
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

sought. If this is not feasible, the current source should be continuously/frequently monitored to ensure 

levels are maintained or diminished. This can be easily done with test strips. In addition, since your 

assessment was conducted very early on in the peacekeeping operation, it is advised that samples be sent 

offsite to the lab for a more thorough analysis. 

Other control options include considering a protected water supply, such as a new well drilled by the 

Corps of Engineers and dedicated to your planned base camp, with well water treated by appropriate 

technology, or obtaining supplied bottled water. A final option is to investigate the potential sources of 

contamination to better predict fluctuations in concentrations and possibly terminating any ongoing

contamination. In addition to monitoring, the municipal water supply should be guarded to ensure that 

intentional contamination of the source does not occur. 

Step 3.2. Residual Risk

Obtaining a new water source (e.g., certified bottled drinking water) would effectively take care of the 

identified hazard and eliminate associated risk. Alternatively, with continuous monitoring of the 

municipal water supply and investigation of potential cyanide sources, fluctuations in cyanide 

concentrations can be determined. If this additional data indicate that cyanide levels decrease to average 

levels below 2 mg/L, the threat would either be eliminated (NO THREAT) or at least reduced to a 

NEGLIGIBLE severity, resulting in a LOW risk. However, if monitoring indicates that concentrations 

increase to a level greater than 8 mg/L, the overall risk level of HIGH would be confirmed with greater 

confidence or possibly increase to EXTREMELY HIGH. At levels greater than 8 mg/L the effects to 

personnel would increase and overall unit mission capability would be significantly diminished to the 

point of being combat ineffective. 

Step 3.3. Actions to Increase Confidence in Risk Estimate

Continuous monitoring will improve estimates of fluctuations of cyanide concentrations in the water 

supply. In addition, identifying the source(s) of contamination will aid in this determination. Better 

estimation of concentrations will result in more accurate assessments of personnel exposures and increase 

the confidence level to MEDIUM. 

F-18 Cyanide in Proposed Drinking Water
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 2-C. CYANIDE IN DRINKING WATER: RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS 

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

Cyanide in 

drinking

water with

consumption 

rates at 

15 L per day

Health

Threat, 

potential 

Medical 

Threat 

Frequent Marginal High Low

Symptoms: 

No clinical symptoms topossible headache, breathlessness, weakness, palpitation, nausea, and othersIncidence: ~10% 

Symptoms: 

uncertainIncidence: 

F-19 Cyanide in Proposed Drinking Water
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

This page intentionally left blank

F-20 Cyanide in Proposed Drinking Water
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

CS-3 Peacekeeping Site Reconnaissance 

MISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

You are deployed on a peacekeeping mission near the southern tip of South America. You accompany an 

infantry company that will be performing a border reconnaissance/security mission. It is undetermined at 

this time how long the mission will last, although approximately 2 weeks is anticipated. A temporary

base camp must be established for the reconnaissance team. “Site X” is determined to be a particularly

ideal location. Part of the mission is to evaluate its suitability as a more permanent base camp for future 

activities that could last up to one year in duration. 

Your preventive medicine responsibilities require you to assess the potential health threats to the military

personnel from environmental chemicals that may be present at Site X. The team is carrying limited 

supplies in order to maneuver quickly. This includes three days of drinking water. 

Your task is twofold: 

1. Assess the OEH hazards posed to the members of the reconnaissance mission. 

2. Assess and determine health threats to other personnel who may eventually be sent to the area for 

long-term (base-camp) deployment status. 

The commanding officer will balance health risks with other risks such as logistical obstacles and 

physical hazards in order to make appropriate operational decisions regarding the reconnaissance mission, 

as well as for future deployments into the area. 

PART A - INITIAL RISK ASSESSMENT 

A-1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 

Step A-1.1. METT-TC: Chemicals, Media, and Locations

You consider all general information immediately available. Site X is five acres in size and is near a 

small town. There are some indications of industrial activity including two abandoned structures. You 

notice a slight aromatic odor around the side of one structure. A municipal water supply is identified in 

one of the structures; however, a member of the reconnaissance team tasted the water and noted that it 

had a slight fuel-like taste, although there is no odor. 

Note: Tasting of water sources without knowing that they are safe is NOT recommended. However, 

individuals ignorant of this rule of thumb are sometimes known to taste untested water. If this happens, 

that information can be useful. Such “sampling” of water sources should be avoided. 

Using the kits in your Water Quality Analysis Set-Preventive Medicine (WQAS-PM), you check the 

identified water supply in accordance with TB MED 577 (Sanitary Control and Surveillance of Field 

Water Supplies). You determine that the physical and chemical properties measurable by the kits in your 

WQAS-PM meet the Tri-Service Standards listed in the Appendices of TB MED 577. Because of the 

F-21 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

strange taste in the water, you collect three grab samples around noon on the first day. The water samples 

are sent to the supporting medical laboratory for rear-area analysis. The results may not be available for 

up to seven days. 

Later in the afternoon, you obtain three, 1-hour air samples from around the site, locating two samples 

nearby the two structures in the camp and one sample in the middle of the camp away from the structures. 

You analyze them using your available field equipment. 

No obvious spills are observed, so no surface soil samples are collected. 

Step A-1.2. Preliminary Threat Analysis 

(A) Water Hazards 

The first reaction may be that since the water meets the Tri-Service Standards, there may be no direct 

Health Threats associated with drinking from the available water source. However, you note that the field 

kits do not provide a complete analysis, so the results of rear-area analysis may determine that the fuellike taste may be from other contaminants not detected by your WQAS-PM kit that may pose health 

threats. In addition, due to the fuel-like taste personnel may drink less than optimum amounts of water, 

resulting in a dehydration hazard. You decide to inform your commander of the potential HEALTH 

THREAT. The commander decides that there is enough concern to warrant the acquisition of additional 

bottled water to be sent to the field team for the duration of the reconnaissance mission. Decisions 

regarding potential future use of the water source will be deferred pending receipt of rear-area results. 

(B) Airborne Hazards 

The air screening analysis identified the following compounds at the concentrations shown in Table 3-A 

along with the corresponding Air-MEGs. 

TABLE 3-A. AIR DATA AND ASSOCIATED AIR-MEG VALUES

Site Air Concentrations (mg/m3) * Air-MEG Values (mg/m3) 

Chemical

Detected A 

Structure 

B 

Structure 

C 

Site center 

1-hour

(minimal) 8-hour 14-day 1-year

Acrylonitrile 0.01 0.02 0.01 22 4.4 0.22 0.11

Aldrin 0.21 0.20 0.009 25 ** 0.25 S 0.006 S 0.00098 S

Benzene 202 32.0 2.0 160 1.6 0.16 0.039 S

* Data represent 1-hour averaging times. 

** Value is the severe effect level because TG 230 provides no value for the 1-hour minimal and significant effect

levels. S Skin notation, dermal exposures have the potential for significant contribution to overall dose. 

In addition to noting the MEG values, you check the type of health effects posed by acrylonitrile, aldrin, 

and benzene – and note that they all cause similar irritating and CNS effects and are classified as (Level 

F-22 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

A-B) carcinogens. You decide to evaluate each chemical hazard separately first, but realize that multiple 

chemical hazards (particularly when they affect similar target organs/systems) may compound the overall 

health risk. 

At a glance, you note that while acryonitrile was detected at each location, the concentrations were all 

below the MEGs, including the 1-year MEG. Therefore, you decide that the hazard from acryonitrile 

alone does not pose a health threat. 

You now focus on the hazards presented by the other two chemicals, which have been detected above 

some of the associated MEGs. The following demonstrates your preliminary analysis of the threat posed 

by these air contaminants: 

− Aldrin: All concentrations are greater than the 14-day and 1-year MEGs, indicating that aldrin poses 

a potential HEALTH THREAT (though probably not a Medical Threat) to the reconnaissance team as 

well as for personnel in a future long-term base camp. 

− Benzene: Since all of the concentrations are greater than the 14-day and 1-year MEG, there may be 

some adverse health impacts associated with exposure to benzene at this site, and thus this presents a 

HEALTH THREAT. More importantly, one of the samples detected benzene at a 1-hour average 

concentration (202 mg/m3

) that is greater than the 1-hour minimal effects Air-MEG (160 mg/m3), 

though it is less than the significant effects Air-MEG (479 mg/m3

). This could result in a MEDICAL 

THREAT in that noticeable effects may begin and a few personnel may experience some 

impairment/degradation of functional abilities. 

You conclude that the benzene and aldrin together with the acrylonitrile are an airborne hazard that 

present a HEALTH THREAT (many personnel can be expected to have some irritation/discomfort, and 

there is potential for increased cancer risk) with potential to be a MEDICAL THREAT (irritation may

become more severe along with headaches, nausea that could impair some personnel ability to function at 

100% capability). You also note that the two samples nearest the structures (A and B) yield the highest 

concentrations and, thus, the vicinity around the structures appears to pose somewhat higher risk. 

Since the greater threat is near the structures that are located to the east side of the site, you recommend to 

the commander that personnel locate activities upwind (north west) of the area. The commander agrees 

since the structures are not located in a critical area of the site and can be easily avoided. As a precaution, 

you post some warning flags near these areas. 

A-2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 

Since your commander has instituted the controls necessary to eliminate one hazard to the reconnaissance 

team by acquiring bottled water for the duration of their mission and has mitigated an aspect of the 

airborne hazard, you focus on a more detailed assessment of the degree of risk posed to the recon and 

long-term personnel from airborne exposures around the central area of the site. Once you obtain the 

water analysis results you will re-assess the overall risk to long-term deployment personnel. 

You begin your air hazard assessment by focusing on the primary hazards aldrin and benzene, although 

you keep in mind that the presence of acrylonitrile contributes to the hazard. 

F-23 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

Step A-2.1. Hazard Severity Evaluation 

You begin by re-evaluating the concentrations from Sample C and comparing to associated MEGs (see

Table 3-B). 

TABLE 3-B. RE-EVALUATION OF THREAT SEVERITY 

Air-MEG Values (mg/m3) 

Chemical Concentration 

(from central area) 1-hour 

(minimal) 8-hour 14-day 1-year

Aldrin 0.009 mg/m3 25 ** 0.25 S 0.006 S 0.00098 S

Benzene 2.0 mg/m3 160 1.6 0.16 0.039 S

* Data represent 1-hour averaging times. 

** Value is the severe effect level because TG 230 provides no value for the 1-hour minimal and significant effect

levels. S Skin notation, dermal exposures have the potential for significant contribution to overall dose. 

(A) Aldrin 

The concentration exceeds the 1-year MEG, but more importantly it exceeds the 14-day MEG. From the 

tables in Appendix C of TG 230, you note the types of symptoms caused by inhalation exposures to 

Aldrin above the 14-day MEG include the following, in order of increasing severity: 

− Headache, dizziness 

− Nausea, vomiting, malaise 

− Limb jerks, convulsions 

− Coma, hematuria (blood in urine), azotemia (excess of urea in blood due to kidney failure) 

The 14-day MEG is defined as the airborne concentration for a continuous exposure for up to 14 days (24

hours/day) that should not impair performance and is considered protective against any significant, noncancer effects. If soldiers experience aldrin exposures greater than the 14-day MEG, then performance 

degradation could result, or the potential for inducing delayed/permanent disease (e.g., kidney disease or 

cancer) increases. 

You estimate that true exposures for individuals exceeding the MEG will only be slightly greater than the 

MEG. Therefore, the more serious symptoms listed above are not likely to occur. The most likely 

symptoms would be headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and malaise. Based on the severity-ranking 

chart in Table F-2, these would be defined as “mild illness or temporary irritation” in a small portion (0-

10%) of the exposed group. A hazard severity ranking of NEGLIGIBLE would, therefore, be indicated. 

(B) Benzene 

As with aldrin, the 1-year MEG is exceeded, but of greater importance in this case is that the 14-day and 

even 8-hour MEGs are exceeded. The types of symptoms caused by inhalation exposures to benzene 

above the 8-hour and 14-day MEG include the following in order of increasing severity: 

− Eye, skin, nose, and respiratory irritation, headache 

F-24 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

− Nausea, loss of coordination, fatigue, lack of appetite, weakness, exhaustion, dermatitis 

− Bone marrow depression, cancer 

If soldiers experience benzene exposures just greater than the 14-day MEG, then performance degradation 

could result, or the potential for inducing delayed/permanent disease (e.g., kidney disease or cancer) 

increases. If soldiers experience benzene exposures greater than the 8-hour MEG, then exposures could 

begin to produce mild, non-disabling, transient, reversible effects, if any. Such effects should not impair 

performance unless exposure concentrations begin to increase more, where performance degradation 

could result, especially for tasks requiring extreme mental/visual acuity or physical dexterity/strength. 

You estimate that true exposures for individuals exceeding the 8-hour MEG will only be slightly greater 

than the MEG. Therefore, the more serious symptoms listed above are not expected to occur. The most 

likely symptoms would be headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and malaise. Based on the severityranking chart in Table F-2, these would be defined as “mild illness or temporary irritation” in a small 

portion (0-10%) of the exposed group. A hazard severity ranking of NEGLIGIBLE would, therefore, be 

indicated. 

(C) Multiple Chemical Interactions: You note the possible increase in type/severity of effects due to the 

combined effects of the mixture. Specifically, the presence of acrylonitrile and aldrin with benzene might 

increase the severity of skin irritation and increase risks of cancer. The true effects/severity of such a 

mixture are not known, however. 

Step A-2.2. Hazard Probability Evaluation 

The portion of the unit that may actually experience exposures greater than the 8-hour or 14-day MEG is 

a large unknown. You assume that all personnel (during both the reconnaissance mission as well as 

during long-term deployment at the base-camp) will be exposed to the air mixture of aldrin, benzene, and 

acrylonitrile each day. However, since personnel will be rotating duties for camp maintenance, meals, 

training and security duties, most personnel will be away from the camp regularly. Exposures to the 

chemical mixture will be somewhat intermittent during the deployment (both reconnaissance as well as 

base camp – although base-camp deployment will result in more consistent exposures). 

(A) Aldrin 

Reconnaissance Mission: 

The 1-hour average concentration of aldrin at the site center was 0.009 mg/m3, while the 14-day MEG is 

0.006 mg/m3

. Due to the knowledge about the activity patterns of recon personnel over the course of their 

operation, you estimate that most reconnaissance personnel will not experience 14-day (24 hour/day) 

average exposures above the 14-day MEG of 0.006 mg/m3

. You therefore rank the aldrin hazard 

probability for the reconnaissance mission as OCCASIONAL, as remotely possible that personnel will 

experience exposures greater than 0.006 mg/m3. 

Base-Camp (long-term exposure): 

For personnel stationed at a base-camp you also assess the probability that the 1-year (24-hr daily 

average) guideline will be exceeded. In this case, you think it is very possible that most personnel will be

exposed to average daily concentrations through a year’s time above the 1-year air MEG of 0.00098 

mg/m3. Therefore, you rank the probability of this long-term deployment hazard as FREQUENT. 

(B) Benzene 

F-25 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

The 1-hour average concentration of benzene at the site center was 2.0 mg/m3

, a concentration greater 

than the 1-year, 14-day MEG (0.16 mg/m3

) and the 8-hour MEG (1.6 mg/m3). However, the

concentration was much less than the 1-hour minimal-effect MEG of 160 mg/m3

. You focus your 

assessment on the most immediate hazard (shorter of the two exposure durations of concern (8-hrs)). 

You estimate that most if not all personnel that remain at the camp during any given day (either during 

reconnaissance mission or long – term deployment at the base camp) will experience 8-hour average 

exposures greater than the 8-hour MEG. You therefore rank the benzene hazard probability for either 

deployment scenario as FREQUENT. 

Step A-2.3. Risk Characterization 

Table 3-C provides the risk characterization summary.

2.3.1. Risk Estimate 

The above hazard rankings combine to present an overall operational risk of MODERATE. This risk 

level forecasts a unit status of Amber (Mission Capable, with minor deficiencies), if the Command bases 

its decision framework on FM 101-5-1. 

2.3.2. Confidence Level

You consider your confidence in both of these risk estimates to be LOW. This is based, primarily on 

the following limitation of the assessment. Though the measured air concentration data are considered 

good because the field measurement equipment is fairly accurate, the number of samples is too small to 

provide a confident representation of true air concentrations over the course of a day and over the course 

of the two-week mission. 

2.3.3. Threat Category

You determine that these airborne hazards pose a HEALTH THREAT, but not a Medical Threat to 

both the reconnaissance team as well as personnel stationed at the base camp. 

A-3. DEVELOP AND COMPARE CONTROLS FOR COA DEVELOPMENT: RECON 

Step A-3.1. Develop Controls 

You discuss control action options that could reduce the overall MODERATE risk with the unit 

commander. These options include: 

1. Accept the risk and remain at Site X, but monitor for symptoms consistent with benzene exposures. If 

effects emerge in the unit to unacceptable levels, then the commander will re-evaluate the situation. 

2. Accept the risk temporarily and perform a risk re-assessment after another day with additional air data. 

You would continue air sampling to cover more of the site and several times in the day. 

3. Relocate the personnel to an alternative camp. 

(A) Reconnaissance Mission:

Because only the airborne exposures were of concern to the RECON mission and the risk level is 

Moderate, the need for controls is not deemed critical. The commander decides to accept the risks 

(chooses Option 1) posed during this short-term mission. He asks you to prepare a short briefing to notify 

personnel as well as medical staff and to ensure that the situation along with any identified health 

outcomes that could be associated with such exposures are properly documented.

F-26 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

(B) Base Camp (Long-Term) Deployment: 

Pending the water analysis, you hold off determining control actions at this time. 

Step A-3.2. Residual Risks 

Since Option 1 was selected for the RECON mission, the residual risk would remain MODERATE. 

Step A-3.3. Actions to Increase Confidence in Risk Estimate 

In this case, the additional sampling (Option 2) would increase the overall confidence in you risk 

characterization. 

PART B - RE-ASSESSMENT OF RISK 

B-2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 

Thus far you have identified an airborne health threat of Moderate risk to personnel who may be sent to 

Site X for long-term deployment status. At this time, the results from the rear-area water analyses have 

arrived. You now need to consider how the hazards combined from air and water may contribute to 

overall Risk. 

Data indicate that one chemical - benzene - was present in the water at an average concentration of 0.9 

mg/L, with little variability in concentration. This is consistent with the taste threshold range of 0.5- 4.5 

mg/L indicated in the TG 230 Table in Appendix D. You have determined that the MEGs for the 5 L/day

consumption rate are most appropriate for this assessment because of the climate in this area of the world 

(i.e., southern tip of South America). 

