\vEPA PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Draft Risk Evaluation for
Hexabromocyclododecane
Systematic Review Supplemental File:
Data Quality Evaluation of Environmental Fate and
Transport Studies
CASRN: 3194-55-6
June 2019

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Table of Contents
U.S, E. P. A. (2009). User's guide and technical documentation: KABAM version 1.0 (Kow
(based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model).
HERO ID: 5102068	 14
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Adsorption/desorption:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/5/2# HERO
ID: 3970742	 16
Letcher, RJ; Gebbink, WA; Sonne, C; Born, EW; Mckinney, MA; Dietz, R. (2009).
Bioaccumulation and biotransformation of brominated and chlorinated contaminants
and their metabolites in ringed seals (Pusa hispida) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus)
from East Greenland. Environ Int 35:1118-1124.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.006. HERO ID: 1443826	 19
Yu, L; Luo, X; Zheng, X; Zeng, Y; Chen, D; Wu, J; Mai, B. (2013). Occurrence and
biomagnification of organohalogen pollutants in two terrestrial predatory food chains.
Chemosphere 93: 506-511. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.023 HERO
ID: 1927541	 22
Sun, YX; Luo, XJ; Mo, L; He, MJ; Zhang, Q; Chen, SJ; Zou, FS; Mai, BX. (2012).
Hexabromocyclododecane in terrestrial passerine birds from e-waste, urban and rural
locations in the Pearl River Delta, South China: levels, biomagnification, diastereoisomer-
and enantiomer-specific accumulation. Environ Pollut 171:191-198.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.07.026. HERO ID: 1927580	 25
Sun, YX; Luo, XJ; Mo, L; He, MJ; Zhang, Q; Chen, SJ; Zou, FS; Mai, BX. (2012).
Hexabromocyclododecane in terrestrial passerine birds from e-waste, urban and rural
locations in the Pearl River Delta, South China: levels, biomagnification, diastereoisomer-
and enantiomer-specific accumulation. Environ Pollut 171:191-198.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.07.026. HERO ID: 1927580	 28
Sun, YX; Luo, XJ; Mo, L; He, MJ; Zhang, Q; Chen, SJ; Zou, FS; Mai, BX. (2012).
Hexabromocyclododecane in terrestrial passerine birds from e-waste, urban and rural
locations in the Pearl River Delta, South China: levels, biomagnification, diastereoisomer-
and enantiomer-specific accumulation. Environ Pollut 171:191-198.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.07.026. HERO ID: 1927580	 31
Fournier, A; Feidt, C; Marchand, P; Venisseau, A; Le Bizec, B; Sellier, N; Engel, E; Ratel, J;
Travel, A; Jondreville, C. (2012). Kinetic study of y-hexabromocyclododecane orally given
to laying hens (Gallus domesticus). "Transfer of HBCD in laying hens". Environ Sci Pollut
Res Int 19: 440-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll356-011-0573-6. HERO ID: 1927629 34
He, MJ; Luo, XJ; Yu, LH; Liu, J; Zhang, XL; Chen, SJ; Chen, D; Mai, BX. (2010).
Tetrabromobisphenol-A and hexabromocyclododecane in birds from an e-waste region in
South China: influence of diet on diastereoisomer- and enantiomer-specific distribution
and trophodynamics. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5748-5754.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01503r. HERO ID: 1927673	 37
He, MJ; Luo, XJ; Yu, LH; Liu, J; Zhang, XL; Chen, SJ; Chen, D; Mai, BX. (2010).

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Tetrabromobisphenol-A and hexabromocyclododecane in birds from an e-waste region in
South China: influence of diet on diastereoisomer- and enantiomer-specific distribution
and trophodynamics. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5748-5754.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01503r. HERO ID: 1927673	41
Janak, K; Sellstrom, U; Johansson, AK; Becher, G; de Wit, CA; Lindberg, P; Helander, B. (2008).
Enantiomer-specific accumulation of hexabromocyclododecanes in eggs of predatory
birds. Chemosphere 73: S193-S200.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.03.077. HERO ID: 1927746 	45
S0rmo, EG; Salmer, MP; Jenssen, BM; Hop, H; Baek, K; Kovacs, KM; Lydersen, C; Falk-
Petersen, S; Gabrielsen, GW; Lie, E; Skaare, JU. (2006). Biomagnification of
polybrominated diphenyl ether and hexabromocyclododecane flame retardants in the
polar bear food chain in Svalbard, Norway. Environ Toxicol Chem 25: 2502-2511.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/05-591R.l. HERO ID: 1927787	48
Li, B; Yao, T; Sun, H; Zhang, Y; Yang, J. (2016). Diastereomer- and enantiomer-specific
accumulation, depuration, bioisomerization, and metabolism of
hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs) in two ecologically different species of earthworms.
Sci Total Environ 542: 427-434. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.100. HERO
ID: 3350510	 50
Zhu, C; Wang, P; Li, Y; Chen, Z; Li, H; Ssebugere, P; Zhang, Q; Jiang, G. (2017). Trophic transfer
of hexabromocyclododecane in the terrestrial and aquatic food webs from an e- waste
dismantling region in East China. Environ Sci Process Impacts 19:154-160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c6em00617e. HERO ID: 3546047	 52
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216	 54
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2011). Several current-use, non-
PBDE brominated flame retardants are highly bioaccumulative: evidence from field
determined bioaccumulation factors. Environ Int 37: 210-215.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.09.006. HERO ID: 1443814	 60
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2011). Several current-use, non-
PBDE brominated flame retardants are highly bioaccumulative: evidence from field
determined bioaccumulation factors. Environ Int 37: 210-215.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.09.006. HERO ID: 1443814	 63
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2011). Several current-use, non-
PBDE brominated flame retardants are highly bioaccumulative: evidence from field
determined bioaccumulation factors. Environ Int 37: 210-215.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.09.006. HERO ID: 1443814	 66
Ismail, N; Gewurtz, SB; Pleskach, K; Whittle, DM; Helm, PA; Marvin, CH; Tomy, GT. (2009).
Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants in Lake Ontario, Canada, lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush) between 1979 and 2004 and possible influences of food- web
changes. Environ Toxicol Chem 28: 910-920. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/08-162.l. HERO
ID: 1443833	 69
Ismail, N; Gewurtz, SB; Pleskach, K; Whittle, DM; Helm, PA; Marvin, CH; Tomy, GT. (2009).
Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants in Lake Ontario, Canada, lake trout

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
(Salvelinus namaycush) between 1979 and 2004 and possible influences of food- web
changes. Environ Toxicol Chem 28: 910-920. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/08-162.l. HERO
ID: 1443833	 72
Ismail, N; Gewurtz, SB; Pleskach, K; Whittle, DM; Helm, PA; Marvin, CH; Tomy, GT. (2009).
Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants in Lake Ontario, Canada, lake trout
(Salvelinus namaycush) between 1979 and 2004 and possible influences of food- web
changes. Environ Toxicol Chem 28: 910-920. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/08-162.l. HERO
ID: 1443833	 75
Tomy, GT; Pleskach, K; Oswald, T; Halldorson, T; Helm, PA; Macinnis, G; Marvin, CH. (2008).
Enantioselective bioaccumulation of hexabromocyclododecane and congener- specific
accumulation of brominated diphenyl ethers in an eastern Canadian Arctic marine food
web. Environ Sci Technol 42: 3634-3639. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es703083z. HERO ID:
1443836	 78
Law, K; Palace, VP; Halldorson, T; Danell, R; Wautier, K; Evans, B; Alaee, M; Marvin, C; Tomy,
GT. (2006). Dietary accumulation of hexabromocyclododecane diastereoisomers in
juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). I: Bioaccumulation parameters and
evidence of bioisomerization. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:1757.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/05-445r.l. HERO ID: 1443861 	81
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant Industry
Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm. HERO ID:
1443881	84
He, MJ; Luo, XJ; Yu, LH; Wu, JP; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2013). Diasteroisomer and enantiomer-
specific profiles of hexabromocyclododecane and tetrabromobisphenol A in an aquatic
environment in a highly industrialized area, South China: vertical profile, phase partition,
and bioaccumulation. Environ Pollut 179:105-110.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.04.016. HERO ID: 1927551	 87
La Guardia, MJ; Hale, RC; Harvey, E; Mainor, TM; Ciparis, S. (2012). In situ accumulation of
HBCD, PBDEs, and several alternative flame-retardants in the bivalve (Corbicula
fluminea) and gastropod (Elimia proxima). Environ Sci Technol 46: 5798-5805.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3004238. HERO ID: 1927601	 90
Haukas, M; Hylland, K; Nygard, T; Berge, JA; Mariussen, E. (2010). Diastereomer-specific
bioaccumulation of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in a coastal food web, Western
Norway. Sci Total Environ 408: 5910-5916.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.08.026	 93
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2010). Trophodynamics of
hexabromocyclododecanes and several other non-PBDE brominated flame retardants in
a freshwater food web. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5490-5495.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01300t	96
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2010). Trophodynamics of
hexabromocyclododecanes and several other non-PBDE brominated flame retardants in
a freshwater food web. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5490-5495.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01300t	99

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2010). Trophodynamics of
hexabromocyclododecanes and several other non-PBDE brominated flame retardants in
a freshwater food web. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5490-5495.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01300t	102
Kim, GB; Stapleton, HM. (2010). PBDEs, methoxylated PBDEs and HBCDs in Japanese common
squid (Todarodes pacificus) from Korean offshore waters. Mar Pollut Bull 60: 935-940.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.025. HERO ID: 1927684 	105
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Rose, NL; Turner, SD; Davidson, TA. (2009). Current-use brominated
flame retardants in water, sediment, and fish from English lakes. Environ Sci Technol 43:
9077-9083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es902185u. HERO ID: 1927694	108
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Rose, NL; Turner, SD; Davidson, TA. (2009). Current-use brominated
flame retardants in water, sediment, and fish from English lakes. Environ Sci Technol 43:
9077-9083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es902185u. HERO ID: 1927694	Ill
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Rose, NL; Turner, SD; Davidson, TA. (2009). Current-use brominated
flame retardants in water, sediment, and fish from English lakes. Environ Sci Technol 43:
9077-9083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es902185u. HERO ID: 1927694	114
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Rose, NL; Turner, SD; Davidson, TA. (2009). Current-use brominated
flame retardants in water, sediment, and fish from English lakes. Environ Sci Technol 43:
9077-9083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es902185u. HERO ID: 1927694	117
Jenssen, BM; S0rmo, EG; Baek, K; Bytingsvik, J; Gaustad, H; Ruus, A; Skaare, JU. (2007).
Brominated flame retardants in North-East Atlantic marine ecosystems. Environ Health
Perspect 115 Suppl 1: 35-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9355. HERO ID: 1927762.120
van Beusekom, OC; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D; Koelmans, AA. (2006). Dynamic modeling of food-
chain accumulation of brominated flame retardants in fish from the Ebro River Basin,
Spain. Environ Toxicol Chem 25: 2553-2560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/05- 409R.1. HERO
ID: 1927786	123
Tomy, GT; Budakowski, W; Halldorson, T; Whittle, DM; Keir, MJ; Marvin, C; Macinnis, G;
Alaee, M. (2004). Biomagnification of alpha- and gamma-hexabromocyclododecane
isomers in a Lake Ontario food web. Environ Sci Technol 38: 2298-2303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034968h. HERO ID: 1927822	126
Wildlife Intl LTD (Wildlife International Limited). (2000). Letter from Amer Chem Cncl
submitting flow-through bioconcentration test w/rainbow trout and end-user survey-
phase 1 study of brominated flame retardant, w/attchmts and dated 8/28/00 [TSCA
Submission]. (EPA/OTS Doc #FYI-OTS-1000-1392). Arlington, VA: American Chemistry
Council. HERO ID: 1928244	129
Zhang, Y; Sun, H; Zhu, H; Ruan, Y; Liu, F; Liu, X. (2014). Accumulation of
hexabromocyclododecane diastereomers and enantiomers in two microalgae, Spirulina
subsalsa and Scenedesmus obliquus. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 104:136-142.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.02.027. HERO ID: 2343690	132
Zhang, Y; Sun, H; Liu, F; Dai, Y; Qin, X; Ruan, Y; Zhao, L; Gan, Z. (2013).
Hexabromocyclododecanes in limnic and marine organisms and terrestrial plants from
Tianjin, China: diastereomer- and enantiomer-specific profiles, biomagnification, and
human exposure. Chemosphere 93:1561-1568.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.08.004. HERO ID: 2343741 	135

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Bradshaw, C; Strid, A; von Stedingk, H; Gustafsson, K. (2015). Effects of benthos, temperature,
and dose on the fate of hexabromocyclododecane in experimental coastal ecosystems.
Environ Toxicol Chem 34:1246-1257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.2947. HERO ID:
3013490	138
Baron, E; Gimenez, J; Verborgh, R; Gauffier, P; De Stephanis, R; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D. (2015).
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of classical flame retardants, related halogenated
natural compounds and alternative flame retardants in three delphinids from Southern
European waters. Environ Pollut 203:107-115.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.03.041. HERO ID: 3327242	141
Baron, E; Gimenez, J; Verborgh, R; Gauffier, P; De Stephanis, R; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D. (2015).
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of classical flame retardants, related halogenated
natural compounds and alternative flame retardants in three delphinids from Southern
European waters. Environ Pollut 203:107-115.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.03.041. HERO ID: 3327242	144
Baron, E; Gimenez, J; Verborgh, R; Gauffier, P; De Stephanis, R; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D. (2015).
Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of classical flame retardants, related halogenated
natural compounds and alternative flame retardants in three delphinids from Southern
European waters. Environ Pollut 203:107-115.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.03.041. HERO ID: 3327242	146
Tang, B; Zeng, YH; Luo, XJ; Zheng, XB; Mai, BX. (2015). Bioaccumulative characteristics of
tetrabromobisphenol A and hexabromocyclododecanes in multi-tissues of prey and
predator fish from an e-waste site, South China. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:12011-
12017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll356-015-4463-l. HERO ID: 3350534	149
Zhu, C; Wang, P; Li, Y; Chen, Z; Li, H; Ssebugere, P; Zhang, Q; Jiang, G. (2017). Trophic transfer
of hexabromocyclododecane in the terrestrial and aquatic food webs from an e- waste
dismantling region in East China. Environ Sci Process Impacts 19:154-160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c6em00617e. HERO ID: 3546047	152
Zhu, H; Zhang, K; Sun, H; Wang, F; Yao, Y. (2017). Spatial and temporal distributions of
hexabromocyclododecanes in the vicinity of an expanded polystyrene material
manufacturing plant in Tianjin, China. Environ Pollut 222: 338-347.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.029. HERO ID: 3546055	155
Guerra, P; De La Cal, A; Marsh, G; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D. (2009). Transfer of
hexabromocyclododecane from industrial effluents to sediments and biota: Case study in
Cinca River (Spain). J Hydrol 369: 360-367.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.024. HERO ID: 3575325 	158
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216	162
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Bioaccumulation: aquatic/sediment:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/4/2# HERO
ID: 3970741	165
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Bioaccumulation: aquatic/sediment:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/4/2# HERO
ID: 3970741	168
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Bioaccumulation: aquatic/sediment:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/4/2# HERO
ID: 3970741	171
Law, K; Halldorson, T; Danell, R; Stern, G; Gewurtz, S; Alaee, M; Marvin, C; Whittle, M; Tomy,
G. (2007). Erratum: Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of some brominated flame
retardants in a Lake Winnipeg (Canada) food web. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:190.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620260125 HERO ID: 4140418	174
Chemicals Inspection and Testing Institute Japan. (1995). Final report: Bioconcentration study
of hexabromocyclododecane in carp conducted with 1,2,5,6,9,10-
hexabromocyclododecane (test substance no. K-1035). Chemical Biotesting Center,
Kurume Laboratory. HERO ID: 4140430	177
Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research. (2002). Polybrominated diphenylethers in the
aquatic environment. (OTS: NA; 8EHQ Num: 8EHQ-0702-15166C; DCN: 89030000022;
TSCATS RefID: NA; CIS: 8EHQ-02-15166). HERO ID: 4269990	180
Zhang, Y; Lu, Y; Wang, P; Shi, Y. (2018). Biomagnification of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)
in a coastal ecosystem near a large producer in China: Human exposure implication
through food web transfer. Sci Total Environ 624:1213-1220. HERO ID: 5099158	183
Veith, GD; DeFoe, DL; Bergstedt, BV. (1979). Measuring and estimating the bioconcentration
factor of chemicals in fish. J Fish Res Board Can 36:1040-1048.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f79-146. HERO ID: 58136	186
S0rmo, EG; Jenssen, BM; Lie, E; Skaare, JU. (2009). Brominated flame retardants in aquatic
organisms from the North Sea in comparison with biota from the high Arctic marine
environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 28: 2082-2090. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/08-452.l.
HERO ID: 947918	189
Eljarrat, E; de la Cal, A; Raldua, D; Duran, C; Barcelo, D. (2004). Occurrence and bioavailability
of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and hexabromocyclododecane in sediment and fish
from the Cinca River, a tributary of the Ebro River (Spain). Environ Sci Technol 38: 2603-
2608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es0301424. HERO ID: 999290	193
Law, K; Halldorson, T; Danell, R; Stern, G; Gewurtz, S; Alaee, M; Marvin, C; Whittle, M; Tomy,
G. (2006). Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of some brominated flame retardants in
a Lake Winnipeg (Canada) food web. Environ Toxicol Chem 25: 2177-2186.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/05-500R.l. HERO ID: 999306	196
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in soil:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/3/4# HERO
ID: 3970740	199
3575047 	
Le, TT; Son, MH; Nam, IH; Yoon, H; Kang, YG; Chang, YS. (2017). Transformation of
202

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
hexabromocyclododecane in contaminated soil in association with microbial diversity. J
Hazard Mater 325: 82-89. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.ll.058 HERO ID:
3575047	205
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments. Water
Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024 HERO ID: 1443846
	208
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in soil:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/3/4# HERO
ID: 3970740	210
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant Industry
Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm. HERO ID:
1443881	213
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216	216
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216	219
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216	222
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2003). Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): An activated
sludge, respiration inhibition test. (OTS: NA; 8EHQ Num: FYI-03-01472; DCN:
84040000010; TSCATS RefID: NA; CIS: FYI-03-01472). HERO ID: 4269929	225
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments. Water
Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024 HERO ID: 1443846
	227
Hoh, E; Hites, RA. (2005). Brominated flame retardants in the atmosphere of the
East- Central United States. Environ Sci Technol 39: 7794-7802.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es050718k HERO ID: 999242 	229
Zhou, DN; Chen, L; Wu, F; Wang, J; Yang, F. (2012). Debromination of
hexabromocyclododecane in aqueous solutions by UV-C irradiation. Fresen
Environ Bull 21:107-111. HERO ID: 1106077	232
Zhou, DN; Chen, L; Wu, F; Wang, J; Yang, F. (2012). Debromination of
hexabromocyclododecane in aqueous solutions by UV-C irradiation. Fresen
Environ Bull 21:107-111. HERO ID: 1106077	234
Zhou, DN; Chen, L; Wu, F; Wang, J; Yang, F. (2012). Debromination of
hexabromocyclododecane in aqueous solutions by UV-C irradiation. Fresen
Environ Bull 21:107-111. HERO ID: 1106077	236