Step B-2.1. Hazard Severity Evaluation 

The health effects of concern for benzene in water are vomiting, lightheadedness, headache, anemia and 

other effects. Longer-term effects include immuno-suppression, bone marrow suppression, and cancer, 

similar to the effects of air exposures. Since all the MEGs are designed represent a protective level for 

these effects, concentrations exceeding the MEGs indicate the potential for these effects to occur. The 

operational severity of health effects (including number of personnel affected) that may occur during the 

deployment cannot be directly estimated. While a strict interpretation of the TG 230 Suggested Severity

Ranking Chart in Table F-2 indicates that the severity of an exceeding a (non-TB MED 577) Water MEG 

results in a NEGLIGIBLE degree of severity, you assume that since even 5 day and 14-day Water MEGs 

are exceeded for a situation that would involve much longer exposure, you decide to rank the severity as 

MARGINAL, with the possibility that the health effects amongst some personnel may be severe enough 

to result in performance degradation. 

Step B-2.2. Hazard Probability Evaluation 

You rank the benzene hazard probability in water, relative to the 1-year MEG (0.14 mg/L), as 

FREQUENT, because if this water source were to be used all soldiers would be exposed to such levels 

every day. Because the concentration is also greater than the 5 and 14-day (5 L/day) MEGs, which are 

both 0.3 mg/L, the hazard probability, relative to the short-term MEGs, is also FREQUENT. 

Step B-2.3. Risk Characterization 

Table 3-C provides the risk characterization summary.

F-27 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

B-2.3.1. Risk Estimate 

The airborne hazards present a risk level of MODERATE, indicating a potential unit status of 

AMBER (Mission Capable, with minor deficiencies), if the command bases its decision framework on 

FM 101-5-1. The waterborne hazards present a HIGH risk, indicating a potential unit status of RED 

(Combat ineffective), if the Command bases its decision framework on FM 101-5-1. 

B-2.3.2. Confidence Level

You consider your confidence in the risk estimates to be LOW. Though the measured air and water 

concentration data are considered good, the number of samples is too small to provide a confident 

representation of true air and water concentrations over the course of the course of the future deployment. 

B-2.3.3. Threat Category

Your previous judgment that these airborne hazards pose a HEALTH THREAT, rather than a medical 

threat, should not change. The consumption of water from the supply at the site, poses a MEDICAL 

THREAT because of the potential for health effects that may degrade functional abilities of personnel. 

B-3. DEVELOP AND COMPARE CONTROLS FOR COA DEVELOPMENT 

Step B-3.1. Hazard Controls 

Because the airborne hazards pose the same MODERATE risk level and additional data have not been 

collected, the same controls and residual risks identified for the reconnaissance team apply. After 

checking in Appendix G of TG 230 (Water Quality Information Paper IP-31-014), you determine that 

Reverse Osmosis (RO) Treatment is not generally very effective against industrial organics. Therefore 

you may not significantly reduce the benzene levels with a RO unit. As such, the only viable control 

action against this hazard would be to procure bottled water for consumption. 

Step B-3.2. Residual Risks 

Use of bottled water would eliminate the hazard. However, based on recent findings you have learned 

that certain in country bottled water batches have not been of acceptable standards – so some additional 

assessment of such a source would be advised. 

Step B-3.3. Actions to Increase Confidence in Risk Estimate 

Again, additional sampling to better characterize the ambient air and water supply could be 

recommended. 

F-28 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 3-C: AIR AND WATER RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

Air Health

Threat Frequent Negligible Moderate Low

Symptoms: 

mild temporary respiratory/eye/ skin irritation, headache, nausea, malaise Incidence: <10%

Symptoms: 

increased canceand leukemia riskidney diseaseIncidence: <10%

Water Potential Medical 

Threat 

Frequent Marginal High Low

Symptoms: 

temporary vomiting, lightheadedness, headache, anemia Incidence: <10%

Symptoms: 

Increased risk oimmunosuppression, bonmarrow suppression, and cancer Incidence: <10%

F-29 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

This page intentionally left blank

F-30 Peacekeeping Site Recon
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

CS-4 Drinking Water: Chemical Exposure and 

Dehydration 

MISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

An early insertion team will carry hand-held water treatment devices into their phase of a deployment. 

They intend to use local surface waters as a source of drinking water for several weeks. The environment 

is temperate, but due to the expected exertion level, consumption rates of up to 15 L/day are expected. 

1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 

Step 1.1. METT-TC: Chemicals, Media, and Locations

You learn that the local surface waters intended for use are brackish and have chloride concentrations 

around 1200 mg/L. The planner for the early insertion operation wants to know if that will be a problem

for his troops. 

Step 1.2. Preliminary Threat Analysis 

You refer to Appendix D. The Water-MEG for chloride indicates that deployed personnel can drink 

water every day with chloride concentrations up to 600 mg/L in any climate for up to two weeks. 

However, at this concentration, according to the notes in Appendix D, about 2% of personnel might 

refuse to drink the water based on poor taste and are at an increased risk of dehydration. At a 

concentration of 1000 mg/L it is estimated that 10% of personnel are at risk of dehydration. You know 

that chlorides produce a salty or metallic flavor in water that becomes greater with increasing chloride 

concentrations. You also note that the Water-MEG is followed by a single asterisk indicating that the 

guideline is from the Tri-Service Field Drinking Water Standards (TB MED 577). Since the detected 

concentrations are twice this level, chloride is considered a MEDICAL THREAT and is evaluated further. 

2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 

Step 2.1. Hazard Severity Evaluation 

You get more details by referring to the TB MED 577. The major health effect of concern resulting from

chloride exposure is dehydration. Dehydration symptoms can include weariness, apathy, impaired 

coordination, delirium, and heat stroke. At the Tri-Service Standard of 600 mg/L, about 2% of deployed

military personnel can be expected to decline to drink the water and to be at risk of dehydration. As 

chloride concentrations reach 900 mg/L, approximately 7% of the deployed force might refuse to drink 

the water and become susceptible to dehydration. At chloride concentrations around 1200 mg/L, about 

18% of the deployed force might refuse to drink the water and become susceptible to dehydration. At 

chloride concentrations around 1500 mg/L, about 36% of the deployed force might refuse to drink the 

water. In addition, at concentrations above the TB MED standard, there is increasing risk that nonacclimated deployed military personnel might initially experience laxative effects. Since the surface 

waters contain 1200 mg/L of chloride, approximately 18% of the unit may resist drinking the water and 

will be susceptible to dehydration. Table 4-A summarizes the estimated impact of dehydration on 

personnel from increasing chloride concentrations in drinking water. 

F-31 Chemical Exposure and Dehydration
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 4-A. ESTIMATED IMPACT OF DEHYDRATION ON MILITARY PERSONNEL WITH

INCREASING CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN DRINKING WATER* 

Chloride Concentration in 

Drinking Water (mg/L) 

Estimated % of Personnel 

at Risk of Dehydration

0 0.1

300 0.5

600 2.1

900 6.9

1200 18

1500 36

* These estimated impacts of dehydration apply to any consumption rate

You refer to the Chemical Hazard Severity Ranking Chart in Table F-2 to determine the hazard severity

posed by personnel exposure to 1200 mg/L of chloride in the drinking water. You note that 

approximately 18% of the unit is predicted to exhibit symptoms of dehydration. Dehydration can be 

considered a health effect ranging from mild illness and irritation to one that impairs functional abilities. 

The symptoms are expected to occur during the mission. In addition, some personnel may suffer from

laxative effects or combined effects from heat stress. Therefore, the resulting hazard severity using this 

chart is classified as MARGINAL to CRITICAL. 

Step 2.2. Hazard Probability Evaluation 

Since the treated surface water will be the only source of drinking water, 100% of the unit will be exposed 

to chloride in the water. Estimated chloride concentrations are greater than the Water-MEG so it is also 

expected that 100% of the unit will be exposed to chloride levels greater than the guidance. By using the 

Chemical Hazard Probability Ranking Chart in Table F-3, the hazard probability should be considered 

FREQUENT. 

Step 2.3. Risk Characterization

Table 4-B summarizes the risk characterization. 

2.3.1. Risk Estimate 

As indicated above, at 1200 mg/L of chloride, as much as 18% of the early insertion team may 

decline to drink the surface water because of poor taste. Those team members who find the taste too 

objectionable will probably begin to dehydrate if another source of fluid is not readily available. As their 

dehydration increases, their ability to perform will be at increasing risk of deterioration. The risk of heat 

stroke also increases, especially if the early insertion team has a high workload and team members are 

carrying heavy loads. 

Using this information and your professional judgment regarding your situation, you consult with the 

Risk Assessment Matrix in Table F-4 to determine the overall risk posed by exposure to chloride in 

drinking water. Based on the hazard ranks in the previous two sections, the corresponding operational 

risk estimate is considered HIGH to EXTREMELY HIGH. According to FM 100-14, the defined 

F-32 Chemical Exposure and Dehydration
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

consequence for these risk levels is significant degradation of mission capabilities with unit at 50-69% 

strength or loss of ability to accomplish the mission with unit strength below 50%. 

2.3.2. Confidence Level

The confidence in the overall risk estimate for personnel exposures to chloride in drinking water is

categorized as MEDIUM based on applying the Risk Assessment Matrix in Table F-4. Although detailed 

information is lacking regarding true personnel activity patterns, water consumption was already assumed to be 

at a maximum consumption rate to represent a worst-case exposure scenario. The TB MED 577 provides wellknown symptoms for dehydration and the health outcome is plausible. Uncertainties in the sampling data and

estimates of concentrations limit the confidence of this risk estimate to medium. For instance, information was 

not provided on the sampling methods used or if other substances were sampled for in the surface waters. 

2.3.3. Threat Category

Based in the hazard assessment, exposures to current estimated levels of chloride in drinking water 

pose an extremely high operational risk. This implies that exposures to chloride in the drinking water 

have the capability to render the unit ineffective and should be considered a MEDICAL THREAT to the 

mission. 

3. DEVELOP AND COMPARE CONTROLS FOR COA DEVELOPMENT 

Step 3.1. Hazard Controls 

Based on the high to extremely high level of risk, you recommend to the mission planner that an alternate 

source of drinking water, such as bottled water, be supplied. If this is not feasible, the water consumption 

of every individual in the unit should be closely monitored in order to help identify individuals that may

be at risk of dehydration and take action before they are seriously affected. A risk communication plan to 

educate personnel on the risks of dehydration prior to the mission may help to encourage personnel to 

consume adequate amounts of water. 

Hand-held water treatment devices would not be sufficient to remove chlorides and treat the quantity of 

water needed for the deployment duration. A Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit (ROWPU) would 

be required to produce potable water from a brackish source. However, this is not a viable option for the 

early insertion team. 

Step 3.2. Residual Risk

Providing an alternate source of water would alleviate the potential risk altogether. If the brackish surface 

water is used for drinking, careful monitoring and educating personnel on the risks of dehydration should 

help reduce the operational risk somewhat. 

Step 3.3. Actions to Increase Confidence in Risk Estimate

Confirmation sampling of the surface water bodies for chloride and other potential contaminants would 

increase your confidence in the risk estimate. In addition, if the water were found to contain chloride at 

the levels that are expected, monitoring of personnel would provide real-time data to verify your estimate 

of operational risk. 

F-33 Chemical Exposure and Dehydration
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 4-B. CHLORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS 

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

Chloride in 

Drinking

Water 

Medical 

Threat Frequent Marginal to Critical 

High to

Extremely 

High

Medium

Symptoms:weariness, apathy, impaired coordination, delirium, heat strokeIncidence: 18% 

Symptoms:uncertainIncidence: 

F-34 Chemical Exposure and Dehydration
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

CS-5 Assessing Base Camp Air Quality 

MISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

You are assisting with setting up a temporary base camp to be used as a staging area for rotating Army

National Guard (ARNG) units performing an OCONUS annual training (AT). Units will be located in 

this area for no more than two weeks at any one time. You notice some pollution emanating from an 

industrial area in the nearby city. The base camp itself is on part of an old mining facility, but there is no 

indication that the mining activities that occurred in the past will present any hazards to personnel 

deployed temporarily to the camp. In addition, intelligence reports indicate that sabotage to industrial 

operations in the nearby city is unlikely. The climate where the base camp is planned is categorized as 

temperate. 

As part of your preventive medicine duties, you assist with monitoring and sampling procedures. You 

have been asked to obtain data on specific criteria air pollutants as is done in the U.S. to evaluate the 

overall quality of the air. In addition, you are assessing the potential for any adverse health effects for the 

personnel that are scheduled to establish the base camp and for the follow-up personnel that will use the 

camp. You have been instructed to limit your health effects assessment at this time to personnel with a 

maximum deployment of two weeks. 

1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 

Step 1.1. METT-TC: Chemicals, Media, and Locations

Only one day of air sampling was conducted for three different one-hour time periods during that day. 

All three of the samples were collected at the same location near the center of the base camp. Of the six 

criteria air pollutants sampled, only sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM10) were detected. It 

surprises you that only SO2 and PM10 were detected, because air pollution often consist of other 

associated pollutants. Nonetheless, you take the data that you have and move through the hazard 

identification process. Table 5-A presents the one-hour average concentrations for SO2 and PM10. 

Estimated daily average concentrations are also included on the table. You estimate daily average 

concentrations by assuming that each of the one-hour samples represents an equal portion of a day (8 

hours). For example, you estimate the PM10 daily average by dividing the sum of 150 μg/m3

, 400 μg/m3, 

and 254 μg/m3 by three. You recognize that you are introducing uncertainty by performing these 

calculations but would like to distinguish peak exposures from daily exposures. 

TABLE 5-A. SAMPLE AND CALCULATED CONCENTRATIONS 

Sample 1 

Time 0900-1000 

Sample 2 

Time 1200-1300 

Sample 3 

Time 2000-2100 

Estimated Daily 

Average *

 SO2 0.4 mg/m3 3.1 mg/m3 0.5 mg/m3 1.3 mg/m3

 PM10 150 μg/m3 400 μg/m3 254 μg/m3 268 μg/m3

F-35 Base Camp Air Quality
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

* The daily average was calculated by assuming that each individual, one-hour sample represented eight hours of the 

day. This assumption introduces uncertainty. 

Step 1.2. Preliminary Threat Analysis 

You know that after chemical hazards are detected, a judgment must be made as to the relative degree of 

health threat each hazard poses. The purpose is to limit the risk assessment to the hazards that pose 

credible health threats. The chemical hazards can be classified into health hazard categories (No Threat, 

Health Threat, and Medical Threat) based on a rapid comparison of a conservative estimate of the 

exposure point concentrations (i.e., maximum detected concentrations and/or average concentrations) to 

available standard military guidelines. The outcome of this step is described in the text below and shown 

in the Table 5-B. 

For SO2, the standard military guidelines that are available include the 1-hour Air-MEG Significant 

Effects Level, the 8-hour Air-MEG, and the 14-day Air-MEG. For PM10, there currently are no AirMEGs, but comparisons may be made to U.S. general population guidelines. 

In order to classify the hazards, a general nature of the effects associated with exposures at, or near, the 

selected guideline must be known. The hazard identification is determined based on this information. 

(A) SO2

The 1-hour Air-MEG does not include a Minimal Effects Level. You note that the concentrations are less 

than the 1-hour Air-MEG Significant Effects Level and the 8-hour Air-MEG, but the sample taken 

between 1200 and 1300 has a concentration higher than the 14-day Air-MEG level. You realize that you 

may have “peaks” when the concentration is higher than the guideline, but on average you feel that the 

concentrations will be below the 14-day level. In fact, the estimated daily average concentration from the 

three sampling times (1.3 mg/m3

) is less than the 14-day guideline. You recognize, however, that the 

daily average concentration that you calculated is subject to uncertainty. 

You read in the “Notes” column of Appendix C that SO2 may have some metallic taste associated with it 

at certain peak concentrations. This, however, is not a particular health concern. The health effects of 

concern would be irritation of the mucous membranes (e.g., eyes, throat) as well as coughing and 

choking. Given that the exposure point concentration levels in Table 5A are less than guideline levels and 

that the health effects are mild and temporary, you categorize SO2 as NO THREAT, and you do not 

evaluate it further in the next step of the risk assessment.

(B) PM10

Though there are no short-term Air-MEGs for PM10, you refer to Appendix C Tables C-4 and C-5 to

compare with U.S. general population guidelines. You note that the peak concentration from the sample 

taken between 1200 and 1300 is in the range for Level 2 of the U.S. General Population Index Criteria for 

Particulate Matter. Concentrations in this range may cause significant increases in respiratory symptoms, 

such as coughing, mucous and aggravation of lung disease (e.g., asthma). People with lung disease 

should avoid outdoors; others should minimize moderate to heavy exertion. The estimated daily average 

concentration from the three sampling times (268 μg/m3

) is in the range for Level 1. Again, 

concentrations in this range may increase respiratory symptoms; people with lung disease should restrict 

heavy exertion and others should minimize prolonged exertion. Because the daily average concentration 

of PM10 is higher than the general population level, you determine that the PM10 exposure may pose a 

HEALTH THREAT to personnel exposed for 1-14 days. Therefore, you proceed to the next step of the 

risk assessment. 

F-36 Base Camp Air Quality
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

(C) Mixture of SO2 and PM10

You note that both SO2 and PM10 exhibit similar health effects, and therefore, that SO2 may exacerbate 

the potential effects of PM10. You note that this interaction cannot be quantified, but it should be 

considered in the overall assessment of the conditions at the base camp. 

TABLE 5-B. PRELIMINARY THREAT ANALYSIS FOR AMBIENT AIR 

Standard Guideline 

Hazard 

Exposure 

Point 

Concentration Value Type

Hazard 

Classification Rationale † 

SO2

3.1 mg/m3

(peak 

concentration) 

8 mg/m3

1-hour Air-MEG

Significant Effects 

Level 

No Threat 

Exposure point

concentration is less 

than the 1-hour 

standard guideline for 

significant health

effects 

SO2

3.1 mg/m3

(assuming 

1-hour

concentration

represents 

concentration

for 8 hours) 

5 mg/m3 8-hour Air-MEG No Threat

Exposure point

concentration is less 

than the 8-hour 

standard guideline 

minimal to nonsignificant health

effects 

SO2

1.3 mg/m3

(estimated 

daily average 

concentration) 

2.6 mg/m3 14-day Air-MEG No Threat 

Exposure point

concentration is less 

than the 1-day standard

guideline for minimal

to non-significant 

health effects 

PM10

400 μg/m3

(peak 

concentration) 

255 – 354 (1) 

355 – 424 (2) 

425 – 604 (3) 

USEPA civilian

guidelines ‡ Health Threat 

Exposure point

concentration is in the 

range for significant 

increase in respiratory 

symptoms

PM10

268 μg/m3

(estimated 

daily average 

concentration) 

255 – 354 (1) 

355 – 424 (2) 

425 – 604 (3) 

USEPA civilian

guidelines ‡ Health Threat 

Exposure point

concentration is in the 

range for increased 

respiratory symptoms

†: Additional detail is provided in the text above. 

‡: Provided in the TG. The meaning is a modification from the USEPA guidance.

(1) Increased respiratory symptoms. For example, coughing and aggravation of lung disease (e.g., asthma). People

with lung disease should restrict heavy exertion; others should minimize prolonged exertion. 

(2) Significant increase in respiratory symptoms. For example, coughing, mucous and aggravation of lung disease. 

People with lung disease should avoid outdoors; others should minimize moderate to heavy exertion. 

F-37 Base Camp Air Quality
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

(3) Serious risk of respiratory symptoms. For example, coughing, mucous, shortness of breath and aggravation of 

lung disease. All should minimize outdoor exertion. 

2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 

Step 2.1. Hazard Severity Evaluation 

As stated previously, the types of symptoms caused by exposures to particulate matter include coughing, 

mucous, shortness of breath and aggravation of lung disease. You determine that these health effects, 

however, should be limited to mild illness and temporary irritation. You therefore assume that the 

proportion of personnel responding (i.e., the attack rate) will be few (<10%), which indicates a hazard 

severity level of NEGLIGIBLE from the Hazard Severity Chart in Table F-2. You note, however, that for 

asthmatics, the hazard severity may possibly be MARGINAL, but you do remember that Section 4.5 

states that the severity of Level 1 is comparable to a minimal effects level and that Levels 2 and 3 are 

somewhat less severe than significant and severe effects levels. 

Step 2.2. Hazard Probability Evaluation 

The range of concentrations of PM10 is 150 – 400 μg/m3

 with a peak during the middle of the day. The 

duration of the concentration peak is not known, so the average daily exposure point concentration 

presented is highly uncertain, as are the daily ambient air concentrations expected over the course of each 

two-week deployment to the base camp. 

− Portion of Unit Exposed: Based on the lack of exposure or mission information, you assume that 

100% of the field unit will be exposed to PM10 every day for the base camp establishment deployment 

and for the subsequent two-week deployments. 

− Portion of Unit Exposed to Levels Higher than Guidelines: The data collected during the one day of 

sampling indicate that the field unit may experience PM10 exposures that are higher than the U.S. 

General Population Index Criteria for some portion of the day or as much as most of the day. Given 

the anticipated fluctuations in concentrations and the possible exacerbating effects from SO2, you use 

your professional judgment and assume that most of the unit (>75%) will be exposed to levels higher 

than the guidelines. 

From this information, you use the Hazard Probability Chart from Table F-3 to determine the probability 

for a two-week deployment. The hazard probability for PM10 exposure is categorized as FREQUENT. 

Step 2.3. Risk Characterization

Table 5-C summarizes the risk characterization. 

Step 2.3.1. Risk Estimate

With the hazard probability and hazard severity, you use the Risk Assessment Matrix in Table F-4 to 

determine the impact to field units with two-week deployments to the base camp. Based on the hazard 

rankings the resulting risk estimate is MODERATE. Some unit personnel may experience, coughing, 

mucous, shortness of breath and aggravation of lung disease (especially asthmatic individuals). This 

corresponds to an Amber Unit Status (Mission Capable, with minor deficiencies), where the unit is 

estimated to be at 70 – 84% strength. 

F-38 Base Camp Air Quality
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

Step 2.3.2. Confidence Level 

You categorize the confidence level in the risk estimate as LOW for numerous reasons. You only

have three samples that were taken on the same day. In addition, to estimate daily exposure point 

concentrations you made assumptions that introduced uncertainty. In regards to exposure patterns and 

field unit attributes, you lacked any information; therefore, you took a conservative stance by assuming 

that the entire field unit will be exposed and most of them at levels higher than the guidelines. You also 

do not know the respiratory health of the field units’ personnel (asthmatics or people with other lung 

diseases). Also, the guidelines for PM10 were determined for the general population rather than for 

deployed personnel, for durations that are not consistent with the base camp mission and at levels that are 

not comparable to Air-MEGs. You attempted to account for the possible exacerbating effects of SO2 on

the PM10 evaluation by selecting the more conservative probability and severity, but the interaction 

between the two substances is highly uncertain. You do believe, however, that the predicted health 

outcome is plausible, given that there is evidence that elevated PM10 concentrations have caused 

respiratory distress in other populations. 

Step 2.3.3. Threat Category

Based on the more detailed assessment, you continue to categorize the threat to base camp field units 

as a HEALTH THREAT.

3. DEVELOP AND COMPARE CONTROLS FOR COA DEVELOPMENT 

Step 3.1. Hazard Controls 

Because the risk levels are moderate, the need for controls may not be critical, but some attempt should be 

made to reduce them if not cost or mission-prohibited. The range of options you can present include 

minimizing exposure by modifying activity patterns or eliminating/minimizing exposure by using 

personal protective equipment. 

The use of protective equipment is not the most desirable option for several reasons. Respiratory

protection may offer some control for particulate matter exposure, but it would likely result in residual 

risks that may be of greater severity — there are several health effects attributed to continuous use of 

respiratory protection and other personal protective equipment. The possibility of minimizing exposure 

frequency by modifying activity patterns seems to be the best option. You could recommend that work 

shifts be no longer than 8 hours and that work be avoided during mid-day. Some other possible control 

efforts could be to ensure that leaders and soldiers be aware of the hazards and that they know the 

symptoms of particulate matter exposure. You may also recommend establishment of a contingency plan 

for excessive exposures and perform pre-deployment screening to ensure that individuals with asthma or 

other potential respiratory conditions (chronic bronchitis) are not deployed to the base camp. 

Step 3.2. Residual Risk

Based on these recommended actions the overall risk to personnel and mission will be minimized to a 

LOW level. 

Step 3.3. Actions to Increase Confidence in Risk Estimate 

Initiate environmental exposure surveillance to learn more about durations of concentration peaks, the 

frequency of the peaks, and the possible sources of SO2 and PM10. 

F-39 Base Camp Air Quality
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 5-C. AMBIENT PARTICULATE MATTER: RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS 

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

Particulate 

Matter 

Health

Threat Frequent Negligible Moderate Low

Symptoms:respiratorysymptoms such ascoughing, mucousproduction andaggravation of lungdisease (e.g., asthma) Incidence: >10% 

Symptoms:uncertainIncidence: 

F-40 Base Camp Air Quality
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

CS-6 Selecting a Drinking Water Source 

MISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

A viable source of drinking water is needed for a two-week operation in the Middle East. Prior to the 

mission, several potential sources for drinking water were identified and sampled. Using this sampling 

data you need to decide which drinking water source to use to supply your unit with potable water for the 

two-week deployment. It’s a rather warm arid climate so you need to be able to supply enough water to 

support consumption rates up to 15 L/day. 

1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 

Step 1.1. METT-TC: Chemicals, Media, and Locations

Three potential sources for drinking water were identified prior to the deployment. There is a primary

source and two alternate existing sources all of which are from surface waters. Intelligence reports 

indicate that the primary source may have been sabotaged with nerve agent. Three water samples were

obtained from this drinking water source and sent for lab analysis to confirm this report. Anticipating the 

potential need for an alternate source, three samples were obtained from each of the two other existing 

sources and sent for lab analysis – one of which appears to be contaminated through pollution. Your 

results indicate the presence of nerve agent in the primary source, arsenic in the first alternate source, and 

benzene, chlorobenzene, and phenol in the second alternate source. All three potential drinking water 

sources were sampled on the same day during pre-deployment. 

Step 1.2. Preliminary Threat Analysis 

The sampling data obtained from the primary source are included below. 

TABLE 6-A. SAMPLING RESULTS COMPARED TO MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR THE

PRIMARY DRINKING WATER SOURCE 

Contaminant Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

5-day 

Water-MEG 

5 L/day

Consumption 

5-day 

Water-MEG 

15 L/day

Consumption 

Nerve Agent – VX 0.02 mg/L 0.03 mg/L 0.02 mg/L 0.015 mg/L 0.005 mg/L

These data confirm your suspicions about your primary source; residual nerve agent VX was detected. 

F-41 Selecting a Drinking Water Source

A typical initial screening would be to compare the sample results to the long-term Water-MEGs. 

However, you find that there are no long-term values listed for VX. Therefore, you go directly to the 

short-term values. There is not a 2-week Water-MEG for VX, so you refer to the 5-day values included 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

in Table 6-A above. You note that the detected concentrations are above the 5-day Water-MEGs for both 

consumption rates. You also note these MEGs are in fact TB MED 577 standards and should not be 

exceeded. As a result, exposures to VX require more evaluation and you classify VX in the primary

drinking water source as a MEDICAL THREAT to the mission. 

Next you evaluate the first alternate source. The sample results from the first alternate source are 

provided in Table 6-B. 

TABLE 6-B. SAMPLING RESULTS COMPARED TO MILITARY EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR 

ALTERNATE DRINKING WATER SOURCE NO. 1

Contaminant Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

1-year 

Water-MEG 

5 L/day

Consumption 

1-year 

Water-MEG 

15 L/day

Consumption 

Arsenic 0.4 mg/L 0.3 mg/L 0.4 mg/L 0.06 mg/L 0.02 mg/L

You are surprised to find arsenic in your first alternate water source. As a preliminary screening, you 

compare the sampled concentrations to the 1-year Water-MEGs for arsenic. You note that the values for 

arsenic are TB MED 577 standards and should not be exceeded. All three of the sample concentrations 

are greater than the 1-year Water-MEGs indicating that further evaluation is necessary. Since arsenic 

levels detected are above the TB MED 577standard of 0.1 mg/L it is classified as a HEALTH THREAT 

and potential MEDICAL THREAT. 

Finally, you evaluate the second alternate drinking water source. The sampling results from this source 

are included below in Table 6-C. 

TABLE 6-C. SAMPLING RESULTS FOR ALTERNATE DRINKING WATER SOURCE NO. 2

Contaminant Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

2-week 

Water-MEG 

5 L/day

Consumption 

2-week 

Water-MEG 

15 L/day

Consumption 

Benzene 0.07 mg/L 0.3 mg/L 0.17 mg/L 0.3 mg/L 0.1 mg/L

Chlorobenzene 0.64 mg/L 1.5 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 3 mg/L 1 mg/L

Phenol 2.4 mg/L 3.2 mg/L 1.7 mg/L 8 mg/L 3 mg/L

You had predicted that the second alternate drinking water source had some contamination due to the 

odor. You check the long-term, 1-year Water-MEGs for your initial screening and find that only benzene 

F-42 Selecting a Drinking Water Source
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

has a value listed (0.042 mg/L and 0.014 mg/L for 5L/day and 15 L/day consumption rates, respectively). 

The detected benzene concentrations are well above this level, so you check the short-term values for 

benzene along with the other detected contaminants. Since the deployment duration is 2-weeks you use 

the 2-week Water-MEGs which are included in Table 6-C above. You compare the sampled

concentrations to the 2-week Water-MEGs for the 15 L/day consumption rate. There are some samples 

for each contaminant that are greater than the Water-MEG. Therefore, this source is considered 

HEALTH THREAT and requires further evaluation as well. 

2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 

Step 2.1. Hazard Severity Evaluation 

In this step you need to consider the potential health effects associated with the various contaminants 

detected in the different water supplies and assign a hazard severity ranking to each. 

(A) Primary Source 

The TB MED 577 provides information on the health effects from exposure to organophosphorus nerve 

agents and is summarized below in Table 6-D. Performance-degrading health effects can include 

abdominal cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, and headaches. The concentration of nerve agents at which death 

might occur from repeated ingestion of drinking water over the course of several days has not been 

determined but is estimated to be 0.11 mg/L. 

TABLE 6-D. ESTIMATED HEALTH EFFECTS FROM INGESTION OF ORGANOPHOSPHORUS 

NERVE AGENTS IN DRINKING WATER

Consumption 

Rate 

Safe Water 

Concentration* (mg/L) 

Increasing Risk of Performance 

Degrading Health Effects and Mortality 

(mg/L) 

Possibility of Respiratory 

Distress Requiring 

Resuscitation (mg/L)** 

5 L/day 0 - 0.012 0.012+ 0.03 

15 L/day 0 - 0.004 0.004+ 0.01 

*Based on GD since it appears to be the most toxic nerve agent where a total dose from field water is ingested in 

several drinks over the course of the day for an exposure period lasting up to 7 days. 

**Based on single intravenous dose of VX in human volunteers. 

All samples from the primary drinking water source had concentrations that are greater than the 5-day

Water-MEGs for VX and the estimated concentration for severe health effects. On the basis of the 

information gathered regarding exposure to VX in drinking water, you estimate the severity level 

associated with the primary source as CATASTROPHIC using the Chemical Hazard Severity Ranking 

Chart in Table F-3. You determined this by comparing the sample concentrations to the estimated health 

effects in Table 6-D. For exposures to concentrations at the sample levels you would expect many

personnel to experience incapacitation or death during the mission. This estimation reflects your 

particular concern regarding the small difference between a “safe” level and a “lethal” level. This small 

difference (referred to as a steep dose-response curve) means that a minor fluctuation in concentration can 

have catastrophic effects. In addition, since the concentrations are being compared to TB MED 577 

standards that do not have built in safety factors, it is likely that a high percentage of the unit will 

experience some degree of symptoms if exposed above the standard. 

F-43 Selecting a Drinking Water Source
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

(B) Alternate Source No. 1 

Since all three of the arsenic concentrations were greater than the 1-year Water-MEGs, you check the 

short-term MEGs (a TB MED standard). Only a 5-day value for arsenic is listed: 0.3 mg/L (5 L/day

consumption) and 0.1 mg/L (15 L/day consumption). 

The sampled concentrations are also greater than the 5-day Water MEGs for the 15 L/day consumption 

rate. The TB MED provides information on the health effects from arsenic exposure in drinking water 

and is summarized in Table 6-E. Symptoms of acute arsenic toxicity may include edema, nausea, 

vomiting, headache, and abdominal pain. Characteristic symptoms of chronic arsenic toxicity include 

skin effects, gastrointestinal problems, peripheral vascular disease, and neurological changes. 

TABLE 6-E. HEALTH EFFECTS FROM INGESTION OF ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER 

Consumption 

Rate 

Exposure 

Duration

Safe Water 

Concentration (mg/L) 

Increasing Risk of Developing

Symptoms of Toxicity (mg/L) 

Increasing Risk of

Lethality (mg/L) 

5 L/day < 7 days 0 – 0.3 0.3 – 14 14+ 

15 L/day < 7 days 0 – 0.1 0.1 – 4.7 4.7+ 

5 L/day < 1 year 0 – 0.06 0.06+ -- 

15 L/day < 1 year 0 – 0.02 0.02+ -- 

The information available regarding arsenic exposure in drinking water indicates that the risk of

developing symptoms of acute toxicity increases as the concentration increases above 0.1 mg/L. The risk 

of severe toxic effects and fatalities increases as concentrations rise above 4.7 mg/L. You also recall that

the comparison levels for arsenic are TB MED standards that do not have built in safety factors. Since the 

detected concentrations are all three to four times above the level that can begin to produce an acute 

effect, it is likely that most of the unit will begin to experience symptoms. On the basis of this 

information combined with the Chemical Hazard Severity Ranking Chart in Table F-2, you estimate the 

severity level associated with this source as CRITICAL as many personnel may experience symptoms 

that impair functional abilities during the mission. 

(C) Alternate Source No. 2 

You go to Appendix D to obtain additional information that is summarized below in Table 6-F. The 

absence of a carcinogen statement for chlorobenzene and phenol implies that they are not carcinogens. 

In addition, the notes section for phenol indicates that phenol can react with the water supply disinfectant 

hypochloride to produce objectionable tastes and odors. The odor you noticed is consistent with the 

findings. (Note that the odor thresholds are surpassed for both chlorobenzene and phenol.) 

F-44 Selecting a Drinking Water Source

You are concerned that all contaminants are above the short-term Water-MEG, but you realize that the 

information you have does not clearly indicate how severe the health effects from exposure to these 

concentrations might be. The Water-MEGs are exceeded for one of the three samples for chlorobenzene 

and phenol and for two of the three samples for benzene if the consumption rate is 15 L/day. If you 

average the three water samples, only the averaged benzene concentration is greater than the Water-MEG 

for the 15 L/day consumption rate. You do note that the level for benzene is considerably below lethal 

levels and that the level for phenol is considerably below that which will cause dangerous effects. You 

also note that two of these contaminants have potential effects on the CNS and two can cause liver and 

kidney damage so you consider potential additive effects. The sampled concentrations for all three 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

substances are less than or only slightly over the guidelines. Therefore, you anticipate that few personnel 

will exhibit symptoms from exposure to these chemicals and that the symptoms can be considered mild 

illness or temporary irritation. Using the Chemical Hazard Severity Ranking Chart Table F-2, you rank 

the severity of exposures to contaminants in this water source as NEGLIGIBLE. 

TABLE 6-F. ADDITIONAL HEALTH INFORMATION FOR CONTAMINANTS IN ALTERNATE 

DRINKING WATER SOURCE NO. 2 

Contaminant Potential Symptoms Target Organ

Odor and Taste 

Thresholds 

Human 

Carcinogen

Benzene 

Vomiting, loss of

coordination, lightheadedness, headache, and 

anemia are a few. 

Eyes, skin, respiratory 

system, blood, CNS, 

bone marrow, immune 

system

Odor: 2.0 mg/L

Taste: 0.5 – 4.5mg/L Yes 

Chlorobenzene

Drowsiness, dizziness, lightheadedness, and muscle 

spasms are a few 

CNS, liver, kidneys 

Odor: 0.05 mg/L 

Taste: 0.01 – 0.02 mg/L No 

Phenol

Corrosion of the mouth, 

throat, and stomach, nausea, 

and vomiting are a few. 

Liver, kidneys,

cardiovascular system

Odor: 0.3 mg/L No

Step 2.2. Hazard Probability Evaluation 

Though only three samples were collected from each water source, it is assumed that the data are 

representative of each of the water sources. Since the water supply would be the sole source of potable 

water for the camp, all personnel would be exposed to the contaminants present in the water on a daily

basis for the duration of the mission. For the primary and first alternate sources, since the levels of 

contaminants detected are significantly above the TB MED 577 standards for all samples, it is assumed 

that a high percentage of the unit will be exposed to levels above the standard. Therefore, based on the 

Chemical Hazard Probability Ranking Chart in Table F-3, the hazard probability should be considered 

FREQUENT. For the second alternate source, the concentrations are close to acceptable levels and are 

not above the appropriate guidelines in one of the three samples. Therefore, the hazard probability is 

somewhat lower than the other two sources since it is assumed that two-thirds of the time personnel will 

be exposed to levels greater than the Water-MEGs. The probability for this source is considered LIKELY 

based on the Chemical Hazard Probability Ranking Chart. 

Step 2.3. Risk Characterization

Table 6-G presents the risk characterization summary.

 2.3.1. Risk Estimate 

After estimating the hazard probability and hazard severity in the previous steps, you use the Risk 

Assessment Matrix in Table F-4 to determine the impact to the unit during a two-week operation at the 

camp. Both the primary and first alternate drinking water source present an EXTREMELY HIGH 

operational risk based on their hazard rankings. The second alternate source presents only a LOW level 

of operational risk to the unit. 