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Tomy, GT; Pleskach, K; Ferguson, SH; Hare, J; Stern, G; Maclnnis, G; Marvin, CH;
Loseto, L. (2009). Trophodynamics of some PFCs and BFRs in a western Canadian
Arctic marine food web. Environ Sci Technol 43:4076-4081.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es900162n HERO ID: 1279130	238
Klosterhaus, SL; Stapleton, HM; La Guardia, MJ; Greig, DJ. (2012). Brominated and
chlorinated flame retardants in San Francisco Bay sediments and wildlife.
Environ Int47: 56-65. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2012.06.005 HERO ID:
1443796	240
Zhao, YY; Zhang, XH; Sojinu, OS. (2010). Thermodynamics and photochemical
properties of alpha, beta, and gamma-hexabromocyclododecanes: a theoretical
study. Chemosphere 80:150-156.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.04.002 HERO ID: 1443819	243
Gerecke, AC; Giger, W; Hartmann, PC; Heeb, NV; Kohler, HP; Schmid, P; Zennegg, M;
Kohler, M. (2006). Anaerobic degradation of brominated flame retardants in
sewage sludge. Chemosphere 64: 311-317.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.12.016 HERO ID: 1443845 ....245
Gerecke, AC; Giger, W; Hartmann, PC; Heeb, NV; Kohler, HP; Schmid, P; Zennegg, M;
Kohler, M. (2006). Anaerobic degradation of brominated flame retardants in
sewage sludge. Chemosphere 64: 311-317.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.12.016 HERO ID: 1443845 ....247
Gerecke, AC; Giger, W; Hartmann, PC; Heeb, NV; Kohler, HP; Schmid, P; Zennegg, M;
Kohler, M. (2006). Anaerobic degradation of brominated flame retardants in
sewage sludge. Chemosphere 64: 311-317.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.12.016 HERO ID: 1443845 ....249
Gerecke, AC; Giger, W; Hartmann, PC; Heeb, NV; Kohler, HP; Schmid, P; Zennegg, M;
Kohler, M. (2006). Anaerobic degradation of brominated flame retardants in
sewage sludge. Chemosphere 64: 311-317.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.12.016 HERO ID: 1443845 ....252
Davis, JW; Gonsior, SJ; Markham, DA; Friederich, U; Hunziker, RW; Ariano, JM. (2006).
Biodegradation and product identification of [14C]hexabromocyclododecane in
wastewater sludge and freshwater aquatic sediment. Environ Sci Technol 40:
5395-5401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060009m HERO ID: 1443842	255
Davis, JW; Gonsior, SJ; Markham, DA; Friederich, U; Hunziker, RW; Ariano, JM. (2006).
Biodegradation and product identification of [14C]hexabromocyclododecane in
wastewater sludge and freshwater aquatic sediment. Environ Sci Technol 40:
5395- 5401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060009m HERO ID: 1443842	257
Davis, JW; Gonsior, SJ; Markham, DA; Friederich, U; Hunziker, RW; Ariano, JM. (2006).
Biodegradation and product identification of [14C]hexabromocyclododecane in
wastewater sludge and freshwater aquatic sediment. Environ Sci Technol 40:
5395- 5401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060009m HERO ID: 1443842	260
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments.
Water Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846	263
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments.
Water Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846	266
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments.
Water Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846	269
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments.
Water Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846	272
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant
Industry Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm
HERO ID: 1443881	275
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant
Industry Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm
HERO ID: 1443881	278
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant
Industry Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm
HERO ID: 1443881	281
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant
Industry Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm
HERO ID: 1443881	284
Hu, J; Jin, J; Wang, Y; Ma, Z; Zheng, W. (2011). Levels of polybrominated diphenyl
ethers and hexabromocyclododecane in the atmosphere and tree bark from
Beijing, China. Chemosphere 84: 355-360.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.04.002 HERO ID: 1927637	287
Hermanson, MH; Isaksson, E; Forsstrom, S; Teixeira, C; Muir, DC; Pohjola, VA; van de
Wal, RS. (2010). Deposition history of brominated flame retardant compounds in
an ice core from Holtedahlfonna, Svalbard, Norway. Environ Sci Technol 44:
7405-7410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl016608 HERO ID: 1927665	290
Haukas, M; Mariussen, E; Ruus, A; Tollefsen, KE. (2009). Accumulation and
disposition of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in juvenile rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)	293
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Covaci, A. (2009). Causes of variability in concentrations
and diastereomer patterns of hexabromocyclododecanes in indoor dust. Environ
Int 35: 573- 579. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.10.005 HERO ID:

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1927725	296
Ichihara, M; Yamamoto, A; Takakura, K; Kakutani, N; Sudo, M. (2014). Distribution
and pollutant load of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in sewage treatment
plants and water from Japanese Rivers. Chemosphere 110: 78-84.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.03.074 HERO ID: 2343678 ....299
Takigami, H; Watanabe, M; Kajiwara, N. (2014). Destruction behavior of
hexabromocyclododecanes during incineration of solid waste containing
expanded and extruded polystyrene insulation foams. Chemosphere 116: 24-33.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.01.082 HERO ID: 2343703 ....301
Zhou, D; Wu, Y; Feng, X; Chen, Y; Wang, Z; Tao, T; Wei, D. (2014). Photodegradation of
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) by Fe(III) complexes/H20 2 under simulated
sunlight. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 21: 6228-6233.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll356- 014-2553-0 HERO ID: 2343710	304
Arinaitwe, K; Muir, DC; Kiremire, BT; Fellin, P; Li, H; Teixeira, C. (2014).
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers and alternative flame retardants in air and
precipitation samples from the northern Lake Victoria region, East Africa.
Environ Sci Technol 48:1458-1466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es403600a
HERO ID: 2343716	306
Zhang, Y; Sun, H; Liu, F; Dai, Y; Qin, X; Ruan, Y; Zhao, L; Gan, Z. (2013).
Hexabromocyclododecanes in limnic and marine organisms and terrestrial
plants from Tianjin, China: diastereomer- and enantiomer-specific profiles,
biomagnification, and human exposure. Chemosphere 93:1561-1568.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.08.004 HERO ID: 2343741 ....308
Schreder, ED; La Guardia, MJ. (2014). Flame retardant transfers from U.S. households
(dust and laundry wastewater) to the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol
48:11575-11583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es502227h HERO ID: 2528320 .311
Rauert, C; Harrad, S; Stranger, M; Lazarov, B. (2014). Test chamber investigation of
the volatilization from source materials of brominated flame retardants and
their subsequent deposition to indoor dust. Indoor Air 25: 393-404.
http://dx.doi.org/10.llll/ina.12151 HERO ID: 2528329	313
Bradshaw, C; Strid, A; von Stedingk, H; Gustafsson, K. (2015). Effects of benthos,
temperature, and dose on the fate of hexabromocyclododecane in experimental
coastal ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:1246-1257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.2947 HERO ID: 3013490	315
Bradshaw, C; Strid, A; von Stedingk, H; Gustafsson, K. (2015). Effects of benthos,
temperature, and dose on the fate of hexabromocyclododecane in experimental
coastal ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:1246-1257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.2947 HERO ID: 3013490	317
Lee, SC; Sverko, E; Harner, T; Pozo, K; Barresi, E; Schachtschneider, J; Zaruk, D;
Dejong, M; Narayan, J. (2016). Retrospective analysis of "new" flame retardants
in the global atmosphere under the GAPS Network. Environ Pollut 217: 62-69.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.01.080 HERO ID: 3350487 	320
Zhu, H; Sun, H; Zhang, Y; Xu, J; Li, B; Zhou, Q. (2016). Uptake pathway, translocation,
and isomerization of hexabromocyclododecane diastereoisomers by wheat in
closed chambers. Environ Sci Technol 50: 2652-2659.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05118 HERO ID: 3350492	323
Stiborova, H; Vrkoslavova, J; Pulkrabova, J; Poustka, J; Hajslova, J; Demnerova, K.
(2015). Dynamics of brominated flame retardants removal in contaminated
wastewater sewage sludge under anaerobic conditions. Sci Total Environ 533:
439-445. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.06.131 HERO ID: 3350527
	326
Kim, UJ; Lee, IS; Oh, JE. (2016). Occurrence, removal and release characteristics of
dissolved brominated flame retardants and their potential metabolites in
various kinds of wastewater. Environ Pollut 218: 551-557.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.07.037 HERO ID: 3545985 	329
Barontini, F; Cozzani, V; Petarca, L. (2001). Thermal stability and decomposition
products of hexabromocyclododecane. Ind Eng Chem Res 40: 3270-3280.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie001002v HERO ID: 3575301	332
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in water: screening
tests: hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-
dossier/15003/5/3/2# HERO ID: 3970739	334
Jenssen, B; Sormo, E; Salmer, M; Baek, K; Skaare, J. (2004). Brominated flame
retardants (BFRs) in the Arctic marine food chain. Third International Workshop
on Brominated Flame Retardants. HERO ID: 4140373	337
Leonards, P; Vethaak, D; Brandsma, S; Kwadijk, C; Micic, D; Jol, J; Schout, P; de Boer, J.
(2004). Species specific accumulation and biotransformation of polybrominated
diphenyl ethers and hexabromocyclododecane in two Dutch food chains. Third
International Workshop on Brominated Flame Retardants. HERO ID: 4140495
	339
Zeger, BN; Mets, A; van Bommel, R; Minkenberg, C; Hamers, T; Kamstra, JH; Learmont,
JA; Vasquez, BS; Pierce, G; Ried, B; Patterson, T; Rogan, E; Murphy, S; Addink, M;
Hartmann, MG; Smeenk, C; Dabin, W; Ridoux, V; Gonzalez, AF; Lopez, A; Jauniaux,
T; Boon, JP. (2004). Stereo-isomer specific bioaccumulation of
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in marine mammals. Paper presented at Third
International Workshop on Brominated Flame Retardants, June 6-9, 2004,
Toronto, Ontario. HERO ID: 4140500	341
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2003). Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): An
activated sludge, respiration inhibition test. (OTS: NA; 8EHQ Num: FYI-03-01472;
DCN: 84040000010; TSCATS ReflD: NA; CIS: FYI-03-01472). HERO ID: 4269929
	343
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation - Research & Development. (1988). Product
information sheet, MSDS, and Toxicity Data Summaries: acute oral rats, acute
dermal rabbits, primary skin irritation rabbits, eye irritation rabbits, acute
inhalation rats, Ames test, acute fish toxicity test, pilot cataractogenic study in
chicks, cataractogenic study in chicks, biodegradation, hydrolysis, partition
coefficient, solubility. (OTS: OTS0001106; 8EHQ Num: FYI-OTS-0794-1106; DCN:
84940000189; TSCATS ReflD: NA; CIS: FYI-94-001106). HERO ID: 4270831	345
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation - Research & Development. (1988). Product
information sheet, MSDS, and Toxicity Data Summaries: acute oral rats, acute