F-45 Selecting a Drinking Water Source
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

 2.3.2. Confidence Level

Your confidence in the operational risk estimates for each of the drinking water sources is 

considered MEDIUM based on the information available for the assessment. You know sufficient 

information about the expected exposures for the unit (duration, water consumption rate, high activity

level). There is sampling data available for each drinking water source that was analyzed in a laboratory

(in contrast to estimates from portable water kits and test strips). Water-MEGs are available for all 

contaminants detected and for the duration of interest (2-week comparison MEGs) in addition to 

information on potential health effects. There is some uncertainty in the potential fluctuations of 

contaminant concentrations in the water due to not knowing the contaminant sources. This is especially

true for the primary source since VX has a half-life of 50 hours in water. If the primary source was not 

intentionally contaminated again, concentrations of VX should continually decrease but without further 

intelligence and sampling information to confirm this, it was assumed the unit would be exposed to the 

sampled concentrations. 

2.3.3. Threat Category

The last step in the risk characterization is to place each of the hazards into health threat 

categories. You reassess your categories from the Preliminary Threat Analysis based on the complete 

hazard assessment. The hazards presented by the primary and first alternate drinking water source are 

classified as MEDICAL THREATS because they have the potential to render the unit mission ineffective. 

The hazards presented by the second alternate source are considered HEALTH THREATS since they are 

not expected to have immediate medical impacts on the overall mission effectiveness although they may

cause adverse health effects in some individuals. 

3. DEVELOP AND COMPARE CONTROLS FOR COA DEVELOPMENT 

Step 3.1. Hazard Controls 

In conclusion, you determine that bottled water is the preferred choice, but given no immediate access to 

a bottled supply, interim use of the second alternate source would be the next option since this source 

presents only a low operational risk level. 

Step 3.2. Residual Risk

If bottled water was used as a drinking water source you could ensure that the overall risk level remained 

low. However, you could maintain a low operational risk level while using the second alternate water 

source if you could ensure that concentration levels are maintained or decreased.

Step 3.3. Actions to Increase Confidence in Risk Estimate 

The continued monitoring of the second alternate drinking water source recommended above will also 

serve to increase your confidence in the risk assessment. With additional data, you would have a better 

understanding of the contaminant levels in the water source, which would lead to a better estimate of 

operational risk. 

F-46 Selecting a Drinking Water Source
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 6-G. DRINKING WATER SOURCES: RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

VX in Primary

Source 

Medical 

Threat Frequent Catastrophic Extremely High Medium

Symptoms:abdominal cramps, vomiting, diarrhea, headaches,respiratory distress are a few Incidence: >25% 

Symptoms:uncertainIncidence: 

Arsenic in

Alternate 

Source No. 1 

Medical 

Threat Frequent Critical Extremely High Medium

Symptoms: edema,nausea, vomiting, headache, abdominal painIncidence: >25% 

Symptoms: skineffects, gastrointestinalproblems, peripheral vascudisease, neurologicalchanges Incidence: 

Benzene,

Chlorobenzene

and Phenol in 

Alternate 

Source No. 2 

Health

Threat Likely Negligible Low Medium

Symptoms:vomiting, headache, dizziness, muscle spasm are a few Incidence: 0 – 10% 

Symptoms: cancimmune systemdepression, liver kidney damage benzene Incidence: 

F-47 Selecting a Drinking Water Source
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

This page intentionally left blank.

 F-48 
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

CS-7 Selection of Base Camp Sites 

MISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 

You are assisting with the planning for a peacekeeping mission in Central America. Two proposed base 

camps have been chosen. Each site could be used as a logistics base. You have been tasked to assess the 

environmental health-risk level for each COA. 

While many other factors will come to play in the final selection process, your commander is concerned 

about the potential health impacts associated with what will be a long–term (up to one year) stay for most 

the personnel deployed to the area. The operation will commence 90 days from today. You were allowed 

time to conduct a very brief, initial reconnaissance of each site. Your onsite reconnaissance results are 

presented below. 

1. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 

Step 1.1. METT-C: Chemicals, Media, and Locations 

(A) COA 1. Base Camp Raptor 

Base Camp (BC) Raptor is located adjacent to a river. This is muddy, and is the probable water supply. 

The BC is to be used only as a bulk refueling point and DS maintenance support asset. Personnel 

assigned to this site will primarily include (other activities will occur at other locations): 

− Security personnel (A mechanized infantry line company), who will be manning a minimal 

perimeter in fixed positions constructed by army engineers 2 weeks into the operation. 

− DS Maintenance Personnel who will be performing maintenance in a common (unimproved) 

motor pool. 

− Logistics Personnel who will manage and distribute all classes of supply from a tent city to be 

constructed by Air Force Engineers during the first 7 days of the operation. 

The tent city and maintenance areas are separated by an elevated road and are about 50 meters apart. 

There will not be a shower point at this site so solders will have to be rotated out for showers. The 

current plan is to have a daily shower run where 1/3 of the base camp gets a shower (i.e., a shower every

three days). 

 

At the south end of the site, you find the remains of a concrete pad. Local civilians tell you that there 

used to be an above ground fuel tank at this location. The tank was hit during a recent air attack. He tells 

you that after the fuel tank exploded, a fire burned for about six hours. This fire spread out 60 meters in 

all directions. You notice a faint stained area around the pad that appears to be contaminated, and a very

weak sweet smell. You decide to take air, water, and soil samples to evaluate various exposures from the 

site. Sampling results are summarized in Table 7-A. 

F-49 Base Camp Selection
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 7-A. BASE CAMP RAPTOR SAMPLE RESULTS 

Medium Chemical DF Mean

Standard

Deviation 

Maximum 

TG 230 Long-Term

MEG

Lead 8 / 8 184 103 426 2200

Lindane * 4 / 8 301 506 785 560 

Benzo[a]anthracene † 3 / 8 0.78 1.3 2.14 2500 

Ethyl Benzene † 3 / 8 600 635 1066 230 

Toluene † 3 / 8 480 301 887 520 

Xylene † 3 / 8 88 40 190 210 

Soil 

(mg/kg) 

Chrysene † 3 / 8 2975 6000 4470 3100

Water Lindane 1 / 1 — — 0.03 0.2 – 0.6 

(mg/L) Mercury 1 / 1 — — 0.002 0.0003 – 0.0007 

Benzene 1 / 1 — — 160 39

Carbon Tetrachloride 1 / 1 — — 33 320 Air ‡ 

(μg/m3

) 

Dichloroethane 1 / 1 — — 13 180

DF: Detection frequency

* These four detects are from randomly scattered locations, i.e., that are not grouped. 

† These three detects were taken from the spill area. 

‡ Air samples were averaged over the 0800 – 1000 time period (2 hours). 

(B) COA 2. BC Wolverine 

In this COA, BC Wolverine activities would include all the activities proposed for BC Raptor and much 

more of the operational load including housing many of the war fighters, and their motor pools. 

− Administrative personnel for the larger units. 

− DS Maintenance Personnel who will be performing maintenance in a common (unimproved) 

motor pool. These personnel will rotate out every third day and perform work at a remote site that 

has a dedicated hardstand for maintenance. 

− Logistics Personnel who will manage and distribute all classes of supply from fixed facilities. 

− Security personnel (a light infantry battalion) who will man a minimal perimeter in permanent 

positions constructed by army engineers 2 weeks into the operation.

BC Wolverine is a site 10 miles north of BC Raptor – inland from the river in a shallow valley. You can 

see what appears to be an industrialized area further up the valley. 

The site was selected for logistical reasons to include the existing abandoned warehouses present. Access 

roads are nearby, and you have been told that local bottled water from the nearby city would be provided. 

There are no surface water bodies present. You decide to take air and soil samples to evaluate various 

exposures from the site. Sampling results are summarized in Table 7-B. 

F-50 Base Camp Selection
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 7-B. BASE CAMP WOLVERINE SAMPLE RESULTS 

Medium Chemical DF Mean

Standard

Deviation 

Maximum 

TG 230 Long-Term

Guideline 

Fluoranthene 3 / 11 133 88 370 42000 Soil 

(mg/kg) Lead 11 / 11 688 1100 4200 2200

Water 

(mg/L) Bottled water data is unavailable 

Mercury 1 / 1 — — 3.2 0.21 Air * 

(mg/m3

) Carbon Tetrachloride 1 / 1 — — 0.34 0.32 

DF: Detection frequency

* Air samples were averaged over the 1500 – 1600 time period (1 hour). 

Step 1.2. Preliminary Threat Analysis 

Preliminary (health or medical) threats were identified by screening media concentrations using long term

MEGs. Concentrations that were above the MEGs were initially considered health threats and were 

analyzed further. Those chemicals retained for further analysis are summarized in Table 7-C. 

TABLE 7-C. POTENTIAL HEALTH THREATS 

Base Camp Medium Chemical DF Mean

Standard

Deviation 

Max 1-year 

MEG

Soil 

(mg/kg) Ethyl Benzene †

 3 / 8 600 635 1066 230 

Water 

(mg/L) Mercury 1/1 — — 0.002 0.0003 Raptor #

Air ‡

(ug/m3) Benzene 1/1 — — 160 39

Mercury 1/1 — — 3.2 0.21

Wolverine

Air * 

(ug/m3) Carbon Tetrachloride 1/1 — — 0.34 0.32 

DF: Detection frequency 

* Air samples were averaged over 1 hour. (1500 – 1600). 

† These three detects were taken from the spill area. ‡

 Air samples were averaged over 2 hours. (0800 – 1000) # Retain most conservative of the possible values (For 15 L/ Day)

F-51 Base Camp Selection
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

(A) BC Raptor 

Based on the sampling results and screening with MEGs the HEALTH THREATS for BC Raptor are 

ethyl benzene in soil, mercury in water and benzene in air. 

(B) BC Wolverine 

Based on the sampling results and screening with MEGs the HEALTH THREATS for BC Wolverine are 

mercury and carbon tetrachloride in air.

2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT 

Step 2.1. Hazard Severity Evaluation 

(A) BC Raptor 

Air: The effects associated with excessive benzene exposure in air are listed in TG 230 Appendix C. 

Initial symptoms irritation of eyes, nose and throat and potentially followed by other respiratory

symptoms. The effects you expect to see are mild injury or temporary irritation amongst a small portion 

(e.g. <10%) of the population. According to the Hazard Severity Ranking Chart in Table F-2, you chose 

a hazard severity of NEGLIGIBLE for airborne chemical hazards. 

Water: The effects associated with excessive exposure to mercury in water are listed in TG 230 in 

Appendix D. Initial symptoms include, tremors, fatigue and other CNS effects. The effects you expect to 

see are mild injury or temporary irritation amongst a small portion of the exposed personnel. As a result, 

you chose a hazard severity of NEGLIGIBLE for chemical hazards in drinking water per suggested 

TG230 Severity Ranking Chart). 

Soil: The effects associated with excessive exposure to ethylbenzene are listed in TG 230 in Appendix E. 

Initial symptoms include, headache, nausea, dizziness and other CNS effects. Based on the concentration 

found, the volatility only a small portion (e.g. <10%) of personnel would be expected to exhibit 

symptoms. The effects you expect to see are mild injury or temporary irritation. As a result, you chose a 

hazard severity of NEGLIGIBLE for chemical hazards from soil (per the Hazard Severity Ranking Chart 

in Table F-2). 

(B) BC Wolverine 

Soil: No health threats were identified in the soil at this location. 

Water: The water supply for this site is going to be obtained as bottled water from a certified source –so 

no health threat is associated with this pathway.

Air: Mercury and carbon tetrachloride in air were identified as a potential health threat. 

1) The effects associated with excessive exposure to mercury in air are listed in TG 230 Appendix 

C. Initial symptoms (expected initially amongst a small portion of personnel) include irritation to 

eyes and skin; chest pain, dyspnea and other respiratory effects. You categorize the effects you 

expect to see as mild injury or temporary irritation. Per the suggested Hazard Severity Ranking 

Chart, you chose a hazard severity of NEGLIGIBLE for this airborne chemical hazard. 

F-52 Base Camp Selection
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

2) The effects associated with excessive exposure to carbon tetrachloride are listed in TG 230, Table 

Appendix C. Initial symptoms include irritation to eyes and skin; nausea and vomiting and other 

CNS effects. But based on the concentration found and the volatile nature of this chemical, you 

expect to see mild injury or temporary irritation amongst a small portion of the exposed group. 

As a result, you chose a Hazard severity of NEGLIGIBLE for this airborne chemical hazard. 

Step 2.2. Hazard Probability Evaluation

(A) BC Raptor 

Soil: Only ethyl benzene was identified as a potential health threat in soil. It was detected only in the 

locations where residual material from the fire remained. You notice that this is the area where all 

maintenance work will be performed. You decide that in order establish a risk level; you will select the 

most exposed soldier. In this case, it is the DS maintenance personnel because you expect them to have 

intimate, prolonged contact with the soil for the entire duration (working in an unimproved motor pool 

and they get a shower every three days). 

You and the surgeon identify that the DS maintenance section is mission critical for the mission at this 

location, and that most if not all personnel will be exposed. However, you estimate that only 20 – 50 

percent (Hazard Probability Ranking Chart in Table F-3) of the unit will contact soil at levels above the 

TG 230 guideline of 230 mg/kg. In addition, ethyl benzene is a volatile chemical, and should not be 

present for the entire year at this concentration. 

As a result, the hazard probability for chemicals in soil at BC Raptor is chosen to be OCCASIONAL. 

You suspect that this is an overestimate due to the volatility, but decide to retain this estimate in order to 

be conservative. 

Water: Mercury in water was identified as a potential health threat. Because this is the sole water source, 

all soldiers will drink from this water every day. As a result, the hazard probability was chosen to be 

FREQUENT. Though you note that this is a single sample, and may not adequately characterize the 

water supply. 

Air: Benzene in air was identified as a potential health threat. Because this is an ambient measurement, 

the hazard probability was chosen to be FREQUENT. Though you note that this is a single sample, and 

may not adequately characterize the ambient conditions. 

(B) BC Wolverine 

Soil: No health threats were identified in the soil at this location 

Water: The water supply was not tested. 

Air: Mercury and carbon tetrachloride in air was identified as a potential health threat. Because these 

were ambient measurements, the hazard probability was chosen to be FREQUENT. Of course, these 

were taken as a single sample, and may not adequately characterize the ambient conditions. 

Step 2.3. Risk Characterization

Tables 7-D and 7-E present the risk characterization summaries for each BC.

F-53 Base Camp Selection
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

 2.3.1. Risk Estimate 

Based on the assessment of severity and probability of chemical hazards in various media at each site, 

you consider the FM 100-14 Operational Risk Management matrix in Table F-4 and conclude that the 

overall risks at both sites are similar –both are ranked MODERATE. 

2.3.2. Confidence Level

(A) BC Raptor 

The overall Moderate risk level associated with BC Raptor is driven by the benzene levels in the air 

and water in that area. However, the confidence in this risk estimate is LOW. This is primarily due to 

the lack of representative concentration data. Both the benzene and mercury concentrations were 

evaluated using single measurements, which may not be representative of the ambient concentrations of 

these chemicals. Exposure data is limited as well. The risk assessment is based on an arbitrary decision 

to use maintenance personnel as the most exposed person. This assumption will necessarily make the risk

level an over conservative estimate of the risk to the rest of the personnel at this site. 

(B) BC Wolverine 

The risk level associated with BC Wolverine is also considered Moderate due to the mercury and 

carbon tetrachloride concentrations in air. This risk level assumes that the water selected for use at this 

site will not be a health threat for this location. The confidence in the overall risk level is considered 

LOW, however, mainly because of the lack of representative data. Both airborne chemical concentrations 

were evaluated using single measurements take over the space of 1 hour, which may not be representative 

of the ambient concentrations of these chemicals. 

 

2.3.3. Threat Category

Based on these assessments, you believe that the environmental conditions at both sites may be 

HEALTH THREATS but should not be considered medical threats. 

3. DEVELOP AND COMPARE CONTROLS FOR COA DEVELOPMENT 

You present the risk levels above to the J3. Based on the BC risk assessment, you have estimated that the 

chemical hazards present at the two sites present a similar degree of risk (Moderate), and that you can 

only estimate this with a Low degree of confidence. However, you give slight preference to the use of 

BC Wolverine due to two factors. First, there is only one exposure pathway (inhalation) of concern at this 

site – soil samples suggest that soil contamination is not a health threat; and a bottled water supply 

negates concerns about this source. Second, the two contaminants present in the air do exceed MEGs, 

however, carbon tetrachloride (a B2 carcinogen) just barely exceeds the long-term Air-MEG and is 

substantially below its associated short-term exposure MEGs. Mercury more significantly exceeds the 

long-term MEG – but you notice there are no short-term MEGs for this compound, suggesting perhaps it 

is not a critical acute hazard. Though only one chemical was detected in the air at BC Raptor, you have 

hazards of concern in both water and soil as well. Even though soil and water pathways could be 

somewhat controlled, the benzene from the air is of particular concern. It is a Class A (known human) 

carcinogen and you note that not only does the sample level exceed the 1-year MEG, it is right at the 14-

day MEG. 

Step 3.1. Hazard Controls 

Selection of the BC location in this case may be driven by other factors (such as logistical benefits, etc) 

since chemical hazards at both sites are of similar severity and probability. If BC Raptor is selected, 

F-54 Base Camp Selection
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

specific controls can be instituted to prevent/minimize exposures to chemicals in soil (educate personnel 

on minimizing contact (using clothing/gloves as barriers) and cleaning more frequently) and drinking

water (such as obtain bottled water source). The airborne hazards that are present at either site are going 

to be difficult to minimize, so exposures will need to be documented. Continued monitoring of the 

ambient air situation will provide further information that could be used to control the risk to personnel at 

either site. In addition, source investigation may identify where these chemicals are coming from, and if 

concentrations remain at these levels or increase, active measures to control it could be implemented 

depending on the situation. 

Step 3.2. Residual Risk

Even if soil and water hazards are eliminated from BC Raptor, the airborne hazard will still present a 

Moderate Risk. Likewise, there are no viable controls to reduce the Moderate Risk present at BC 

Wolverine. 

Step 3.3. Actions to Increase Confidence in Risk Estimate

The major uncertainty in the risk estimate at both locations is the lack of data. Further actions should 

include more representative sampling in order to characterize the temporal aspects of the exposures. In 

addition, some investigation of the sources of the air pollution should be performed. The results of these 

investigations may be used to manage or eliminate the exposures (stop mercury emissions around 

wolverine) if the political/strategic situation allows. 