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
dermal rabbits, primary skin irritation rabbits, eye irritation rabbits, acute
inhalation rats, Ames test, acute fish toxicity test, pilot cataractogenic study in
chicks, cataractogenic study in chicks, biodegradation, hydrolysis, partition
coefficient, solubility. (OTS: OTS0001106; 8EHQNum: FYI-OTS-0794-1106; DCN:
84940000189; TSCATS ReflD: NA; CIS: FYI-94-001106). HERO ID: 4270831	348
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from
https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/ HERO ID: 3970216	351
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from
https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/ HERO ID: 3970216	354
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from
https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/ HERO ID: 3970216	357
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from
https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/ HERO ID: 3970216	360
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from
https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/ HERO ID: 3970216	363
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Hydrolysis: hexabromocyclododecane.
Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-
/registered-dossier/15003/5/2/3#. HERO ID: 3970738	366
Kajiwara, N; Takigami, H. (2013). Behavior of additive brominated flame retardants
in textile products. In 5th International Symposium on Brominated Flame
Retardants, April 07-April 09, 2010, Kyoto, Japan (pp. 4). Kajiwara, N; Takigami,
H. http://dtsc.ca.gov/bfr2013/abstract_download/2010/upload/90074.pdf
HERO ID: 3809158	369
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2002). EPA HPV Track:
1,2,5,6,9,10- Hexabromocyclododecane.
https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/ HERO ID: 3970217 	372
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Estimation Programs
Interface Suite™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11 [Computer Program].
Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-
suitetm-estimation-program- interface. HERO ID: 2347246	375

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
U.S, E. P. A. (2009). User's guide and technical documentation: KABAM version 1.0
(Kow (basel99d) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model).
HERO ID: 5102068
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR

6. Testing
Conditions
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR

12. Sampling
Methods
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR

18. QSAR Models
High
The KABAM (Kow
(based) Aquatic
BioAccumulation
Model) model has
defined endpoints.
Chemical domain,
uncertainties and
performance of the
model is reported.
Unambiguous
algorithms are
available in the
model
documentation
and/or cited
references to
establish their
scientific validity.
KABAM models.
1
1
1



Sum of scores:
2
3
1
1lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1
^1 niul ¦ 1.7
^1.7 ;ind '2.A
niul ^3


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Adsorption/desorption:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/5/2#

HERO ID: 3970742
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test
substance was
identified by
CASRNand
common name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test
substance source
and purity were
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The study did not
require
concurrent
control groups.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test
substance storage
conditions were
reported;
stored in the dark
between 15 and
25°C.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Low
OECD 121 can
only determine
log Koc between
1 and 5; OECD
106 would have
been a more
appropriate test.
3
1
3

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Some testing
conditions were
reported and a
guideline method
was used.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
Limited details
were reported in
this secondary
source; however,
primary source
may contain
more detail.
NR
NR
NR

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
The reference
standards were
appropriate for this
type of test but did
not extend to cover
log Koc of the test
material
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Followed two testing
guidelines (OECD
121 and EU Method
C.19) for the
estimation of Koc.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Not rated
Limited details were
reported in this
secondary source;
however, the
primary source may
contain more detail.
NR
NR
NR
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
Because the log Koc
for the test item lies
outside the
calibration range,
only a relative value
could be obtained.
3
1
3

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Analytical method
was suitable for
detection of test
material.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical method
was clearly
described.
1
1
1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Only an estimated
range for HBCD Koc
was reported as the
retention time fell
outside the
calibration range
defined by the 8
reference
substances.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
14
22
1 lifili
Medium
I.DVV
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.57
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
_1 and • 1.7
_j1.7 and ¦ '2,'A
-23 ;ind ¦-.$


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Letcher, RJ; Gebbink, WA; Sonne, C; Born, EW; Mckinney, MA; Dietz, R. (2009).
Bioaccumulation and biotransformation of brominated and chlorinated contaminants
and their metabolites in ringed seals (Pusa hispida) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus)
from East Greenland. Environ Int 35:1118-1124.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.006.
HERO ID: 1443826
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
The source and
purity of the
analytical reference
material was not
provided.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
QA/QC procedures
were included in this
study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability was
accounted for and
appropriate for the
study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Only one isomer was
evaluated in this
study; this may
decrease the value of
the results.
2
1
2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Extraction and clean
up procedure details
were referenced to
the primary source;
however, some
details were
provided.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Only one isomer was
evaluated in this
study
2
1
2

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some information
was not reported
(i.e., all forms of the
target chemical and
transformation
products); however,
these omissions
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
20
25

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 :nul ' 1.7
_j1.7 niul 2,'A
-2,'A niul i:3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Yu, L; Luo, X; Zheng, X; Zeng, Y; Chen, D; Wu, J; Mai, B. (2013). Occurrence and

Reference:
biomagnification of organohalogen pollutants in two terrestrial predatory food chains.
Chemosphere 93: 506-511. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.06.023
HERO ID: 1927541
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
Medium
Source and purity
2
1
2

Substance

were not reported;




Purity

determination of the
enantiomeric
fractions were in the
Supplemental
Information.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
Field
study/monitoring;
the study did not
include control
groups.
Details of QA/QC
were provided as
supplemental
information.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Medium
Details regarding
2
1
2

Substance

this metric were




Stability

omitted; however,
this was not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the results.



Test
5. Test
Low
Details regarding
§
1
3
Conditions
Method
Suitability

test method
suitability were
limited/omitted
(specifically,
information on the
identification/quanti
tation of HBCD
enantiomers]; the
lack of information
made this study
difficult to interpret.




-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Details regarding
test condition were
limited/ omitted.
Such details were
referenced to a prior
study and
supplemental
information.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
This information
was not provided in
the publication.
NR
NR
NR

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; the lack of
information made
this study difficult to
interpret.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
General information
on species sampled
and their source was
provided.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Biomagnification
methodology was
not reported; data
were only provided
in supplemental
information.
3
1
3

12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; the lack of
information made
this study difficult to
interpret.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
Not able to evaluate
given the lack of
information
provided in the
study.
NR
NR
NR

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Biomagnification
factor values
appeared to be in
the
3
2
6

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE



supplemental report,
which was not
readily available; the
lack of information
decreased the value
of the information
and made this study
difficult to interpret.
Biomagnifi cation
factors results for
HBCD were only
described generally
in the publication.




16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
Not able to evaluate
given the lack of
information
provided in the
study.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Low
The conclusion
briefly discussed
individual isomer
behavior; however,
no data were
provided (data were
given for the sum of
isomers; analytical
methods suggesting
resolution were not
provided).
3
1
3

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
28
15
36
1 ligli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.4
_j1 ;iiul ¦¦ 1.7
^1.7 and 2.3
^2.3 ;ind ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'Biomagnification was not reported but may be available in a supplemental report.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Sun, YX; Luo, XJ; Mo, L; He, MJ; Zhang, Q; Chen, SJ; Zou, FS; Mai, BX. (2012).

Reference:
Hexabromocyclododecane in terrestrial passerine birds from e-waste, urban and rural
locations in the Pearl River Delta, South China: levels, biomagnification, diastereoisomer-

and enantiomer-specific accumulation. Environ Pollut 171:191-198.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j-envpol.2012.07.026.
HERO ID: 1927580



Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
Source and purity
1
1
1

Substance
Purity

(commercial grade)
were reported.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Site chosen for
measurement of
background levels;
trace amounts of
alpha-HBCD noted in
procedural blanks
and samples
corrected
accordingly
1
2
2

4. Test
High
The test substance
_
_
1

Substance
Stability

stability, sample
homogenization,
preparation and
storage were
appropriate for the
study and were
described in the
report.



Test
5. Test
High
The test method was
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

suitable for the test
substance.




6. Testing
Conditions
High
Test conditions were
reported in detail
and were
appropriate for the
study. As this was a
field sampling study
rather than a test
with laboratory
organisms,
conditions such as
pH and DO were not
measured or
necessary.
1
2
2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
bird species and
samples. Exposure
conditions were
documented.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Test system and
design were
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Only one trophic
level was examined.
Details regarding
feeding and life
history of birds
samples were
provided in
supplemental
information.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The isomer was not
found in the species
monitored and
therefore an
assessment of
biomagnifi cation
factor could not be
done.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Details of sample
collection were
provided in a
referenced
publication. Sample
locations were
adequately
described,
as was tissue
processing. Methods
used were widely
accepted.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Study evaluated
potential sources of
uncertainty and
variability. No
confounding
variables
were noted for beta-
HBCD.
1
1
1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study. Lipid-
normalized
concentrations were
reported for each
isomer.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
were clearly
described and were
adequate for the
dataset.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
22
1 ligli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 :iiul ' 1.7
_j1.7 ;ind 2,'A
:uul -JA


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Sun, YX; Luo, XJ; Mo, L; He, MJ; Zhang, Q; Chen, SJ; Zou, FS; Mai, BX. (2012).
Hexabromocyclododecane in terrestrial passerine birds from e-waste, urban and rural
locations in the Pearl River Delta, South China: levels, biomagnification,
diastereoisomer- and enantiomer-specific accumulation. Environ Pollut 171:191-198.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.07.026.
HERO ID: 1927580
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source and purity
(commercial grade)
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Site chosen for
measurement of
background levels;
trace amounts of
alpha-HBCD noted in
procedural blanks
and samples
corrected accordingly.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability, sample
homogenization,
preparation and
storage were
appropriate for the
study and were
described in the
report.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Test conditions were
reported in detail and
were appropriate for
the study. As this was
a field sampling study
rather than a test
with laboratory
organisms, conditions
such as pH and DO
were not measured or
necessary.
1
2
2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
bird species and
samples. Exposure
conditions were
documented.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Test system and
design were
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Only one trophic
level was sampled.
Details regarding
feeding and life
history of birds
samples were
provided in
supplemental
information.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment
methodology clearly
reported the
intended outcome of
the study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Details of sample
collection were
provided in a
referenced
publication. Sample
locations were
adequately
described, as was
tissue processing.
Methods used were
widely accepted.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty
were evaluated and
discussed in the
study. Average
recovery of alpha-
HBCD in the spiked
blank was 96.4%; no
confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study. Lipid-
normalized
concentrations were
reported for each
isomer, as well as
lipid-adjusted
biomagnifi cation
factors.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
were clearly
described and were
adequate for the
dataset.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
22
1 lijili
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_j1 mill -1.7
-1.7 mul • 2,'A
-2..S mul


Overall Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Sun, YX; Luo, XJ; Mo, L; He, MJ; Zhang, Q; Chen, SJ; Zou, FS; Mai, BX. (2012).
Hexabromocyclododecane in terrestrial passerine birds from e-waste, urban and rural
locations in the Pearl River Delta, South China: levels, biomagnification,
diastereoisomer- and enantiomer-specific accumulation. Environ Pollut 171:191-198.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.07.026.
HERO ID: 1927580
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source and purity
(commercial grade)
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Site chosen for
measurement of
background levels;
trace amounts of
alpha-HBCD were
noted in procedural
blanks and samples
were corrected
accordingly.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability, sample
homogenization,
preparation and
storage were
appropriate for the
study and were
described in the
report.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Test conditions were
reported in detail and
were appropriate for
the study. As this was
a field sampling study
rather than a test
with laboratory
organisms, conditions
such as pH and DO
were not measured or
necessary.
1
2
2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
bird species and
samples. Exposure
conditions were
documented.
1
1
1

8. System Type
and Design
High
Test system and
design were
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Only one trophic
level was sampled.
Details regarding
feeding and life
history of birds
samples were
provided in
supplemental
information.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment
methodology clearly
reported the
intended outcome of
the study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Details of sample
collection were
provided in a
referenced
publication. Sample
locations were
adequately
described, as was
tissue processing.
Methods used were
widely accepted.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
Limitations were
noted about the
calculation that led
to uncertainties on
the biomagnification
factor results for the
gamma isomer (it
was not calculated
using 1-
3
1
3

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE



to-1 correspondence
between bird tissue
and stomach
contents). This may
have limited the
usefulness of this
value.




14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study. Lipid-
normalized
concentrations were
reported for each
isomer, as well as
lipid-adjusted
biomagnifi cation
factors.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
were clearly
described and were
adequate for the
dataset.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
20
24
1 litili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
_j1 mul 1.7
_j1.7 ;nul 2,'A
-2.'.$ ;ind i_/5


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Fournier, A; Feidt, C; Marchand, P; Venisseau, A; Le Bizec, B; Sellier, N; Engel, E; Ratel, J;
Travel, A; Jondreville, C. (2012). Kinetic study ofy-hexabromocyclododecane orally
given to laying hens (Gallus domesticus). "Transfer of HBCD in laying hens". Environ Sci
Pollut Res Int 19:440-447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll356-011-0573-6.
HERO ID: 1927629
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Control organisms
were included, and
analytical blanks
were run and used
for correction.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
Adequate storage of
tissue samples;
internal and external
standards were
reported.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Some details were
omitted; however,
this was not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Test system was
described and
appropriate for the
experiment.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Non-routine with
adequate
description. Species,
age, sex, and body
weight were
reported.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Outcome assessment
methodology
addressed the
intended outcomes
of interest.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling methods
addressed outcomes
of interest, were
widely accepted, and
were appropriate for
the analyses.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
identified.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Data reporting was
thorough and
detailed. BCFs were
lipid-normalized.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
22
1 ligli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
^1 mill 1..- -1..- niiil - 2.'.^ mul -JA


Overall
High



Quality




Level:


-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
He, MJ; Luo, XJ; Yu, LH; Liu, J; Zhang, XL; Chen, SJ; Chen, D; Mai, BX. (2010).
Tetrabromobisphenol-A and hexabromocyclododecane in birds from an e-waste region
in South China: influence of diet on diastereoisomer- and enantiomer-specific
distribution and trophodynamics. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5748-5754.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01503r.
HERO ID: 1927673
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2
2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
The source of the
analytical standard
was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Trace HBCDs found
in procedural blanks
were not subtracted.
2
2
4
4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability,
homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have
influenced the test
substance
or were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on study results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1
6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Detailed information
on species and site
was cited, although
limited detail on
environmental
sampling
parameters was
provided.
2
2
4

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE



However, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on study results.



7. Testing
Consistency
High
Conditions of
exposure were
documented. Birds
collected were found
dead or dying from
various causes;
however, given that
the intent of the
study was to
determine chemical
concentrations in
bird species
regardless of
exposure method,
this should not have
impacted the study
results.
1
1
1
8. System
Type and
Design
High
Field study; system
type and design
were considered
appropriate.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Details on each
species were cited in
supporting
information; field
study investigated
concentrations in
species of different
trophic levels.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Limited details were
provided on the
derivation of the
biomagnifi cation
factor values.
2
1
2
12. Sampling
Methods
High
No sampling
limitations were
noted that would
have influenced the
study results.
1
1
1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
identified; sources of
variability and
uncertainty were
accounted for in data
evaluation and
presentation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Some details were
omitted; extra detail
in supporting
information;
however, critical
parameters such as
injection
temperature
for speciation were
not reported; this
limited the validity
of the results.
3
2
6

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Limited data were
provided regarding
this metric;
however, this was
not likely to
have hindered the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
20
31
1 lijih
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.55
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1 niul 1..- -1./niul - 2.'.^ niul

Overall
High


Quality



Level:


-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
He, MJ; Luo, XJ; Yu, LH; Liu, J; Zhang, XL; Chen, SJ; Chen, D; Mai, BX. (2010).
Tetrabromobisphenol-A and hexabromocyclododecane in birds from an e-waste region
in South China: influence of diet on diastereoisomer- and enantiomer-specific
distribution and trophodynamics. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5748-5754.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01503r.
HERO ID: 1927673
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
The source of the
analytical standard
was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Trace HBCDs found
in procedural blanks
were not subtracted.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability,
homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Detailed information
on species and site
was cited, although
limited detail on
environmental
sampling
parameters was
provided.
2
2
4

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE



However, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.



7. Testing
Consistency
High
Conditions of
exposure were
documented. Birds
collected were found
dead or dying from
various causes;
however, given that
the intent of the
study was to
determine chemical
concentrations in
bird
species regardless of
exposure method,
this should not have
impacted the study
results.
1
1
1
8. System
Type and
Design
High
Field study; system
type and design
were considered
appropriate.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Details on each
species were cited in
supporting
information; field
study investigated
concentrations in
species of different
trophic levels.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Limited details were
provided on the
derivation of the
biomagnifi cation
factor values.
2
1
2
12. Sampling
Methods
High
No sampling
limitations were
noted that would
have influenced the
study results.
1
1
1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
identified; sources of
variability and
uncertainty were
accounted for in data
evaluation and
presentation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Some details were
omitted; extra detail
in supporting
information;
however, critical
parameters such as
injection
temperature
for speciation was
not
reported. This
limited
the validity of the
results.
3
2
6

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Limited data were
provided regarding
this metric;
however, this was
not likely to
have hindered the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type
of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
20
31
1 lijih
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.55
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1 niul 1..- -1./niul - 2.'.^ niul

Overall
High


Quality



Level:


-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Janak, K; Sellstrom, U; Johansson, AK; Becher, G; de Wit, CA; Lindberg, P; Helander, B.
(2008). Enantiomer-specific accumulation of hexabromocyclododecanes in eggs of
predatoiy birds. Chemosphere 73: S193-S200.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.03.077.
HERO ID: 1927746
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Analytical controls
were included;
however, results
were not provided.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
The sample stability
and storage
conditions were not
reported, and these
factors likely
influenced the test
substance or were
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(monitoring).
NR
NR
NR

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Monitoring of
various species
within a defined
area; details of
ambient
environment not
included.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
All samples except
the herring (prey)
were measured in
triplicate.
2
1
2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT
- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(monitoring).
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Monitoring of
various species
within a defined
area.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Unacceptable
Limitations in the
analytical methods
were reported.
Samples were
analyzed in a
previous report;
storage and stability
of the samples were
not reported or
confirmed;
additional
internal standard
added to 'old'
samples making the
analysis semi-
quantitative; 'good
quantification' was
only noted for
herring samples and
not achieved with
bird samples. The
limitations identified
in the analytical
process were likely
to have had a
substantial impact
on the results,
resulting in serious
flaws that made the
study unreliable.
4
1
4

12. Sampling
Methods
Unacceptable
Samples were
collected at various
times in multiple
monitoring efforts
previously reported;
storage and handling
of the samples were
not reported;
stability
of the sample
integrity was not
reported or
4
1
4

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE



confirmed.



Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
There is concern
that variability or
uncertainty was
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the results.
3
1
3
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
This study was
primarily a
monitoring study.
Some details were
omitted.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
Statistical analysis or
kinetic calculations
were not applicable
to this study type.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Authors discussed
results as semi-
quantitative and
made
generalizations
comparable to other
studies.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
27
17
35
II it'll Medium Low
^1 nnd 1.7 _j1.7 ;ind ¦ 2.3 _j2.3 :ind ^3
			
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.06
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4


Overall
Quality
Level:
Unaccept
able1
'Tliere were limitations in the analytical methods reported and sample concerns. Samples were collected at
various times in multiple monitoring efforts previously reported and storage and handling of the samples were
not reported. In addition, stability of the sample integrity was not reported or confirmed. Consistent with our
Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a
score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the
metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented
solely to increase transparency.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Sormo, EG; Salmer, MP; Jenssen, BM; Hop, H; Baek, K; Kovacs, KM; Lydersen, C; Falk-
Petersen, S; Gabrielsen, GW; Lie, E; Skaare, JU. (2006). Biomagnification of
polybrominated diphenyl ether and hexabromocyclododecane flame retardants in the
polar bear food chain in Svalbard, Norway. Environ Toxicol Chem 25: 2502-2511.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/05-591R.l.
HERO ID: 1927787
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
The analytical
standard source and
purity were not
reported.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Analytical controls
were included in the
study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability was
accounted for and
appropriate for the
study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were monitored,
reported, and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Test system was
described and
appropriate for the
experiment.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Trophic levels were
not confirmed by
analytical means;
however, this was
not likely to have
hindered the
interpretation of the
results.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling was
reported and
appropriate.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Biomagnifi cation
factor was reported.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
17
20
23
1 litili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.15
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 unci 1.7
-1.7 niul 2.3
-2.3 :iiul ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Li, B; Yao, T; Sun, H; Zhang, Y; Yang, J. (2016). Diastereomer- and enantiomer-specific
accumulation, depuration, bioisomerization, and metabolism of
hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs) in two ecologically different species of
earthworms. Sci Total Environ 542: 427-434.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.100.
HERO ID: 3350510
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Blank controls were
used with no HBCD
added.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were reported and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported.
1
2
2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling was
reported and
appropriate.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
High
No attrition or
health differences in
organisms were
reported.
1
1
1
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Depuration rate
constants were
reported.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
and calculations
were clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
15
20
20
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1
-1 niul ¦ 1.7
_1.7 ;nul 2.3
-2.3 niul n3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Zhu, C; Wang, P; Li, Y; Chen, Z; Li, H; Ssebugere, P; Zhang, Q; Jiang, G. (2017). Trophic
transfer of hexabromocyclododecane in the terrestrial and aquatic food webs from an e-
waste dismantling region in East China. Environ Sci Process Impacts 19:154-160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c6em00617e.
HERO ID: 3546047
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
The purity of the
analytical standards
was not reported.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Analytical controls
were included in the
study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability was
accounted for and
appropriate for the
study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
Extraction and
analytical methods
were appropriate.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were appropriate for
the method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(monitoring data).
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Monitoring of
various species
within a defined
area.
1
2
2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling was
reported and
appropriate.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
All results were
considered statically
insignificant due in
part to the limited
number of species.
3
1
3

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Terrestrial trophic
magnification factor
was reported.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Low
Practical comparison
with other studies of
this type is
impossible as the
results were
considered not
statically significant.
3
1
3

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
19
24
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.26
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_1 unci 1.7
^1.7 niul 2.3
^2.3 :uul ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
Composite of 3
commercial grade
HBCD lots; unlikely
to have had
impurities that
affected study
results.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Blank controls were
used with no HBCD
added.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
preparation and
storage were not
reported but
unlikely to have
influenced study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Some testing
parameters such as
temperature, TOC,
and lipid content
were not reported
but likely did not
impact the study
results substantially.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Test organism was
reported but some
characteristics were
not reported.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling was not
described in detail,
but this was unlikely
to have impacted the
study results
substantially.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
High
No differences in
organism attrition or
health outcomes
between study
groups were noted.
1
1
1
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Lipid content not
reported; however,
its omission was not
likely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical method
for calculating BCF
was reported.
Kinetic calculations
were not reported.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
20
28

-------
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
_j1 :nul ' 1.7
_j1.7 niul 2,'A
-2,'A niul i:3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2002). EPA HPV Track:
1,2,5,6,9,10- Hexabromocyclododecane. https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970217
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Details were
omitted; however,
the omissions were
unlikely to have
hindered
interpretation of
results.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and
Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
15
19
20

-------
High Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.05
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.1
-1 nnil '1.7 -1.7 niul
-2.:¦! niul --.i


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2011). Several current-use,
non-PBDE brominated flame retardants are highly bioaccumulative: evidence from field
determined bioaccumulation factors. Environ Int 37: 210-215.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.09.006.
HERO ID: 1443814
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
The source and
purity of the
analytical reference
materials were not
provided.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Analytical
controls/blanks
were not reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Samples were
prepared in a
previous study cited;
reference date was 2
years prior to the
publish date; storage
and stability of
samples were not
reported.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

-------

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Field study; limited
information on the
site.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Details on each
species were not
included; field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species of
different trophic
levels; trophic level
determination
referenced to
previous study.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Concentrations
employed in the BAF
calculations were
not provided;
however, the data
were referenced to
the primary source.
2
2
4

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical analysis of
the results was
indicated; however,
data relating to the
specific results were
not provided.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Comparable to other
studies with
reasonable
discrepancies noted.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
19
30
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.58
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.6
_1 ;iiul 1.7
-1.7 and 2,'A
and


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2011). Several current-use,
non-PBDE brominated flame retardants are highly bioaccumulative: evidence from field
determined bioaccumulation factors. Environ Int 37: 210-215.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.09.006.
HERO ID: 1443814
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
The source and
purity of the
analytical reference
materials were not
provided.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Analytical
controls/blanks
were not reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Samples were
prepared in a
previous study cited;
reference date was 2
years prior to the
publish date; storage
and stability of
samples were not
reported.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

-------

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Field study; limited
information on the
site.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Details on each
species were not
included; field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species of
different trophic
levels; trophic level
determination
referenced to
previous study.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study; log BAF
values were
reported.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
ControlData
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR
Presentation
and Analysis
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Concentrations
employed in the BAF
calculations were
not provided;
however, the data
were referenced to
the primary source.
2
2
4

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical analysis of
the results was
indicated; however,
data relating to the
specific results were
not provided.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Comparable to other
studies with
reasonable
discrepancies noted.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
19
30
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.58
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.6
_1 ;iiul 1.7
-1.7 and 2,'A
and


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2011). Several current-use,
non-PBDE brominated flame retardants are highly bioaccumulative: evidence from field
determined bioaccumulation factors. Environ Int 37: 210-215.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.09.006.
HERO ID: 1443814
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
The source and
purity of the
analytical reference
materials were not
provided.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Analytical
controls/blanks
were not reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Samples were
prepared in a
previous study cited;
reference date was 2
years prior to the
publish date; storage
and stability of
samples were not
reported.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

-------

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Field study; limited
information on the
site.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Details on each
species were not
included; field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species of
different trophic
levels; trophic level
determination
referenced to
previous study.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study; log BAF
values were
reported.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Concentrations
employed in the BAF
calculations were
not provided;
however, the data
were referenced to
the primary source.
2
2
4

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical analysis of
the results was
indicated; however,
data relating to the
specific results were
not provided.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Comparable to other
studies with
reasonable
discrepancies noted.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
19
30
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.58
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.6
_1 ;iiul 1.7
-1.7 and 2,'A
and


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Ismail, N; Gewurtz, SB; Pleskach, K; Whittle, DM; Helm, PA; Marvin, CH; Tomy, GT.
(2009). Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants in Lake Ontario, Canada, lake
trout (Salvelinus namaycush) between 1979 and 2004 and possible influences of food-
web changes. Environ Toxicol Chem 28: 910-920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/08-162.l-
HERO ID: 1443833
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Quality controls
were included;
HBCD was not
detected in the
blanks.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Storage conditions
were not verified
over long periods of
time; this may have
hindered the precise
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Field study; Great
Lakes Laboratory for
Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences
long-term
monitoring study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Test conditions were
consistent across
samples or study
groups.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty in the
study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some data were
referenced to
supporting
information tables
that were not readily
available.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
20
25
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.3
^1 :nul 1.7
_j1.7 and '2,'A
-2,'A :inil -13


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Ismail, N; Gewurtz, SB; Pleskach, K; Whittle, DM; Helm, PA; Marvin, CH; Tomy, GT.
(2009). Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants in Lake Ontario, Canada, lake
trout (Salvelinus namaycush) between 1979 and 2004 and possible influences of food-
web changes. Environ Toxicol Chem 28: 910-920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/08-162.l-
HERO ID: 1443833
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Quality controls
were included;
HBCD was not
detected in the
blanks.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Storage conditions
were not verified
over long periods of
time; this may have
hindered the precise
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Field study; Great
Lakes Laboratory for
Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences
long-term
monitoring study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Test conditions were
consistent across
samples or study
groups.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty in the
study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some data were
referenced to
supporting
information tables
that were not readily
available.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
20
25

-------
High
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 nnil ¦ 1.7
_j1.7 mul '2,'A
-2..S mill