F-55 Base Camp Selection
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 7-D. BASE CAMP RAPTOR RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS 

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

Ethyl Benzene

in Soil 

Health

Threat Occasional Negligible Low Medium

Symptoms:lightheadedness, headaches; dizziness; fatigueIncidence: <10%

Symptoms:uncertain Incidence: 

Mercury in

Water 

Health

Threat Frequent Negligible Moderate Low

Symptoms: fatigue, tremors, loss of motor skills/visualacuity/higher mentalfunction; weakness memory loss Incidence: <10%

Symptoms:Liver and kidneydamage; memory Incidence: <10%

Benzene in

Air 

Health

Threat Frequent Negligible Moderate Low

Symptoms: Irritation of eyes, skin, nose, respiratory system; giddiness; headache, nausea, staggered gait; fatigue, anorexia, lassitude (weakness,exhaustion); dermatitis; Incidence: <10%

Symptoms:bone marrow depression, leukemcancer. Incidence: <10%

Overall 

Threat 

Health 

Threat Frequent Negligible Moderate Low 

F-56 Base Camp Selection
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX F: Case Studies

TABLE 7-E: BASE CAMP WOLVERINE RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDED CONTROLS 

HAZARD RANKING OPERATIONAL RISK ESTIMATE PREDICTED HEALTH OUTCOME CHEMICAL 

HAZARD 

HAZARD 

TYPE

HAZARD 

PROBABILITY

HAZARD 

SEVERITY RISK LEVEL CONFIDENCE DURING DEPLOYMENT AFTER DEPLOYMEN

Mercury 

and Carbon

Tetrachloride

in Air 

Health

Threat Frequent Negligible Moderate Low

Symptoms: Irritatingto eyes, skin; cough, chest pain, dyspnea,bronchitis, pneumonitis; tremor, insomnia, irritability, indecision, drowsiness, dizziness headache, fatigue, weakness;stomatitis, salivation, GI distress, anorexia Incidence: <10% 

Symptoms:liver, kidney injury; cancer (carbon tet)Incidence: <10% 

Overall Site 

Risk 

Health 

Threat Frequent Negligible Moderate Low 

F-57 Base Camp Selection
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX G: Supporting Material 

APPENDIX 

G DRINKING WATER PURIFICATION 

The Performance of the Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit (ROWPU) 

with Respect to Removal of Soluble Contaminants from Source Waters 

 G-1
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX G: Supporting Material 

This page intentionally left blank. 

 G-2
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX G: Supporting Material 

WATER QUALITY INFORMATION PAPER NO. IP-31-014 

WATER PURIFICATION BY REVERSE OSMOSIS 

1. PURPOSE. This information paper provides guidance on the performance of the reverse osmosis 

water purification unit (ROWPU) with respect to removal of soluble contaminants from source waters. It 

is intended for the use of all preventive medicine and water point personnel, whether or not they have 

received formal instruction in membrane technology. 

2. DISCUSSION. 

a. Principles. 

 (1) Osmosis, for our purpose, is the process whereby water passes through a Αsemipermeable≅

membrane, i.e., a membrane that obstructs the passage of salt or other material dissolved in the water. 

The direction of water passage is from the dilute solution side of the membrane to the concentrated side. 

For example, if a living cell is emersed in distilled water, the cell swells - sometimes to the bursting point 

- as water flows in through the cell membrane. If, on the other hand, the same cell is emersed in a 

saturated salt solution, water flows out and the cell is dehydrated, which is how road salt kills vegetation. 

 (2) Applying pressure to the concentrated solution side of a membrane reverses this osmotic 

process. This process allows us to construct a device to extract pure - or nearly pure - water from

solutions of salt and other dissolved materials in a manner analogous to distillation, except that pressure 

provides the driving force rather than temperature. The ROWPU is such a device. 

 b. Removal of Simple Salts. 

 (1) It is important to understand that the original 600 gph ROWPU was designed to produce 

potable water from seawater or brackish water, i.e., to remove sea salts, principally sodium chloride or 

common salt. Other significant seawater constituents include salts of magnesium, calcium and potassium, 

as well as salts of bromine, sulfur (in the form of sulfate) and carbon (in the form of carbonate and 

bicarbonate). The product water from the ROWPU has 98- 99 percent of the sodium chloride removed 

(Αrejected≅) and at least that much of the other sea salts. Ordinary seawater contains about 3.5 percent 

(35,000 ppm) sea salts, so the product water should contain 350-700 ppm dissolved salts. This is more 

salt than in most municipal drinking water, but it is still well within the Army field water standard (1,000 

mg/L). Note that if the seawater contains more than 3.5 percent salts, as is the case in the Persian Gulf, 

the ROWPU still removes just 98-99 percent. Thus, if the seawater contains 6 percent (60,000 ppm) salts, 

the product water will contain 600-1,200 ppm and may taste very slightly brackish. If, on the other hand, 

the ROWPU is used to purify fresh water, the product water may contain almost no salts 

and may taste Αflat. 

 (2) The membranes in the ROWPU are manufactured to remove sea salts. Any other chemical 

removal is a bonus, but such removal must be determined experimentally for the particular membrane, for 

each chemical, and for the conditions (temperature, pH, pressure) under which the equipment will be 

used. Some typical rejection data are presented in Table 1 for membranes similar to those used in the 

ROWPU. However, many new membranes, tailored for specific purposes, are being marketed. Some of 

these membranes may give significantly improved salt rejection and may provide greatly altered 

selectivity. 

G-3 Purification by Reverse Osmosis
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX G: Supporting Material 

TABLE 1. REJECTION OF SALTS BY A TYPICAL RO MEMBRANE*

Salt Rejection, percent

Sodium chloride 98 

Magnesium chloride 98 

Calcium chloride 99 

Magnesium sulfate 99 

Sodium bicarbonate 98 

Sodium nitrate 93 

Sodium fluoride** 98 

* Filmtec1, spiral wound, thin film composite polyamide. Data are provided 

by the manufacturer for pure solutions of each salt; they are not applicable to 

mixtures of salts. 

**Fluoride rejection is pH dependent: about 75% at pH 5, 50% at pH 4, 30% at 

pH 3.5 and 0 % at pH <3. 

c. Industrial Inorganic Chemicals. 

 (1) Most inorganic salts, including industrial chemicals, are removed from water by the ROWPU 

as well as sodium chloride. However, some inorganic salts are poorly removed (Table 

2). Product water from a river contaminated with plating wastes will probably have 98-99 percent of 

nickel, copper and zinc removed and 96-98 percent of the cadmium, but perhaps only 

90 percent or less of the chromium and cyanide. This may not seem like much of a difference, but note 

that a process which removes 90 percent of a pollutant leaves 10 times as much of the . 

pollutant in the product water as one that removes 99 percent. Removal efficiency is poor for 

mercury (33-78 percent) and arsenic (69-99 percent, depending on the chemical form). Removal 

efficiency is good for iron and manganese, but these metals may cause excessive fouling of the 

membranes. 

 

G-4 Purification by Reverse Osmosis

1

 Filmtec is a registered trademark of FilmTec Corporation, Minneapolis, MN.
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX G: Supporting Material 

TABLE 2. REJECTION OF HEAVY METAL SALTS BY TYPICAL RO MEMBRANES 

Salt Rejection, percent

Nickel sulfate 99 

Copper sulfate 99 

Arsenic (+5) salts 99 

Arsenic (+3) salts 69 and lower 

Cadmium salts 99 

Lead salts 97 

Mercury salts 37-78 

Chromium (+6) salts 97 

Chromium (+3) salts 96 

 (2) Many of the common heavy metals found in polluted waters (lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, 

and chromium in particular) are highly toxic, and while the ROWPU may remove them well enough to 

meet health standards, it is still important to select the best raw water source available. This places 

increasing importance on the role of preventive medicine personnel in the process of water point site 

selection. 

 d. Organic Chemicals. 

 

 (1) Removal of organic materials may depend on size (i.e., molecular weight), structure and 

substitution (Table 3). Natural organic materials in water (lignans, tannins, fulvic substances) are 

essentially all removed, as are carbohydrates, proteins, and amino acids. Rejection of contaminants from

industrial sources is highly variable. Removal efficiency is poor for low molecular weight alcohols such 

as methyl, ethyl, propyl and isopropyl alcohol, as well as for most low molecular weight solvents, 

including chlorinated solvents. In general, initial removal improves with increase in molecular weight, 

but this may be deceiving. Many organic 

contaminants that show good short-term removal in bench tests may Αleak≅ through the membrane in 

days or even hours. For example, removal of lindane may fall from an initial 97 

percent to 85 percent after 24 hours. Weak organic acids of low molecular weight (acetic acid 

and its simple derivatives, propionic acid, butyric acid, phenol) are poorly removed. 

G-5 Purification by Reverse Osmosis
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX G: Supporting Material 

TABLE 3. REJECTION OF SOME ORGANIC CHEMICALS BY TYPICAL RO 

MEMBRANES 

Chemical Rejection, percent

Aldehydes and Alcohols 

Formaldehyde 35

Methanol 25

Ethanol 70

Isopropanol 90

Sucrose (cane sugar) 99 

Acids 

Acetic acid 60-90 

Fluoroacetic acid* 98-99 

Phenol 56-87

Benzoic acid 87-92 

Solvents 

Trihalomethanes 50-80

Chloroethylenes 15-90

BTEX 15-50

Chlorobenzene 40-50

Herbicides 

Atrazine 96

Alachlor 98

Linuron 98

* Rodenticide; extremely toxic to humans 

 (2) Most organics will not cause acute health problems at the concentrations found even in 

polluted source water, although they may impart a taste so unpleasant that consumers will risk 

dehydration rather than drink it. However, some may present the risk of long-term health problems such 

as cancer. Because of the uncertainty in efficiency of rejection of industrial organics, it is again important 

to select the least contaminated source water for treatment. Surface waters immediately downstream from 

municipal or industrial outfalls should be avoided, in particular the outfall from a petrochemical complex 

e. NBC Agents. Removing NBC agents from water by RO has received only limited investigation 

(Table 4). A single study indicates that the biotoxins, such as ricin, are reduced below detection limits by

membranes similar to those in the ROWPU. Other studies indicate better than 99 percent removal for 

chemical agents and 95 percent or better removal for certain radioactive chemicals (nuclear agents). 

However, it is also known that radioactive materials eventually damage RO membranes. Furthermore, it 

may be assumed that membranes exposed to a constant challenge will eventually pass larger 

concentrations of chemical agents (but not most biotoxins). 

 G-6
USACHPPM TG 230, May 2003 

APPENDIX G: Supporting Material 

TABLE 4. REJECTION OF NBC AGENTS BY REVERSE OSMOSIS 

Agent Rejection, percent

T-2 100

Microcystin 100

Ricin 100

Saxitoxin 100

GB >99

VX >99

BZ >99

Hydrogen cyanide <25* 

131

I >95

85Sr >99

134

Cs >98

*pH < 8.5 

f. Parasites, Bacteria and Viruses. Reverse osmosis membranes have not, for the most part, been 

specifically tested for removal of bacteria, viruses, and parasites, such as Giardia or Cryptosporidium

cysts. Based on size exclusion, it may safely be assumed that an undamaged membrane will remove 

virtually 100 percent of all microbiological organisms (although recent studies have indicated that virus 

removal efficacy may be subject to quality control limitations in membrane manufacture). Thus, the 

ROWPU is an effective barrier to water-borne pathogens. However, it is still important to avoid source 

water that may contain human or other animal wastes and to disinfect the ROWPU product water in order 

to prevent possible bacterial recontamination. 

3. CONCLUSIONS. The ROWPU is a highly effective device for removing water pollutants and can 

provide an ample supply of assured safe drinking water if reasonable care is exercised in selection of the 

raw water source. It must be emphasized that the tabular data presented in this technical guide are for 

illustrative purposes only, and should not be used to estimate ROWPU product water quality except in the 

most general sense. Reverse osmosis performance depends, among other things, on the operating 

parameters, the choice and condition of the membrane, and the pH and temperature of the water. 

Knowledge of performance of the ROWPU with respect to individual source water constituents is still 

limited. 

4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Field preventive medicine personnel and others with specific 

health-related questions on treatment of water for both potable and nonpotable use are urged to contact 

the Water Supply Management Program, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive 

Medicine: phone (410) 436-3919, DSN 584-3919; Fax (410) 436-8104; email: wsmp@apgea.army.mil; 

home page: http://chppm-www.apgea.mil/dwater. 

 

 W. DICKINSON BURROWS, PhD, P.E., DEE 

 Environmental Engineer

 Water Supply Management Program 

 JERRY A. VALCIK, P.E., DEE 

 Program Manager 

 Water Supply Management Program

 G-7
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, GUIDANCE, RESOURCES 

MILITARY DOCTRINE AND POLICY 

• Summary and Web links to Force Health Protection and OEH (Chemical Health Risk) 

deployment policy, guidance and doctrine: at web link below go to “Documents Available 

Online” and then to first bullet under “Military /Deployment Guidance” 

 http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/HRA/Caw/index.html

• GEN Reimer’s Training and Doctrine Digital Library: great way to obtain ARs, Pams, FMs, 

etc. Refer to this site for FMs and related doctrine regarding NBC topics and preventive medicine

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/atdls.htm

• Source library for JOINT doctrine: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/index.html

USACHPPM TECHNICAL GUIDANCE AND DEPLOYMENT RISK ASSESSMENTS 

• USACHPPM Deployment Environmental Surveillance Program website: provides information 

regarding field equipment, deployment sampling kits, past/ongoing deployment OEH surveillance 

and risk assessment projects in Kosovo, Bosnia, and related to the Gulf War. This also 

has/downloadable versions of various USACHPPM TGs:

 http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/desp/pages/despinfo.htm

o TG 248 – Guide for Deployed Preventive Medicine Personnel on Health Risk Management (2001)

o TG 230/RD 230 – Chemical Exposure Guidelines for Deployed Military Personnel (2003) 

o TG 236A – Basic Radiological Dose Estimate - A Field Guide (2001)

o TG 251 – Environmental Health Field Sampling Guide for Deployments (Draft 2001)

• Training Materials: Operational Risk Management Course on Occupational & Environmental 

Health Hazards http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/desp/pages/ormc.htm

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RESPONSE 

• Managing Hazardous Materials Incidents, US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry, Vol 1- for Emergency Medical Services, Vol 2 for Hospital Emergency Departments, 

and Vol 3 is for the Medical Management Guidelines for Acute Chemical Exposures, 

http://aepo-xdv-www.epo.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000018/p0000018.asp

• Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

US Department of Health and Human Services, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npg.html

• 2001 Emergency Response Guidebook, North America (US DOT, Canada, 

Mexico), http://hazmat.dot.gov/gydebook.htm 

• Hazardous Materials Guide for First Responders, US Fire Administration - Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, http://www.usfa.fema.gov/hazmat/ 

• Guide for the Selection of Chemical Agent and Toxic Industrial Material Detection Equipment 

for Emergency First Responders, National Institute of Justice; Vol.1 general guide, Vol. 2 -

detection equipment data sheets, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/184449.htm

CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS (CWA) AND ASSOCIATED HEALTH GUIDELINES 

• USACHPPM CWA and Associated Health Guidelines: includes information and links to sites 

that provide information on basic chemical, physical and toxicological properties of CWA. 

Information on health related guidance and current environmental policy issues are also 

available. http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/hracp/pages/caw/home.htm 
 Approved for Public Release; Distribution unlimited. 

Page 1 of 2 

January 2004 Addendum to 

USACHPPM Technical Guide (TG) 230: 

Chemical Exposure Guidelines for Deployed Military Personnel 

Purpose: This document describes recent changes to the last published USACHPPM TG 230 

(May 2003 – Version 1.3) so that users may make use of the newest information. Due to the 

pending National Research Council (NRC) evaluation of TG 230 (due out in 2004), these changes 

are not yet being directly incorporated into a new published version of the TG. Upon the 

publication of the NRC report, the USACHPPM will assess the recommendations of the NRC and 

determine what additional changes may be required. Users will be notified of the availability of a 

future revised TG 230 publication.

Risk Assessment Methodology Clarification: Sample data that indicate all analyses are below 

the corresponding long-term (1-year) MEGs can automatically be considered a “Low” risk. This 

assumption acknowledges that the constituents may be present and still represent some degree of 

potential risk (to include issue of potential multiple constituents with possible additive or synergistic 

effects), but still meet the definition of a Low risk per Field Manual (FM) 100-14 (little or no effect 

on mission). 

Military Exposure Guidelines (MEGs): Ongoing analyses of deployment environmental 

samples have routinely indicated the presence of many chemical parameters for which there were 

no published MEGs. This resulted in use of other Federal standards or guidelines for deployment 

occupational and environmental health (OEH) operational risk assessments. However, use of these 

values is not appropriate/consistent within the context of the Operational Risk Management (ORM) 

procedure prescribed by TG 230. 

As such, USACHPPM has developed many new MEGs for chemicals that are commonly analyzed 

for in environmental samples. These new MEGs have been developed using the same basic 

methodologies used to derive existing MEGs. While these values have gone through initial internal 

review, some values are noted as ‘Interim MEGs’ pending additional evaluation. Unfortunately, 

specific health effects and target organ information have not yet been fully incorporated into the TG 

230 database, and in the interim, users are advised to look up this information through established 

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and occupational references as described in the 

Reference Document (RD) 230. Some existing MEGs were also re-evaluated/updated. 

Tables 1-3 present a complete listing of the MEGs by media. Values that have changed from the 

Version 1.3 publication are bolded and italized and newly added values and chemicals are bolded. 

Most MEGs are now rounded to two significant digits or less depending on the source used in the 

derivation, although not considered a change in the value itself. Specific changes and additions 

pertinent to the MEGs for each media are described below: 

Air MEGs: 

 Several short-term air MEGs have been updated and a few new chemicals added based on 

publication of new Acute Exposure Guideline Levels (AEGLs) and updated Emergency 

Response Planning Guidelines (ERPGs). 
Jan 2004 TG 230 Addendum 

Page 2 of 2 

 ‘Interim’ 1-year air MEGs have been developed for vanadium and zinc. These MEGs were 

developed using oral chronic toxicity values as performed by EPA Region III in the 

development of their risk-based concentrations (RBCs). These MEGs were developed for 

screening purposes only to identify scenarios that made need closer evaluation. 

 

Water MEGs:

 New water MEGs have been developed (~90 long term MEGs, ~30 short-term MEGs), to 

include addition of approximately 80 new chemicals. Some existing values were modified 

with updated information. The same methodology as described in the RD 230 was used to 

establish such values with the exception of the use of long-term (1-year) EPA Health 

Advisories (HAs), which the EPA has now retracted publication. 

 In general, most water MEGs have been rounded to a single significant digit, consistent with 

EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and HAs. This level of precision is consistent 

with the health/toxicity values and other parameters used in calculating the MEGs. 

 Short-term water-MEG durations have been modified as follows: 

o 5-day MEGs are now described as “< 7 day MEGs” to be more in line with 

established Technical Bulletin Medical (TB MED) 577 standards. 

o 14-day water MEGs are now described as “7 to 14 day MEGs” 

 Long-term (1-year) water MEGs for the TB MED parameters arsenic, cyanide, and lindane 

are now calculated as specific guidelines (MEGs). TB MED standards still apply as go-no 

go potable decision criteria but for water supplies being used for extended periods (>14 days 

to 1-year), risk characterization should make use of the new 1-year MEGs. 

 The short-term lead water MEGs have been retracted since they were considered overly 

conservative for assessing adult exposures. 

Soil MEGs:

 Soil MEGs have been calculated for several additional chemicals and others are under 

development. 

NOTE: Various chemicals with MEGs are sometimes not identified when synonyms are used. The 

following list some chemicals with common alternate names. 