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Ismail, N; Gewurtz, SB; Pleskach, K; Whittle, DM; Helm, PA; Marvin, CH; Tomy, GT.
(2009). Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants in Lake Ontario, Canada, lake
trout (Salvelinus namaycush) between 1979 and 2004 and possible influences of food-
web changes. Environ Toxicol Chem 28: 910-920. http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/08-162.l-
HERO ID: 1443833
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Quality controls
were included;
HBCD was not
detected in the
blanks.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Storage conditions
were not verified
over long periods of
time; this may have
hindered the precise
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Field study; Great
Lakes Laboratory for
Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences
long-term
monitoring study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Test conditions were
consistent across
samples or study
groups.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty in the
study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some data were
referenced to
supporting
information tables
that were not readily
available.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
20
25
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.3
^1 :nul 1.7
_j1.7 and '2,'A
-2,'A :inil -13


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Tomy, GT; Pleskach, K; Oswald, T; Halldorson, T; Helm, PA; Macinnis, G; Marvin, CH.
(2008). Enantioselective bioaccumulation of hexabromocyclododecane and congener-
specific accumulation of brominated diphenyl ethers in an eastern Canadian Arctic
marine food web. Environ Sci Technol 42: 3634-3639.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es703083z.
HERO ID: 1443836
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
There were some
conditions of the
local environment
that were not
reported/ assessed;
however, the lack of
data on the field
conditions was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
samples or study
groups.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Field study;
equilibrium was not
confirmed or
reported; the
deviation may have
limited strict
interpretation of the
study results.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Low
The samples of the
top feeders were
taken before the
bottom feeders; this
may have been a
flaw in examining
the true BMF/TMF.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty in the
study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Well done study
with clear data
reporting; however,
the sampling dates
may be a minor
concern.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
20
26
1 lijili
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.3
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 nnil ¦ 1.7
-1.7 mul '2.3
-2.3 mul ^3


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Law, K; Palace, VP; Halldorson, T; Danell, R; Wautier, K; Evans, B; Alaee, M; Marvin, C;
Tomy, GT. (2006). Dietary accumulation of hexabromocyclododecane diastereoisomers
in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). I: Bioaccumulation parameters and
evidence of bioisomerization. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:1757.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/05-445r.l-
HERO ID: 1443861
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
samples or study
groups.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Some details
regarding the
extraction and
analytical methods
were not reported;
however, the
methods were
referenced to the
primary source.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
21
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.05
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
-1 mill '1.7
_1.7;uul - 2.A
-2,'A niul il3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant Industry
Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm.
HERO ID: 1443881
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Routine species but
details were not
provided; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
An issue with steady
state was noted.
2
1
2

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
2
1
2

-------



guideline was cited.



Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
28
20
37
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.85
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.6
^1 :nul 1.7
^1.7 and '2,'A
¦-2..S and


Overall
Quality Level:
High1
'This study's overall quality rating was upgraded: This is a secondary source; however, it is a robust summary
and a routine OECD guideline was cited and primary reference may provide validation; Drottar K. and Krueger
H. 2000. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): Flow-through bioconcentration test with rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss]. Project No.: 439A-111. Wildlife International, Ltd. Easton, MD.

-------
Study
Reference:
He, MJ; Luo, XJ; Yu, LH; Wu, JP; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2013). Diasteroisomer and
enantiomer- specific profiles of hexabromocyclododecane and tetrabromobisphenol A
in an aquatic environment in a highly industrialized area, South China: vertical profile,
phase partition, and bioaccumulation. Environ Pollut 179:105-110.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.04.016.
HERO ID: 1927551
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Low
Source and purity
were not reported.
3
1
3
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Controls were not
reported.
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this was not likely to
have hindered the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
Test method was
appropriate, and
described in a
previously published
study by the same
authors.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Test conditions
(temperature,
organic matter)
were measured and
reported.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
samples; no
inconsistencies were
reported.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Details on each
species were not
included; field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species of
different trophic
levels. Referenced
previous study by
same authors.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Log BAF values were
reported as a range;
limited details were
provided on the
calculations.
However, the
absence of these
details was unlikely
to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Samples were
collected using
widely accepted
metho ds / appr oache
s; additional details
were referenced to
previous study by
same authors.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation. No
confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Log BAF values were
reported (as a range
and not specific to
the isomer aside
from mentioning the
alpha had the
greatest value).
Concentrations were
lipid normalized.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Study results were
reasonable and
compared to other
studies.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
20
29
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.45
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.5
^1 :nul 1.7
^1.7 ;ind '2,'A
:nul --A


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
La Guardia, MJ; Hale, RC; Harvey, E; Mainor, TM; Ciparis, S. (2012). In situ accumulation
of HBCD, PBDEs, and several alternative flame-retardants in the bivalve (Corbicula
fluminea) and gastropod (Elimia proxima). Environ Sci Technol 46: 5798-5805.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3004238.
HERO ID: 1927601
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Source and purity of
surrogate standards
added to each
sample prior to
extraction were
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
The method blank
did not contain any
HBCD above
detection limits.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability,
homogeneity,
preparation, and
storage conditions
were adequately
described in the
paper and
supporting
information.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
Test method was
reported and
considered suitable
for the test material.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Test conditions,
including
temperature and
organic matter, were
reported and
appropriate.
1
2
2

-------

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Organism sampling
locations were
described. Details on
species were not
included; field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species at
different trophic
levels.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Incomplete
reporting of
outcome assessment
methods, although
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on study
results. Recovery of
C- labeled HBCD
ranged from 61 to
108%.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling time and
frequency were
appropriate for the
study; analytical
methods were
considered
acceptable.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some details were
limited; tables could
have provided better
insight on actual
BAF and BASF
values; additional
yet limited
information was in
supporting file.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Details were limited;
additional yet
limited information
was in supporting
file.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Some details were
limited; additional
yet limited
information was in
supporting file.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
17
19
23
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.21
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.2
_1 nnd • 1.7
^1.7 ;ind 2,'A
;ind


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Haukas, M; Hylland, K; Nygard, T; Berge, JA; Mariussen, E. (2010). Diastereomer-specific
bioaccumulation of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in a coastal food web, Western
Norway. Sci Total Environ 408: 5910-5916.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.08.026.
HERO ID: 1927667
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Low
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
The source and
purity of the
reference substances
were not reported or
verified by analytical
means.
3
1
3
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
The study did not
require concurrent
control groups;
analytical controls
were not reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Data regarding this
metric were
omitted; however,
these omissions
were not likely to
have influenced the
study results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Not reported in
detail, but not likely
to have influenced
the study results.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
species.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Appropriate trophic
level analysis. Field
study investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species of
different trophic
levels.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Study used widely
accepted sampling
methods, which
were applicable for
the chemical and
media being
analyzed.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Potential
confounding
variables and
sources of
uncertainty were
reported and
discussed in the
study, and were not
likely to have had an
impact on the study
results and
interpretation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Limited information
on analytical
methods; extraction
efficiency, injection
temperatures and
percent recovery
were not
measured/reported.
3
2
6

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
were clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
20
29
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.45
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.5
^1 nnd • 1.7
^1.7 nnd '2,'A
nnd nS


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2010). Trophodynamics of
hexabromocyclododecanes and several other non-PBDE brominated flame retardants in
a freshwater food web. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5490-5495.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01300t.
HERO ID: 1927678
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
The study did not
require concurrent
control groups;
analytical blanks
were included.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Samples were
prepared in a
previous study cited;
reference date was 2
years prior to the
publish date; storage
and stability of
samples were not
reported.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Additional
information in
supporting
information.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Limited detail was
provided; however,
this did not hinder
the interpretation of
the results.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Limited data;
additional data with
supporting
document; injection
temperature of
analytical method
was not specified for
isomeric resolution.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
20
27
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.35
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
-1 mill '1.7
_1.7;uul - 2.A
-2,'A niul il3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High1
Mt is noted that information in Table 1 was used to calculate lipid normalized BAF's.

-------
Study
Reference:
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2010). Trophodynamics of
hexabromocyclododecanes and several other non-PBDE brominated flame retardants in
a freshwater food web. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5490-5495.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01300t.
HERO ID: 1927678
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
The study did not
require concurrent
control groups;
analytical blanks
were included.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Samples were
prepared in a
previous study cited;
reference date was 2
years prior to the
publish date; storage
and stability of
samples were not
reported.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Additional
information in
supporting
information.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Limited detail was
provided; however,
this did not hinder
the interpretation of
the results.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Limited data;
additional data with
supporting
document; injection
temperature of
analytical method
was not specified for
isomeric resolution.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
20
25
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.3
-1 mill '1.7
_1.7;uul - 2.A
-2,'A niul il3


Overall
Quality Level:
High1
Mt is noted that information in Table 1 was used to calculate lipid normalized BAF's.

-------
Study
Reference:
Wu, JP; Guan, YT; Zhang, Y; Luo, XJ; Zhi, H; Chen, SJ; Mai, BX. (2010). Trophodynamics of
hexabromocyclododecanes and several other non-PBDE brominated flame retardants in
a freshwater food web. Environ Sci Technol 44: 5490-5495.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/esl01300t.
HERO ID: 1927678
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
The study did not
require concurrent
control groups;
analytical blanks
were included.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Samples were
prepared in a
previous study cited;
reference date was 2
years prior to the
publish date; storage
and stability of
samples were not
reported.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Additional
information in
supporting
information.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Limited detail was
provided; however,
this did not hinder
the interpretation of
the results.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Limited data;
additional data with
supporting
document; injection
temperature of
analytical method
was not specified for
isomeric resolution.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
20
27
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.35
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.4
-1 mill '1.7
_1.7;uul - 2.A
-2,'A niul il3


Overall
Quality Level:
High1
Mt is noted that information in Table 1 was used to calculate lipid normalized BAF's.