CASRN Chemical Name listed in 

Jan 2004 TG 230 Addendum Synonym/Abbreviation 

74-83-9 Bromomethane Methyl Bromide 

94-75-7 2,4-D Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 

103-23-1 Di-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate Adipate 

74-95-3 Dibromomethane Methylene Bromide 

75-35-4 Dichoroethylene (1,1-) Dichoroethene (1,1-) 

1445-75-6 Diisopropylmethyl-phosphate DIMP 

71-55-6 Methyl Chloroform 1,1,1-Trichoroethane 

10025-87-3 Phosphorus Oxychloride Phosphoryl trichloride 

1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-TCDD Tetrachlorobenzodioxin or Dioxin 

505-60-2 Sulfur Mustard HD, Blister agent, mustard gas 

79-01-6 Trichloroethene Trichloroethylene 

na Total Dissolved Solids TDS 

CASRN = Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number, na = not available 
Table 1. Military Exposure Guidelines for Air - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 8-Hr 1-14 Day 1-year Date last change N

Severe Significant Minimal

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs 

(mg/m3) Publication

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 0.028 May-03 1-yr airAcenaphthene 83-32-9 0.14 May-03 new chem: 1-yr airAcetaldehyde 75-07-0 0.006 May-03 1-yr airAcetone 67-64-1 29 Jan-02Acetone Cyanohydrin 75-86-5 16 8 0.4 0.068 Jan-02Acetonitrile 75-05-8 840 100 67 67 1.6 0.34 Jan-04

new air MEGs: 1 hr TEELs 0,2,38-hr=TEEL-0 &TLV; 1-14-day TL

Acifluorfen 5094-66-6 Jan-02Acrolein 107-02-8 3.2 0.23 0.07 0.07 0.023 0.000014 Jan-02Acrylamide 79-06-1 0.0037 Jan-02Acrylic Acid 79-10-7 530 140 3 3 0.14 May-03 1-hr air MEGs updated (AEGLs)Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 160 76 22 4.4 0.22 0.11 Jan-02Alachlor 15972-60-8 Jan-02Aldrin 309-00-2 25 0.25 0.006 0.00098 Jan-02Allyl Alcohol 107-18-6 160 10 5 5 0.012 May-03 1-hr air MEGs updated (AEGLs)Allyl Amine 107-11-9 42 7.7 0.98 0.98 May-03 1-hr air MEGs updated (ERPGsAllyl Chloride 107-05-1 0.077 Jan-02Ametryn 834-12-8 Jan-02Ammonia 7664-41-7 770 77 17 17 0.35 0.35 Jan-02Ammonium Sulfamate 7773-06-0 Jan-02Aniline 62-53-3 76 46 30 3.8 0.19 May-03 1-hr air MEGs updated (AEGLs)Anthracene 120-12-7 35 Jan-02Antimony 744-36-0 0.012 Jan-04 1yr air (TLVadj)Antimony Trioxide 1309-64-4 0.00014 Jan-02Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.0011 Jan-02Arsenic Trichloride 7784-34-1 0.01 0.01 Jan-02Arsine 7784-42-1 1.6 0.54 0.17 0.17 0.004 0.000034 Jan-04 added 1-hr min air MEG (same a

Azobenzene 103-33-3 0.15 Jan-02Barium 7440-39-3 0.0034 Jan-02Benzene 71-43-2 3200 480 160 1.6 0.16 0.039 Jan-02Benzidine 92-87-5 0.000072 Jan-02Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.054 Jan-02Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.0054 Jan-02Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 0.054 Jan-02Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 0.54 Jan-02Beryllium 7440-41-7 0.000014 Jan-02Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7 0.12 Jan-02Bis(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)ether 108-60-1 0.0014 Jan-02Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 111-44-4 0.015 Jan-02Boron 7440-42-8 0.014 Jan-02Boron Tribromide 10294-33-4 10 10 10 Jan-02Boron Trifluoride 7637-07-2 39 16 0.6 0.6 2 0.0048 May-03 1-hr air MEGs updated (AEGLs)Bromine 7726-95-6 56 1.6 0.16 0.063 0.063 Jan-02Bromine Pentafluoride 7789-30-2 0.7 0.7 Jan-02

1-Hour Air MEGs (mg/m3

)

Page 1-1
Table 1. Military Exposure Guidelines for Air - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 8-Hr 1-14 Day 1-year Date last change N

Severe Significant Minimal

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs 

(mg/m3) Publication

1-Hour Air MEGs (mg/m3

)

Bromoform 75-25-2 0.13 Jan-04 new 1 yr water MEGsBromomethane [METHYL BROMIDE] 74-83-9 780 200 58 4 0.09 0.09 Jan-04 new 1 yr water MEGs, others JaButadiene (1,3-) 106-99-0 0.017 Jan-02Butyl Isocyanate (n-) 111-36-4 4.1 0.2 0.04 Jan-02Butylbenzene (sec-) 135-98-8 0.025 Jan-02Cadmium (compounds) 0.000049 Jan-02Cadmium (elemental) 7440-43-9 0.00024 Jan-02Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 1600 160 3 3 0.76 0.48 Jan-02Carbon Monoxide 630-08-0 380 95 28 3.3 3.3 May-03 changes to short term air MEGs Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 1100 350 75 33 1.3 0.32 May-03 changes to 1 hr air MEGs (AEGCarbonyl Fluoride 353-50-4 5 0.13 Jan-02Chlordane(techgrade CAS 12789-03-6) 57-74-9 0.00048 Jan-02

Chlorine 7782-50-5 58 5.8 1.5 1.5 0.29 May-03 changes to short-term air MEGs Chlorine Dioxide 10049-04-4 6.6 3 0.4 0.4 0.0068 May-03 changes to short-term air MEGs Chlorine Trifluoride 7790-91-2 53 12 0.5 0.5 0.15 May-03 changes to short-term air MEGs Chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (1-) 75-68-3 34 Jan-02Chloro-1,3-butadiene (2-) 126-99-8 0.048 Jan-02Chloroacetaldehyde 107-20-0 140 71 3.2 3.2 3.2 Jan-02Chloroacetone 78-95-5 3.8 3.8 3.8 Jan-02Chloroacetophenone (2-) 532-27-4 15 0.32 0.32 0.00021 Jan-02Chloroacetyl Chloride 79-04-9 46 2.3 0.23 0.23 0.23 Jan-02Chlorobenzilate 510-15-6 0.061 Jan-02Chlorobenzylidene Malonitrile (o-) 2698-41-1 2 0.39 0.39 0.39 Jan-02Chlorodifluoromethane 75-45-6 3.4 Jan-02Chloroethyl ethyl sulfide 693-07-2 2.1 0.1 0.067 0.008 0.003 Jan-04

aka CEES, sulfur mustard (HD) blistering properties; MEGs = HD

Chloroform 67-66-3 3200 430 48 0.5 0.21 Jan-02Chloromethane (methyl chloride) 74-87-3 2100 830 2.7 May-03 1-hr air MEGs (ERPGs)Chloromethyl methyl ether 107-30-2 3.1 0.2 Jan-04 new chem: short-term air MEGs 

Chloropicrin 76-06-2 10 2.0 0.7 0.7 Jan-04 new chem: short-term air MEGs 

Chloropropane (2-) 75-29-6 0.68 Jan-02Chromium III compounds 16065-83-1 0.012 Jan-02Chromium (total) 7440-47-3 0.012 Jan-02Chromium VI compounds (insoluble) 18540-29-9 0.000068 Jan-02Chromium VI compounds (watersoluble) 18540-29-9 0.000068 Jan-02Chrysene 218-01-9 5.5 Jan-02Crotonaldehyde 4170-30-3 40 13 0.55 0.55 0.54 Jan-02Crotonaldehyde-trans 123-73-9 40 13 0.54 0.54 Jan-04 new chem: short-term air MEGs

Cumene 98-82-8 2.7 Jan-02Cyanogen 460-19-5 170 78 22 20 0.51 Jan-02Cyanogen Chloride 506-77-4 10 1 0.6 0.6 Jan-04 new chem: short-term air MEGs 

Page 1-2
Table 1. Military Exposure Guidelines for Air - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 8-Hr 1-14 Day 1-year Date last change N

Severe Significant Minimal

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs 

(mg/m3) Publication

1-Hour Air MEGs (mg/m3

)

Cyclohexylamine 108-91-8 120 35 7.3 7.3 Jan-04 new chem: short-term air MEGs

Cyclopentadiene 542-92-7 2.1 Jan-02DDT(p,p') 50-29-3 0.049 Jan-02Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 0.0054 Jan-02Diborane 19287-45-7 4.2 1.1 0.34 0.1 0.0024 Jan-02Dibromo-3-chloropropane (1,2-) 96-12-8 0.00014 Jan-02

Dichloro-2-butene (1,4-) 764-41-0 0.0018 Jan-02Dichlorobenzene (1,2-) 95-50-1 1.4 Jan-02

Dichlorobenzene (1,4-) 106-46-7 1.7 Jan-02Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 99 Jan-02

Dichlorodimethylsilane 75-78-5 280 68 4.7 4.7 Jan-04 new chem: short-term air MEGs

Dichloroethane (1,1-) 75-34-3 12000 400 9.8 3.4 Jan-02

Dichloroethane (1,2-) 107-06-2 0.18 Jan-02

Dichloroethylene (trans-1,1-) 156-60-5 6800 4000 1100 1100 Jan-02Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-) 156-59-2 3400 2000 560 560 Jan-02

Dichloroethylene (1,1-)

[Dichloroethene 1,1-] 75-35-4 0.096 Jan-02

Dichloro-1-fluoroethane (1,1-) 1717-00-6 14000 8100 4800 4800 Jan-04 new chem: short-term air MEGs

Dichloropropane (1,2-) 78-87-5 0.022 Jan-02Dichloropropene (1,3-) 542-75-6 0.014 Jan-02Dichlorvos 62-73-7 0.0018 Jan-02Dicyclopentadiene 77-73-6 0.014 Jan-02Dieldrin 60-57-1 50 1.3 0.75 0.25 0.006 0.0010 Jan-02Diesel Engine Emissions 0.0034 Jan-02Diesel Fuel Smoke 80 8 5 5 Jan-02Difluoroethane (1,1-) 75-37-6 27 Jan-02Diisopropylmethyl-phosphonate [DIMP] 1445-75-6 Jan-02Diketene 674-82-8 69 17 3.4 Jan-02Dimethyl disulfide [DMDS] 624-92-0 960 190 0.04 Jan-04 1-hr air MEGs

Dimethyl hydrazine (1,1-) 57-14-7 27 7.4 May-03 1-hr air MEGs (AEGLs)Dimethyl hydrazine (1,2-) 540-73-8 27 7.4 May-03 1-hr air MEGs (AEGLs)Dimethyl Methylphosphonate [DMMP] 756-79-6 500 500 350 Jan-04 1-hr air MEGs

Dimethyl Sulfate 77-78-1 36 5.2 1.5 0.5 0.0012 Jan-02Dimethylamine 124-40-3 930 150 18 18 Jan-04 1 and 8-hr air - ERPG -3, -2, 8-h

Dimethylformamide (N,N-) 68-12-2 0.062 Jan-02Diphenylhydrazine (1,2-) 122-66-7 0.022 Jan-02Endrin 72-20-8 2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.01 Jan-02Epichlorohydrin 106-89-8 0.0068 Jan-02Epoxybutane (1,2-) 106-88-7 0.014 Jan-02Ethoxyethanol (2-) 110-80-5 1.4 Jan-02Ethyl Benzene 100-41-4 8700 3500 540 440 11 3.0 Jan-04

CHANGE: 1-hr air MEGs: 8700 540 = TEEL-2

Page 1-3
Table 1. Military Exposure Guidelines for Air - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 8-Hr 1-14 Day 1-year Date last change N

Severe Significant Minimal

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs 

(mg/m3) Publication

1-Hour Air MEGs (mg/m3

)

Ethyl Chloride [Chloroethane] 75-00-3 6.8 Jan-02Ethylene Diamine 107-15-3 49 24 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEGsEthylene Dibromide 106-93-4 0.0014 Jan-02Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 1200 810 200 May-03 1-hr air MEGS (ERPGs)Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether 111-76-2 0.14 Jan-02Ethylene Oxide 75-21-8 360 81 14 1.8 0.048 0.048 Jan-02Ethylenimine 151-56-4 17 8.1 2.6 0.92 0.022 Jan-02Fluoranthene 206-44-0 1.4 Jan-02Fluorene 86-73-7 1.4 Jan-02Fluorine (soluble fluoride) 7782-41-4 20 7.8 2.6 2.6 1.6 May-03 1-hr air MEGs update (sig & minFog Oil Smoke 90 9 5 5 Jan-02Formaldehyde 50-00-0 31 12 1.2 0.37 0.37 0.25 Jan-02Furan 110-00-9 53 19 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEGs Furfural 98-01-1 0.34 Jan-02GA [Tabun] (nerve agent) 77-81-6 0.26 0.035 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 May-03 1-hr air MEGs updated (AEGLs) GB [Sarin] (nerve agent) 107-44-8 0.13 0.035 0.0028 0.001 0.0003 May-03 1-hr air MEGs updated (AEGLs) GD [Soman] (nerve agent) 96-64-0 0.13 0.018 0.0014 0.0005 0.0002 May-03 1-hr air MEGs updated (AEGLs) GF [Cyclosarin] (nerve agent) 329-99-7 0.13 0.018 0.0014 0.0005 0.0002 May-03 1-hr air MEGs updated (AEGLs) Glycidaldehyde 765-34-4 0.0068 Jan-02Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.0037 Jan-02Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0.0018 Jan-02Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.000049 Jan-02Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 320 107 32 0.24 0.005 0.0052 Jan-02

Hexachlorocyclohexane (alphaHCH) 319-84-6 0.0027 Jan-02

Hexachlorocyclohexane (betaHCH) 319-85-7 0.0090 Jan-02Hexachlorocyclohexane (technical HCH) 608-73-1 0.00094 Jan-02Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 1.6 0.35 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.076 May-03 short-term air MEG Hexachlorodibenzodioxin Mix 19408-74-3 0.0000037 Jan-02Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 3000 50 30 10 1.2 1.2 Jan-04 new short term air MEGs (TEEL

Hexachloroethane (Smoke) 3 0.3 0.2 0.2 Jan-02

Hexafluoropropene 

[Hexafluoropropylene] 116-15-4 3100 310 21 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEGs base

Hexamethylene Diisocyanate (1,6-) 822-06-0 0.00014 Jan-02Hexane (n-) 110-54-3 3900 880 530 180 4.3 4.3 Jan-02Hexane (other isomers) 43 Jan-02Hydrazine 302-01-2 46 17 0.13 0.13 0.013 0.00098 May-03 1-yr air MEG updated; others JaHydrogen Bromide 10035-10-6 99 20 9.9 9.9 9.9 May-03 1-hr sig air MEG updated (AEGLHydrogen Chloride 7647-01-0 150 33 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.014 May-03 1-hr sev air MEG updated (AEGHydrogen Cyanide 74-90-8 17 7.8 2.2 1.1 0.11 0.0021 Jan-02Hydrogen Fluoride 7664-39-3 36 20 0.82 0.82 0.41 May-03 1-hr sig air & 1-14 day MEG updHydrogen Selenide 7783-07-5 6.6 0.66 0.2 0.2 May-03 1-hr sev & sig air MEG updated 

Page 1-4
Table 1. Military Exposure Guidelines for Air - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 8-Hr 1-14 Day 1-year Date last change N

Severe Significant Minimal

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs 

(mg/m3) Publication

1-Hour Air MEGs (mg/m3

)

Hydrogen Sulfide 7783-06-4 70 38 0.71 0.46 0.15 0.15 May-03 1-hr sig, min, 8 hr air MEG updaIndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 193-39-5 0.054 Jan-02Iron Pentacarbonyl 13463-40-6 1.4 0.5 0.02 May-03 1-hr sev & sig air MEG updated Isobutyronitrile 78-82-0 57 19 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEGsLead 7439-92-1 0.0015 Jan-02Lewisite 541-25-3 0.003 0.003 0.003 May-03 8-hr air MEG update; others Jan Lindane [gamma-BHC] 58-89-9 50 50 1.5 0.5 0.012 Jan-02Manganese 7439-96-5 0.00034 Jan-02Mercury [inorganic] 7439-97-6 4.1 2 0.00021 May-03 1-hr air (ERPGs)Mercury (Methyl) [organic] 22967-92-6 Jan-02Methanol 67-56-1 10000 2800 700 350 Jan-04 new chem: short-term air MEGsMethoxyethanol (2-) 109-86-4 0.14 Jan-02Methyl Chloroform [1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE] 71-55-6 21000 3300 1300 1300 Jan-02Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78-93-3 14 Jan-02Methyl Hydrazine 60-34-4 5.7 1.9 0.02 0.0005 Jan-02Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 108-10-1 0.55 Jan-02Methyl Isocyanate 624-83-9 0.47 0.16 0.06 0.05 0.05 Jan-02Methyl Mercaptan 74-93-1 45 9.7 1 1 0.024 Jan-02Methyl Styrene (mixture) 25013-15-4 0.027 Jan-02Methyl Tert-butyl Ether 1634-04-4 2.1 Jan-02Methylacrylonitrile 126-98-7 9.3 3 0.067 May-03 1-hr air MEGs (AEGLs)Methylamine (mono) 74-89-5 640 130 13 13 Jan-04 new chem: 1 and 8-hr air MEGs 

Methylcyclohexane 108-87-2 39 Jan-02Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (4,4-) 101-14-4 0.0027 Jan-02Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 14000 2600 700 175 2.1 2.1 Jan-02Methylenediphenyl Isocyanate (4,4-) 101-68-8 25 2 0.2 0.0013 May-03 1-hr air MEGs (ERPGs)Naphthalene 91-20-3 0.0071 Jan-02Nickel (elemental/metal) 7440-02-0 0.037 Jan-02Nickel (insoluble compounds) 0.0049 Jan-02Nickel (soluble compounds) 0.00014 Jan-02Nickel carbonyl 13463-39-3 1.1 0.2 0.00085 May-03 1-hr air MEGs (AEGLs)Nickel Refinery Dust none 0.020 Jan-02Nickel Subsulfide 12035-72-2 0.001 Jan-02Nitric Acid 7697-37-2 57 10 1.3 1.3 1.3 Jan-02Nitric Oxide 10102-43-9 25 15 0.61 0.61 0.61 Jan-02Nitroaniline (2-) 88-74-4 0.0014 Jan-02Nitrobenzene 98-95-3 0.014 Jan-02Nitrogen Dioxide 10102-44-0 38 23 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.1 Jan-02Nitropropane (2-) 79-46-9 0.0018 Jan-02Nitrosodiethylamine (N-) 55-18-5 0.00011 Jan-02Nitrosodimethylamine (N-) 62-75-9 0.00034 Jan-02

Page 1-5
Table 1. Military Exposure Guidelines for Air - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 8-Hr 1-14 Day 1-year Date last change N

Severe Significant Minimal

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs 

(mg/m3) Publication

1-Hour Air MEGs (mg/m3

)

Nitroso-di-n-butylamine (N-) 924-16-3 0.003 Jan-02Nitrosopyrrolidine (N-) 930-55-2 0.0079 Jan-02Nitrous Oxide 10024-97-2 39000 18000 270 46 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr MEGs (TEELs); Ozone 10028-15-6 0.052 Jan-02Paraquat 1910-42-5 1 0.15 0.1 0.01 Jan-02Parathion 56-38-2 10 2 0.3 0.1 0.0024 Jan-02Particulate <10μ (PM-10) 0.07 Jan-02

Particulate <2.5μ (PM-2.5) 0.04 Jan-02

Perchloromethyl Mercaptan 594-42-3 2.3 0.27 0.09 0.04 0.05 May-03 updated 1-hr min and 8-hr air MPhenanthrene 85-01-8 0.042 Jan-02Phenol 108-95-2 181 58 17 7.3 May-03 updated short-term air MEGs (APhosgene 75-44-5 3.0 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.04 Jan-02Phosphine 7803-51-2 5.0 2.8 0.4 0.01 0.0021 May-03 updated 1-hr sig and severe air Phosphoric Acid 7664-38-2 0.024 Jan-02Phosphorous (White, yellow) 7723-14-0 5 3 0.3 0.1 0.0024 Jan-02

Phosphorous Oxychloride 

[Phosphoryl trichloride] 10025-87-3 5.3 3 3 0.6 0.015 Jan-04 new 1-hr sig & min (TEELs); sev 

Phosphorous Smoke (Red) 1000 10 1 1 1 Jan-02Phosphorous Trichloride 7719-12-2 32 11 3.5 1.5 1.5 Jan-04 revised sev 1-hr MEG (Interim 

Phthalic Anhydride 85-44-9 0.082 Jan-02Polychlorinated Biphenyls [PCBs] 1336-36-3 0.0084 Jan-02Propane 76-98-6 3800 3800 1800 1800 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr (TEELs), 8-hr = 

Proprionitrile 107-12-0 88 17 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEGs

Propylbenzene (n-) 103-65-1 0.025 Jan-02Propylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether 107-98-2 14 Jan-02Propyleneimine 75-55-8 54 28 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEGs

Propylene Oxide 75-56-9 1500 690 140 26 0.29 May-03 updated short-term air MEGs (APyrene 129-00-0 0.11 Jan-02Selenium Hexafluoride 7783-79-1 16 2 1.2 0.4 0.4 Jan-02Silver 7440-22-4 Jan-02Stibine 7803-52-3 7.7 2.6 0.5 0.5 Jan-02Strontium 7440-24-6 1.5 Jan-02Styrene 100-42-5 4300 1100 210 2.0 May-03 short-term air MEGs (ERPGs)Sulfur Dioxide 7446-09-5 39 8 5 2.6 0.13 Jan-02Sulfur Mustard [HD] (blister agent, mustard gas) 505-60-2 2.1 0.1 0.067 0.008 0.003 Jan-02Sulfur Trioxide 7446-11-9 30 10 2 1 1 Jan-04 new chem - same as sulfuric aci

Sulfuric Acid 7664-93-9 30 10 2 1 1 Jan-02Sulfuryl Fluoride 2699-79-8 840 20 0.5 Jan-022,3,7,8-TCDD [Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin](dioxin) 1746-01-6 1.1E-07 Jan-02Tellurium Hexafluoride 7783-80-4 10 0.6 0.2 0.2 Jan-02

Page 1-6
Table 1. Military Exposure Guidelines for Air - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 8-Hr 1-14 Day 1-year Date last change N

Severe Significant Minimal

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs

(mg/m3)

Air MEGs 

(mg/m3) Publication

1-Hour Air MEGs (mg/m3

)

Tetrachloroethane (1,1,1,2-) 630-20-6 0.65 Jan-02Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-) 79-34-5 690 34 21 7 0.2 0.083 Jan-02

Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 8100 1600 240 240 4.2 May-03 revised short-term air MEGs (ATetraethyl Lead 78-00-2 4 0.75 0.13 0.1 0.0024 Jan-02Tetrafluoroethane (1,1,1,2-) 811-97-2 110000 54000 33000 33000 55 May-03 updated short-term air MEGs (ATetramethyl Lead 75-74-1 40 0.1 0.0024 Jan-02Tetranitromethane 509-14-8 14 7.3 2.9 1.2 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEG

Titanium Tetrachloride 7550-45-0 100 20 5 0.5 0.012 Jan-02Toluene 108-88-3 11000 2000 750 750 11 4.6 May-03 updated short-term air MEGs (AToluene 2,4-diisocyanate 584-84-9 3.6 0.59 0.14 0.071 0.036 Jan-02Toluene diisocyanate (2,6-) 91-08-7 3.6 0.59 0.14 0.071 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEG

Toxaphene 8001-35-2 0.015 Jan-02

Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (1,1,2-) 76-13-1 21 Jan-02Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-) 120-82-1 1.4 Jan-02Trichloroethane (1,1,2-) 79-00-5 0.30 Jan-02Trichloroethene [TRICHLOROETHYLENE] 79-01-6 27000 2700 540 270 6.6 Jan-02

Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 4.8 Jan-02

Trichloromethyl silane 75-79-6 171 38 3.7 3.7 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEG

Trichlorophenol (2,4,6-) 88-06-2 1.5 Jan-02Trichloropropane (1,2,3-) 96-18-4 600 300 180 60 1.5 Jan-02

Triethylamine 121-44-8 0.10 Jan-02

Trimethylbenzene (1,3,5-) 108-67-8 3.1 Jan-04 new short term water MEGsTrimethylbenzene (1,2,4-) 95-63-6 3.1 Jan-02Tungsten Hexafluoride 7783-82-6 1 0.024 Jan-02Uranium hexafluoride 7783-81-5 520 140 52 Jan-04 new chem: 1-hr air MEG

Vanadium 740-62-2 0.00072 (I) Jan-04 new Interim 1-yr air MEG for scr

Vinyl Acetate 108-05-4 1800 260 18 0.14 May-03 updated short-term air MEGs (EVinyl Bromide 593-60-2 0.0021 Jan-02Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 0.057 Jan-02VX (nerve agent) 50782-69-9 0.01 0.0029 0.00017 0.000071 0.000024 May-03 updated short-term air MEGs (AXylene (mixed, o, m, p) 1330-20-7 3900 870 650 440 11 11 Jan-02Xylene (m) 108-38-3 3900 (I) 870 (I) 650 (I) 440 (I) 11 (I) 11 (I) Jan-04 speciation of Xylene - (I) MEGs 

Xylene (p) 106-42-3 3900 (I) 870 (I) 650 (I) 440 (I) 11 (I) 11 (I) Jan-04 speciation of Xylene - (I) MEGs 

Xylene (o) 95-47-6 3900 (I) 870 (I) 650 (I) 440 (I) 11 (I) 11 (I) Jan-04 speciation of Xylene - (I) MEGs 

Zinc 7440-66-6 0.72 (I) Jan-04 new Interim 1-yr air MEG for scr

ITALIX BOLD (RED)= CHANGES to previous published values BOLD (TEAL) = New MEGs as of Jan 2004; new chemicals evaluated have CAS bolded, others have new duration specific MEG(s)[ ] = synonym or common abbreviation( ) = qualifier(I) Interim MEG is based on limited data and/or extrapolation techniques; under continuing evaluation;  considered limitation when using; use as general screening criteria for additional evalaution

Page 1-7
Table 2. Military Exposure Guidelines for Water - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. Date last change 

5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day Publication

Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 4.2 1.4 May-03 1-yr waterAcenaphthene 83-32-9 8.4 2.8 May-03 new chem: 1-yr waterAcetone 67-64-1 14 4.7 Jan-02Acifluorfen 5094-66-6 2.8 0.9 2.8 0.9 Jan-02Acrolein 107-02-8 Jan-02Acrylamide 79-06-1 2 0.7 0.4 0.14 0.02 0.007 Jan-04 1-yr water MEGs new

Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 0.50 0.14 0.50 0.14 Jan-02Alachlor 15972-60-8 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.05 Jan-02Aldicarb 116-06-3 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGs 

Aldicarb sulfone 1646-88-4 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGs 

Aldicarb sulfoxide 1646-87-3 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGs 

Aldrin 309-00-2 0.0004 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001 Jan-02Aluminum 7429-90-5 28 9.3 Jan-04 new chem; 1-yr water MEG

Ametryn 834-12-8 12 4 12 4 Jan-02Ammonia 7664-41-7 30 30 30 30 4.2 1.4 Jan-04 change short-term water (t

Ammonium Sulfamate 7773-06-0 90 30 90 30 Jan-02Anthracene 120-12-7 140 47 Jan-02Antimony 744-36-0 0.006 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.006 0.002 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Aroclor-1016 12674-11-2 0.001 0.0003 Jan-02Aroclor-1221 11104-28-2 0.0003 0.0001 Jan-04 new chem; 1 yr water MEG

Aroclor-1232 11141-16-5 0.0003 0.0001 Jan-04 new chem; 1 yr water MEG

Aroclor-1242 53469-21-9 0.0003 0.0001 Jan-04 new chem; 1 yr water MEG

Aroclor-1248 12672-29-6 0.0003 0.0001 Jan-04 new chem; 1-yr water MEG

Aroclor-1254 11097-69-1 0.0003 0.0001 Jan-04 CHANGE in water MEGs

Aroclor-1260 11096-82-5 0.0003 0.0001 Jan-04 new chem; water MEGs 

Arsenic 7440-38-2 0.3* 0.1* 0.06* 0.02* 0.004 0.001 Jan-04

CHANGE:*TB MED std no1-yr MEG; new 1-yr MEGs

Atrazine 1912-24-9 0.7 0.23 0.7 0.23 0.49 0.16 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Barium 7440-39-3 0.98 0.33 0.98 0.33 0.98 0.33 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Baygon (Propoxur) 114-26-1 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Bentazon 25057-89-0 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.40 0.10 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Benzene 71-43-2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.04 0.01 Jan-02Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.14 0.05 Jan-02Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.01 0.005 Jan-02Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 0.14 0.05 Jan-02Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 1.4 0.5 Jan-02Beryllium 7440-41-7 36 12 36 12 0.02 0.007 Jan-02Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7 14 4.7 14 4.7 0.28 0.06 Jan-02Bis(2-chloro-1-methylethyl)ether 108-60-1 5.6 2 5.6 2 Jan-02Boron 7440-42-8 5.6 1.9 1.3 0.42 1.3 0.42 Jan-04 CHANGE in water MEGs

Bromacil 314-40-9 7272 Jan-02

Bromate 15541-45-4 0.06 0.02 Jan-04 new chem: 1-yr water MEG

Bromobenzene 108-86-1 5.6 1.9 5.6 1.9 Jan-04 new chem: short-term wate

Bromochloromethane 74-97-5 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.5 0.14 0.05 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

<7 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

7-14 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

1-year Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

Page 2-1
Table 2. Military Exposure Guidelines for Water - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. Date last change 

5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day Publication

<7 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

7-14 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

1-year Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 8.4 2.8 8.4 2.8 0.3 0.1 Jan-02Bromoform 75-25-2 7231 2.8 0.93 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Bromomethane [METHYL BROMIDE] 74-83-9 0.2 0.07 0.2 0.07 0.04 0.01 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Butylate 2008-41-5 3131 Jan-02

Butylbenzene (sec-) 135-98-8 0.15 0.05 Jan-02Butylbenzylphthlate 85-68-7 28 9.3 Jan-04 new chem; 1-yr water MEG

BZ 6581-06-2 0.007 0.0023 Jan-02Cadmium (elemental) 7440-43-9 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.007 0.002 Jan-02Calcium 7440-70-2 500 170 Jan-04 new chem; 1-yr water MEG

Carbaryl (Sevin) 63-25-2 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.47 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Carbofuran 1553-66-2 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.02 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.05 Jan-02Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 5.6 2 0.2 0.07 0.10 0.03 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEG

Carboxin 5234-68-4 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.5 Jan-02Chloral Hydrate 302-17-0 1 0.3 0.3 0.1 Jan-02Chloramben 133-90-4 3.5 1.2 3.5 1.2 Jan-02Chlordane (techgrade CAS 12789-03-6) 57-74-9 0.09 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.007 0.003 Jan-04 RETRACTED short-term w

Chloride 16887-00-6 600 600* 600* 600* 600* 600* Jan-02 *TB MED standardChlorite 7758-19-2 1.2 0.39 1.2 0.39 0.42 0.14 Jan-04 new chem; water MEGs

Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 3131 0.28 0.09 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Chlorodibromomethane 124-48-1 8.4 2.8 8.4 2.8 Jan-02Chloroform 67-66-3 6 2 6 2 1.4 0.5 Jan-02

Chloromethane (methyl chloride) 74-87-3 12 4 0.5 0.17 0.5 0.17 Jan-02Chlorophenol (2-) 95-57-8 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.3 Jan-02Chlorothalonil 1897-45-6 0.35 0.12 0.35 0.12 0.2 0.07 Jan-02Chlorotoluene (o-) (2-) 95-49-8 2.8 0.9 2.8 0.9 0.28 0.09 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Chlorotoluene (p-) (4-) 106-43-4 2.8 0.9 2.8 0.9 0.28 0.09 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Chlorpyrifos 2921-88-2 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 Jan-02Chromium III compounds 16065-83-1 21 7 Jan-02Chromium (total) 7440-47-3 2 0.7 2 0.7 0.3 0.1 Jan-02Chromium VI compounds (watersoluble) 18540-29-9 0.3 0.1 Jan-02Chrysene 218-01-9 4.2 1.4 Jan-02Copper 7440-50-8 0.42 0.14 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Copper (II)(Salts, Oxide) 1317-38-0 1.0 1.0 Jan-02Cumene 98-82-8 1.4 0.47 Jan-02Cyanazine 21725-46-2 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.05 Jan-02Cyanide 57-12-5 6* 2* 6* 2* 0.28 0.09 Jan-04

CHANGE:*TB MED std no1-yr MEG; new 1-yr MEG

Dalapon 75-99-0 4.2 1.4 4.2 1.4 0.42 0.14 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

DCPA (Dacthal) 1861-32-1 105 35 105 35 Jan-02Detergent (Foaming agents) na 0.5 (I) 0.5 (I) 0.5 (I) 0.5 (I) 0.5 (I) 0.5 (I) Jan-04 new Interim(I) water MEG- 

DDD (p,p') 72-54-8 0.28 (I) 0.09 (I) Jan-04 new chem: Interim (I) 1-yr 

Page 2-2
Table 2. Military Exposure Guidelines for Water - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. Date last change 

5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day Publication

<7 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

7-14 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

1-year Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

DDE (p,p') 72-55-9 0.28 (I) 0.09 (I) Jan-04 new chem: Interim (I) 1-yr 

DDT(p,p') 50-29-3 0.007 0.002 Jan-02

Di-(2-ethylhexyl) adipate [ADIPATE] 103-23-1 28 9.3 28 9.3 8.4 2.8 Jan-04 1-yr water MEGs new

Diazinon 333-41-5 0.03 0.009 0.03 0.009 0.007 0.002 Jan-02Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1 8.4 2.8 8.4 2.8 1.1 0.37 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGsDibromomethane [METHYLENE BROMIDE] 74-95-3 0.1 0.05 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGs

Dibromo-3-chloropropane (1,2-) 96-12-8 0.28 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.009 Jan-02Dibromoacetonitrile 3252-43-5 2.8 0.94 2.8 0.94 Jan-02Dicamba 1918-00-9 0.4 0.14 0.4 0.14 0.4 0.14 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Dichloroacetic Acid 79-43-6 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 Jan-02Dichloroacetonitrile 3018-12-0 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.5 Jan-02Dichlorobenzene (1,2-) 95-50-1 13 4.2 13 4.2 1.3 0.42 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Dichlorobenzene (1,3-) 541-73-1 13 4.2 13 4.2 1.3 0.42 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Dichlorobenzene (1,4-) 106-46-7 15 5 15 5 5.6 1.9 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-71-8 60 20 60 20 13 4.2 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Dichloroethane (1,2-) 107-06-2 1 0.3 1 0.3 0.28 0.09 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Dichloroethylene (trans-1,1-) 156-60-5 28 9.4 2 0.7 Jan-02Dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-) 156-59-2 5.6 2 4.5 1.5 Jan-02

Dichloroethylene (1,1-)

[Dichloroethene 1,1-] 75-35-4 2.8 1 1.4 0.5 0.13 0.04 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Dichlorophenol (2,4-) 120-83-2 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 Jan-022,4-D [Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid] 94-75-7 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.14 0.14 0.05 Jan-022,4-DB 94-82-6 1.1 0.37 Jan-04 new chem: 1-yr water MEG

Dichloropropane (1,2-) 78-87-5 1.4 0.47 1.4 0.47 0.98 0.33 Jan-04 new water MEGs

Dichloropropene (1,3-) 542-75-6 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 Jan-02Dieldrin 60-57-1 0.0007 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 0.0007 0.0002 Jan-02Diesel Engine Emissions Jan-02Diethylphthalate 84-66-2 98 33 98 33 84 28 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGsDi-n-butylphthalate 84-74-2 14 5 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGsDiisopropylmethyl-phosphonate [DIMP] 1445-75-6 30 10 30 10 Jan-02Dimethrin 70-38-2 17 5.5 17 5.5 Jan-02Dimethyl Methylphosphonate [DMMP] 756-79-6 2.5 0.8 2.5 0.8 Jan-02Dinitrobenzene (1,3-) 99-65-0 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 Jan-02Dinitrotoluene (2,4-) 121-14-2 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 Jan-02Dinitrotoluene (2,6-) 606-20-2 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.2 Jan-02Dinoseb 88-85-7 0.42 0.14 0.42 0.14 0.014 0.005 Jan-02Dioxane (1,4-) 123-91-1 5.6 2 0.56 0.2 Jan-02Diphenamid 957-51-7 0.4 0.13 0.4 0.13 Jan-02Diphenylamine 122-39-4 1.6 0.6 1.6 0.6 Jan-02Diquat 85-00-7 0.03 0.01 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGs

Disulfoton 298-04-4 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.004 0.001 Jan-02

Page 2-3
Table 2. Military Exposure Guidelines for Water - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. Date last change 

5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day Publication

<7 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

7-14 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

1-year Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

Dithiane (1,4-) 505-29-3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 Jan-02Diuron 330-54-1 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.5 Jan-02EA 2192 0.015 0.005 Jan-02Endosulfan I 959-98-8 0.08 0.03 Jan-04 new chem: water MEG

Endosulfan II 33213-65-9 0.08 0.03 Jan-04 new chem: water MEG

Endosulfan sulfate 1031-07-8 0.08 0.03 Jan-04 new chem: water MEG

Endothall 145-73-3 1.1 0.4 1.1 0.4 0.28 0.09 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Endrin 72-20-8 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.007 0.006 0.002 Jan-02Endrin aldehyde 7421-93-4 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.007 0.006 0.002 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGsEpichlorohydrin 106-89-8 0.2 0.07 0.2 0.07 0.03 0.01 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs; oth

Ethyl Benzene 100-41-4 45 15 4.5 1.5 1.4 0.5 Jan-02

Ethyl Chloride [Chloroethane] 75-00-3 5.6 1.9 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Ethylene Dibromide 106-93-4 0.01 0.004 0.01 0.004 0.001 0.0004 Jan-02Ethylene Glycol 107-21-1 26 9 8 2.5 Jan-02Ethylene Thiourea (ETU) 96-45-7 0.35 0.1 0.35 0.1 Jan-02Fenamiphos 22224-92-6 0.01 0.004 0.01 0.004 0.007 0.002 Jan-02Fluometron 2164-17-2 2.1 0.7 2.1 0.7 Jan-02Fluoranthene 206-44-0 5.6 1.9 Jan-02Fluorene 86-73-7 5.6 1.9 Jan-02Fluorine (soluble fluoride) 7782-41-4 1.7 0.56 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs; 

Fonofos 944-22-9 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 Jan-04 CHANGE: short-term 15 LFormaldehyde 50-00-0 14 5 8 2.6 Jan-02GA [Tabun] (nerve agent) 77-81-6 0.012* 0.004* Jan-02 *TB MED std

GB [Sarin] (nerve agent) 107-44-8 0.012* 0.004* Jan-02 *TB MED std

GD [Soman] (nerve agent) 96-64-0 0.012* 0.004* Jan-02 *TB MED std

GF [Cyclosarin] (nerve agent) 329-99-7 0.012* 0.004* Jan-02 *TB MED std

Glyphosate 1071-83-6 25 8 25 8 1.4 0.47 Jan-04 see cyanide 1-yr water ME

Heptachlor 76-44-8 0.01 0.005 0.014 0.005 0.007 0.002 Jan-02 1-yr water MEG updatedHeptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 0.01 0.005 0.0002 0.00006 Jan-02Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.004 0.001 Jan-02Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.4 0.14 0.4 0.14 0.003 0.0009 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEG; othe

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77-47-4 1.4 0.47 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Hexachlorodibenzodioxin Mix 19408-74-3 Jan-02Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 7 2.4 7 2.4 Jan-02Hexane (n-) 110-54-3 18 5 6 2 Jan-02Hexazinone 51235-04-2 11 3 11 3 Jan-02HMX 2691-41-0 7 2.3 7 2.3 Jan-02Hydrogen Cyanide 74-90-8 see cyanide see cyanide see cyanide see cyanide see cyanide see cyanide Jan-04 see cyanide 1-yr water ME

Iron 7439-89-6 4.2 1.4 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs for s

Isophorone 78-59-1 6262 Jan-02

Isopropylbenzene 98-82-8 15 5.1 15 5.1 1.4 0.47 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGsIsopropyl Methyl-phosphonate 1832-54-8 120 40 120 40 Jan-02

Page 2-4
Table 2. Military Exposure Guidelines for Water - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. Date last change 

5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day Publication

<7 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

7-14 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

1-year Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

Lead 7439-92-1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.015 0.015 Jan-04

RETRACTED short term wwater updated May 03

Lewisite 541-25-3 0.08* 0.027* Jan-02 *TB MED std

Lindane [gamma-BHC] 58-89-9 0.6* 0.2* 0.6* 0.2* 0.004 0.001 Jan-04

CHANGE:*TB MED std no1-yr MEG; new 1-yr MEGs

Magnesium 7439-95-4 100* 30* 100* 30* 100* 30* Jan-02 *TB MED stdMalathion 121-75-5 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 Jan-02Maleic Hydrazide 123-33-1 14 5 14 5 Jan-02Manganese 7439-96-5 2.0 0.65 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEG

MCPA 94-74-6 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.007 0.002 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEG, othe

MCPP 93-65-2 0.14 0.05 Jan-04 new-chem: 1-yr water MEG

Mercury [inorganic] 7439-97-6 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.0007 Jan-04 new short term, water MEG

Mercury (Methyl) [organic] 22967-92-6 0.004 0.001 Jan-02Methomyl 16752-77-5 0.42 0.14 0.42 0.14 0.35 0.12 Jan-04 CHANGE in water MEGs

Methoxychlor 72-43-5 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.07 0.02 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs, oth

Methyl Chloroform 

[1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE] 71-55-6 140 47 56 19 0.49 0.16 Jan-04 CHANGE in short term wa

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78-93-3 8.4 2.8 Jan-02Methyl Parathion 298-00-0 0.4 0.15 0.4 0.15 0.04 0.01 Jan-02Methyl Tert-butyl Ether 1634-04-4 34 11 34 11 Jan-02Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 14 4.7 2.8 0.93 0.84 0.28 Jan-04 new water MEGs

Metolachlor 51218-45-2 3131Metribuzin 21087-64-9 6.3 2 6.3 2Mirex 2385-85-5 0.01 0.004 Jan-04 new chem: 1-yr water MEG

Molybdenum (Trioxide) 7439-98-7 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.02 Jan-04 CHANGE in short-term wa

Naphthalene 91-20-3 0.74 0.25 0.74 0.25 0.5 0.17 Jan-02Nickel (elemental/metal) 7440-02-0 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.28 0.09 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Nicotine 54-11-5 0.4 0.13 Jan-04

new chem: acute water ME 2-5 mg = nausea in adult

Nitrite/Nitrate-N NO2NO3 35 12 35 12 22 7.5 Jan-04 new parameter- water ME

Nitroguanidine 556-88-7 15 5 15 5 Jan-02Nitrophenol (p-) 100-02-7 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.4 Jan-02Oxamyl [Vydate] 23135-22-0 0.35 0.1 0.35 0.1 0.35 0.1 Jan-02Paraquat 1910-42-5 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.02 Jan-02Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.14 0.01 0.005 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 4.2 1.4 Jan-02Phenol 108-95-2 8383 Jan-02

Phosphate-P 14265-44-2 2.0 0.70 Jan-04 new chem: 1-yr water MEG

Picloram 1918-02-01 28 9.4 28 9.4 0.98 0.33 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Prometon 1610-18-0 0.2 0.07 0.2 0.07 Jan-02Pronamide 23950-58-5 1 0.4 1 0.4 Jan-02Propachlor 1918-16-7 0.7 0.24 0.7 0.24 Jan-02Propazine 139-40-2 1.4 0.5 1.4 0.5 Jan-02Propham 122-42-9 7272 Jan-02

Propylbenzene (n-) 103-65-1 0.15 0.05 Jan-02

Page 2-5
Table 2. Military Exposure Guidelines for Water - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. Date last change 

5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day Publication

<7 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

7-14 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

1-year Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

Pyrene 129-00-0 4.2 1.4 Jan-02RDX 121-82-4 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.05 Jan-02Selenium 7782-49-2 0.07 0.02 Jan-04 new chem: 1-yr water MEG

Silver 7440-22-4 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.02 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Simazine 122-34-9 0.7 0.23 0.7 0.23 0.07 0.02 Jan-04 CHANGE: water MEGs 

Sodium 7440-23-5 60 60 60 60 60 60 Jan-04 new water MEGs (sigifican

Strontium 7440-24-6 36 12 36 12 8.4 2.8 Jan-02Styrene 100-42-5 30 10 3 1 2.8 0.93 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Sulfate 14808-79-8 300* 100* 300* 100* 300* 100* Jan-02 * TB MED stdSulfur Mustard [HD] (blister agent, mustard gas) 505-60-2 0.14* 0.047* Jan-02 * TB MED std

2,4,5-T 73-76-5 1.1 0.37 1.1 0.37 0.14 0.05 Jan-04 new chem: water MEGs

T-2 Toxin 21259-20-1 0.026* 0.0087* Jan-022,3,7,8-TCDD [Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin](dioxin) 1746-01-6 1.E-06 5.E-07 1.E-07 5.E-08 1.E-08 5.E-09 Jan-02Tebuthiuron 34014-18-1 3.5 1 3.5 1 Jan-02Terbacil 5902-51-2 0.35 0.1 0.35 0.1 Jan-02Terbufos 13071-79-9 0.007 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.0004 0.0001 Jan-02Tetrachloroethane (1,1,1,2-) 630-20-6 3131 0.42 0.14 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2-) 79-34-5 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.0007 0.0002 Jan-04 new water MEGs

Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 2.8 0.9 2.8 0.9 1.4 0.47 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Thallium 7440-28-0 0.01 0.003 0.01 0.003 0.001 0.0003 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Toluene 108-88-3 30 10 3 1 3 1 Jan-02Total Disolved Solids [TDS] in treated water 1000* 1000* 1000* 1000* 1000* Jan-04 *previously establsihed as 

Toxaphene 8001-35-2 0.07 0.023 0.07 0.023 0.014 0.005 Jan-04 new short-term water MEG

TP (2,4,5-) 93-72-1 0.3 0.09 0.3 0.09 0.11 0.04 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Trichloroacetic Acid 76-03-9 5.6 1.9 5.6 1.9 Jan-02Trichloroacetonitrile 545-06-2 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.02 Jan-02Trichlorobenzene (1,2,4-) 120-82-1 0.2 0.06 0.2 0.06 0.14 0.05 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Trichlorobenzene (1,3,5-) 108-70-3 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.3 Jan-02Trichloroethane (1,1,2-) 79-00-5 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.50 0.02 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Trichloroethene [TRICHLOROETHYLENE] 79-01-6 2.8 0.9 2.8 0.9 0.1 0.03 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 9.8 3.3 9.8 3.3 9.8 3.3 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid (2,4,5-) 93-76-5 1 0.4 1 0.4 Jan-02Trichloropropane (1,2,3-) 96-18-4 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.28 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

Trifluralin 1582-09-8 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.04 0.1 0.03 Jan-02Trimethylbenzene (1,3,5-) 108-67-8 14 4.7 14 4.7 0.7 0.23 Jan-04 new short-term water MEG

Trimethylbenzene (1,2,4-) 95-63-6 0.7 0.23 Jan-02Trinitroglycerol 55-63-0 0.007 0.002 0.007 0.002 Jan-02Trinitrotoluene (2,4,6-) 118-96-7 0.03 0.008 0.03 0.008 Jan-02Vanadium 740-62-2 0.1 0.03 Jan-02

Vinyl Acetate 108-05-4 Jan-02

Page 2-6
Table 2. Military Exposure Guidelines for Water - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. Date last change 

5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day 5 L/day 15 L/day Publication

<7 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

7-14 Day Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

1-year Water MEGs 

(mg/L)

Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 3.6 1.2 3.6 1.2 0.04 0.01 Jan-04 new 1-yr water MEGs

VX (nerve agent) 50782-69-9 0.02 0.005 Jan-02

Xylene (mixed, o, m, p) 1330-20-7 60 20 60 20 40 13 Jan-02Xylene (m) 108-38-3 60 (I) 20 (I) 60 (I) 20 (I) 40 (I) 13 (I) Jan-04 speciation of Xylene - (I) M

Xylene (p) 106-42-3 60 (I) 20 (I) 60 (I) 20 (I) 40 (I) 13 (I) Jan-04 speciation of Xylene - (I) M

Xylene (o) 95-47-6 60 (I) 20 (I) 60 (I) 20 (I) 40 (I) 13 (I) Jan-04 speciation of Xylene - (I) M

Zinc 7440-66-6 4 1.3 Jan-02Zinc Chloride 7646-85-7 8383 Jan-02

ITALIX BOLD (RED)= CHANGES to previous published values BOLD (TEAL) = New MEGs as of Jan 2004; new chemicals evaluated have CAS bolded, others have new duration specific MEG(s)* TB MED 577 military drinking water standards should not be exceeded unless authorized by Theater area surgeon; in general hazard severity with exceedinf TB MED standard is at least Ma[ ] = synonym or common abbreviation( ) = qualifier(I) Interim MEG is based on limited data and/or extrapolation techniques; under continuing evaluation; considered limitation when using; use as general screening criteria for ad

Page 2-7
Table 3. Military Exposure Guidelines for Soil - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 1-year Soil MEGs Date last change NOTES

(mg/kg) Publication

Acenaphthene 83-32-9 1300 May-03 new chem: 1-yr air, water, soil

Acetone 67-64-1 16 Jan-02

Alachlor 15972-60-8 1000 Jan-02

Aldrin 309-00-2 3 Jan-02

Anthracene 120-12-7 6.1 Jan-02

Aroclor-1016 12674-11-2 7.4 Jan-02

Aroclor-1221 11104-28-2 5.4 Jan-04 new chem

Aroclor-1232 11141-16-5 5.4 Jan-04 new chem

Aroclor-1242 53469-21-9 5.4 Jan-04 new chem

Aroclor-1248 12672-29-6 5.4 Jan-04 new chem

Aroclor-1254 11097-69-1 5.4 Jan-04 CHANGE in soil MEG

Aroclor-1260 11096-82-5 5.4 Jan-04 new chem

Arsenic 7440-38-2 1100 Jan-02

Barium 7440-39-3 18000 Jan-04 new soil MEG

Benzene 71-43-2 310 Jan-02

Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 2500 Jan-02

Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 250 Jan-02

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 2500 Jan-02

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 3100 Jan-02

Beryllium 7440-41-7 16000 Jan-02

Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7 2900 Jan-02

Butylbenzene (sec-) 135-98-8 230 Jan-02

Cadmium (elemental) 7440-43-9 130 Jan-02

Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 720 Jan-02

Chlordane

(techgrade CAS 12789-03-6) 57-74-9 62 Jan-02

Chloromethane (methyl chloride) 74-87-3 3700 Jan-02

Chlorothalonil 1897-45-6 1500 Jan-02

Chromium III compounds 16065-83-1 390000 Jan-02

Chromium (total) 7440-47-3 5700 Jan-02

Chromium VI compounds (insoluble) 18540-29-9 5300 Jan-02

Chromium VI compounds (watersoluble) 18540-29-9 5300 Jan-02

Chrysene 218-01-9 3100 Jan-02

p-Cresol 106-44-5 520 Jan-04 new chem: soil MEG

Cumene 98-82-8 640 Jan-02

Cyanide 57-12-5 110000 Jan-02

DDE (p,p') 72-55-9 52 Jan-04 new Interim (I) soil MEG

DDT(p,p') 50-29-3 52 Jan-02

Diazinon 333-41-5 52 Jan-02

Dibromo-3-chloropropane (1,2-) 96-12-8 210 Jan-02

Dicamba 1918-00-9 3100 Jan-04 new soil MEG

2,4-D [Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid] 94-75-7 1000 Jan-02

Dieldrin 60-57-1 5.2 Jan-02

Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2 26000 Jan-04 new soil MEG

Di-n-octyl phthalate 117-84-0 4200 Jan-04 new soil MEG

Dinitrobenzene (1,3-) 99-65-0 450 Jan-02

Dinoseb 88-85-7 100 Jan-02

Disulfoton 298-04-4 30 Jan-02

Endosulfan I 959-98-8 1600 Jan-04 new chem

Endosulfan II 33213-65-9 1600 Jan-04 new chem

Page 3-1
Table 3. Military Exposure Guidelines for Soil - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 1-year Soil MEGs Date last change NOTES

(mg/kg) Publication

Endosulfan sulfate 1031-07-8 1600 Jan-04 new chem

Endrin 72-20-8 45 Jan-02

Ethyl Benzene 100-41-4 230 Jan-02

Ethylene Dibromide 106-93-4 0.37 Jan-02

Fenamiphos 22224-92-6 52 Jan-02

Fluoranthene 206-44-0 42000 Jan-02

Fluorene 86-73-7 90 Jan-02

Fonofos 944-22-9 220 Jan-02

GA [Tabun] (nerve agent) 77-81-6 4.6 Jan-02

GB [Sarin] (nerve agent) 107-44-8 2.7 Jan-02

GD [Soman] (nerve agent) 96-64-0 0.27 Jan-02

GF [Cyclosarin] (nerve agent) 329-99-7 0.27 Jan-02

Heptachlor 76-44-8 52 Jan-02 soil MEG updated

Heptachlor Epoxide 1024-57-3 1.5 Jan-02

Hexachlorobenzene 118-74-1 31 Jan-02

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 1000 Jan-04 new soil MEG

Lead 7439-92-1 2200 May-03

Lewisite 541-25-3 11 May-03

Lindane [gamma-BHC] 58-89-9 560 Jan-02

Malathion 121-75-5 2200 Jan-02

MCPP 93-65-2 100 Jan-04 new chem

Mercury [inorganic] 7439-97-6 33 Jan-02

Mercury (Methyl) [organic] 22967-92-6 31 Jan-02

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 78-93-3 34000 Jan-02

2-Methylnapthalene 91-57-6 2.6 Jan-04 new soil MEG, Csat

Methyl Parathion 298-00-0 310 Jan-02

Molybdenum (Trioxide) 7439-98-7 1300 Jan-02

Naphthalene 91-20-3 220 Jan-02

Nickel (elemental/metal) 7440-02-0 5300 Jan-04 new soil MEG

Nickel (soluble compounds) 5300 Jan-04 new soil MEG

Oxamyl [Vydate] 23135-22-0 3000 Jan-02

Paraquat 1910-42-5 1100 Jan-02

Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5 3100 Jan-04 new soil MEG

Phenanthrene 85-01-8 270 Jan-02

Polychlorinated Biphenyls [PCBs] 1336-36-3 2.1 Jan-02

Propylbenzene (n-) 103-65-1 240 Jan-02

Pyrene 129-00-0 31000 Jan-02

Selenium 7782-49-2 1300 Jan-04 new chem

Silver 7440-22-4 1300 Jan-04 new soil MEG

Simazine 122-34-9 520 Jan-02

Strontium 7440-24-6 140000 Jan-02

Sulfur Mustard [HD] (blister agent, 

mustard gas) 505-60-2 0.51 Jan-02

2,4,5-T 73-76-5 2600 Jan-04 new chem

2,3,7,8-TCDD 

[Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin](dioxin) 1746-01-6 0.0048 Jan-02

Terbufos 13071-79-9 2.6 Jan-02

Tetraethyl Lead 78-00-2 0.026 Jan-02

Toluene 108-88-3 520 Jan-02

Toxaphene 8001-35-2 100 Jan-02

Trifluralin 1582-09-8 740 Jan-02

Trimethylbenzene (1,3,5-) 108-67-8 250 Jan-02

Page 3-2
Table 3. Military Exposure Guidelines for Soil - January 2004 TG 230 Addendum

Compound CAS No. 1-year Soil MEGs Date last change NOTES

(mg/kg) Publication

Trimethylbenzene (1,2,4-) 95-63-6 5.8 Jan-02

Vanadium 740-62-2 1600 Jan-02

VX (nerve agent) 50782-69-9 0.079 Jan-02

Xylene (mixed, o, m, p) 1330-20-7 210 Jan-02

Zinc 7440-66-6 69000 Jan-02

ITALIX BOLD (RED)= CHANGES to previous published values 

BOLD (TEAL) = New MEGs as of Jan 2004

[ ] = synonym or common abbreviation

( ) = qualifier

(I) Interim MEG is based on 

limited data and/or extrapolation 

techniques; under continuing 

evaluation; considered limitation 

when using; use as general 

screening criteria for additional 

evalaution

Page 3-3