-------
Study
Reference:
Kim, GB; Stapleton, HM. (2010). PBDEs, methoxylated PBDEs and HBCDs in Japanese
common squid (Todarodes pacificus) from Korean offshore waters. Mar Pollut Bull 60:
935-940. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.025.
HERO ID: 1927684
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Quality controls
were included;
HBCD was not
detected in
analytical blanks.
The source and
purity of analytical
standards were not
reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
samples;
environmental
samples were
treated equally.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Concentrations were
measured in biota
only and not in
waters where biota
were collected.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Low
Not a routine
species. The squid
was selected to
document
environmental
contamination off
Korean waters and
the tissue were
frozen and also used
in a different
publication.
3
2
6
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Unacceptable
BAF/BCF values
were not reported.
Study documents
HBCD
concentrations in
squid, rather than
calculating BAF/BCF
values in these
organisms.
4
1
4
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Limited detail was
provided; a different
publication was
cited that may
provide more
information.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
were examined
statistically; no
confounding factors
were reported.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Concentrations of
HCBD isomers were
reported and lipid-
normalized,
although samples
were not corrected
for % recovery.
1
2
2

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Appropriate
statistical tests were
used to determine
potential differences
in concentrations
between study areas,
and to examine
relationships
between HBCD
isomers.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Pattern of HBCD
composition seen in
squid was very
similar to that seen
in other studies.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
23
20
31
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.55
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
^1 :nul 1.7
-1.7 ;nul • 2.3
-2.3 :uul :i3


Overall
Quality
Level:
Unaccepta
ble1
'Monitoring study where BAF/BCF values were not reported. Consistent with our Application of Systematic
Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics was rated as
unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase
transparency.

-------
Study
Reference:
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Rose, NL; Turner, SD; Davidson, TA. (2009). Current-use
brominated flame retardants in water, sediment, and fish from English lakes. Environ
Sci Technol 43: 9077-9083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es902185u.
HERO ID: 1927694
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Source of analytical
standards was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Replicate analysis
was used for method
reproducibility and
accuracy and was
described in detail in
supplemental
information.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability and storage
conditions were not
reported; however,
these factors were
not likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
There were minor
omissions in testing
conditions; however,
the omissions were
2
2
4

-------



not likely to have
had a substantial
impact
on the study results.



7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
There were likely
minor
inconsistencies
in test conditions
across samples or
study groups as
various sampling
sites were used and
several organisms
sampled; however,
this was not likely to
have hindered the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Field study;
equilibrium was not
confirmed or
reported; the
deviation may have
limited strict
interpretation of the
study results.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Details on each
species not included;
field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Outcome assessment
methodology
reported the
intended
outcomes of interest.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling methods
were adequate for
the outcomes of
interest; additional
detail was provided
in supporting
information.
1
1
1

-------
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Potential
confounding
variables and
uncertainties were
discussed and
accounted for in the
study.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Details regarding
chemical
concentrations,
partitioning, percent
recovery, and
method accuracy
were described in
the paper and
supporting
information.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Low
Statistical analyses
were not reported.
3
1
3
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
20
29
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.45
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.5
-1 unci ' 1.7
_j1.7 ;iiul 2.3
_j2.3 :uul ^3


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Rose, NL; Turner, SD; Davidson, TA. (2009). Current-use
brominated flame retardants in water, sediment, and fish from English lakes. Environ
Sci Technol 43: 9077-9083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es902185u.
HERO ID: 1927694
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Source of analytical
standards was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Replicate analysis
was used for method
reproducibility and
accuracy and was
described in detail in
supplemental
information.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability and storage
conditions were not
reported; however,
these factors were
not likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
There were minor
omissions in testing
conditions; however,
the omissions were
2
2
4

-------



not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.



7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
There were likely
minor
inconsistencies
in test conditions
across samples or
study groups as
various sampling
sites were used and
several organisms
sampled; however,
this was not likely to
have hindered the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Field study;
equilibrium was not
confirmed or
reported; the
deviation may have
limited strict
interpretation of the
study results.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Details on each
species not included;
field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Outcome assessment
methodology
reported the
intended
outcomes of interest.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling methods
were adequate for
the outcomes of
interest; additional
detail was provided
in supporting
information.
1
1
1

-------
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Potential
confounding
variables and
uncertainties were
discussed and
accounted for in the
study.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Details regarding
chemical
concentrations,
partitioning, percent
recovery, and
method accuracy
were described in
the paper and
supporting
information.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Low
Statistical analyses
were not reported.
3
1
3
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
20
29
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.45
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.5
-1 unci ' 1.7
_j1.7 ;iiul 2.3
_j2.3 :uul ^3


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Rose, NL; Turner, SD; Davidson, TA. (2009). Current-use
brominated flame retardants in water, sediment, and fish from English lakes. Environ
Sci Technol 43: 9077-9083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es902185u.
HERO ID: 1927694
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Source of analytical
standards was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Replicate analysis
was used for method
reproducibility and
accuracy and was
described in detail in
supplemental
information.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability and storage
conditions were not
reported; however,
these factors were
not likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
There were minor
omissions in testing
conditions; however,
the omissions were
2
2
4

-------



not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.



7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
There were likely
minor
inconsistencies
in test conditions
across samples or
study groups as
various sampling
sites
were used and
several organisms
sampled; however,
this was not likely to
have hindered the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Field study;
equilibrium was not
confirmed or
reported; the
deviation may limit
strict interpretation
of the study results.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Details on each
species not included;
field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Outcome assessment
methodology
reported the
intended
outcomes of interest.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling methods
were adequate for
the outcomes of
interest; additional
detail was provided
in supporting
1
1
1

-------



information.



Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Potential
confounding
variables and
uncertainties were
discussed and
accounted for in the
study.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Details regarding
chemical
concentrations,
partitioning, percent
recovery, and
method accuracy
were described in
the paper and
supporting
information.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Low
Statistical analyses
were not reported.
3
1
3
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
20
29
II it'll Medium Low
-l:nul '1.7 _j1.7 ;iiul ¦ 2.3 _j2.3 :ind ^3
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.45
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.5


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Rose, NL; Turner, SD; Davidson, TA. (2009). Current-use
brominated flame retardants in water, sediment, and fish from English lakes. Environ
Sci Technol 43: 9077-9083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es902185u.
HERO ID: 1927694
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Source of analytical
standards was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Replicate analysis
was used for method
reproducibility and
accuracy and was
described in detail in
supplemental
information.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability and storage
conditions were not
reported; however,
these factors were
not likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
There were minor
omissions in testing
conditions; however,
the omissions were
2
2
4

-------



not likely to have
had
a substantial impact
on the study results.



7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
There were likely
minor
inconsistencies
in test conditions
across samples or
study groups as
various sampling
sites were used and
several organisms
sampled; however,
this is not likely to
have hindered the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Field study;
equilibrium was not
confirmed or
reported; the
deviation may have
limited strict
interpretation of the
study results.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Details on each
species not included;
field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Outcome assessment
methodology
reported the
intended
outcomes of interest.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling methods
were adequate for
the outcomes of
interest; additional
detail was provided
in supporting
information.
1
1
1

-------
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Potential
confounding
variables and
uncertainties were
discussed and
accounted for in the
study.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Details regarding
chemical
concentrations,
partitioning, percent
recovery, and
method accuracy
were described in
the paper and
supporting
information.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical analysis of
the results was
indicated; however,
data relating to the
specific results were
not provided.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
20
28
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 and ¦ 1.7
_j1.7 and '2,'A
and --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Jenssen, BM; Sormo, EG; Baek, K; Bytingsvik, J; Gaustad, H; Ruus, A; Skaare, JU. (2007).
Brominated flame retardants in North-East Atlantic marine ecosystems. Environ Health
Perspect 115 Suppl 1: 35-41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9355.
HERO ID: 1927762
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Source and purity of
analytical standards
not reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation. No
confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
21
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 :nul 1.7
_j1.7 and '2,'A
-2,'A :inil -13


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
van Beusekom, OC; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D; Koelmans, AA. (2006). Dynamic modeling of
food-chain accumulation of brominated flame retardants in fish from the Ebro River
Basin, Spain. Environ Toxicol Chem 25: 2553-2560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1897/05-
409R.1.
HERO ID: 1927786
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
Not reported;
modeling study was
based on measured
concentrations from
a separate study.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (using
environmental
samples').
NR
NR
NR

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Not reported;
modeling study
based on measured
concentrations from
a separate study; no
details were
provided on the
measured
concentrations used
for comparison;
however, the
reference was cited.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
15
17
19
1 lijili
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.12
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_j1 nnil ¦ 1.7
_j1.7 mul 2,'A
¦-2..S mill -A


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Tomy, GT; Budakowski, W; Halldorson, T; Whittle, DM; Keir, MJ; Marvin, C; Macinnis, G;
Alaee, M. (2004). Biomagnification of alpha- and gamma-hexabromocyclododecane
isomers in a Lake Ontario food web. Environ Sci Technol 38: 2298-2303.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034968h.
HERO ID: 1927822
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Source and purity of
analytical standards
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Analytical method
did not make note of
method
temperatures for
consideration of
thermal
isomerization.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Trophic levels were
confirmed in
previous study using
stable isotopes.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Limited details were
provided regarding
this metric.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty in the
study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation. No
confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
There were
omissions in
analytical method
detail; did not make
note of method
temperatures for
consideration of
thermal
isomerization.
2
2
4

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical analysis of
the data set was not
reported.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
20
26
11 igh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.3
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.3
-1 and 1.7
-1.7 and '2.3
_j2.3 and -JA


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Wildlife Intl LTD (Wildlife International Limited). (2000). Letter from Amer Chem Cncl
submitting flow-through bioconcentration test w/rainbow trout and end-user survey-
phase 1 study of brominated flame retardant, w/attchmts and dated 8/28/00 [TSCA
Submission]. (EPA/OTS Doc #FYI-OTS-1000-1392). Arlington, VA: American Chemistry
Council.
HERO ID: 1928244
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The source and
purity of the test
substance were
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability was
considered in this
study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Some details were
limited (% lipids
was not reported);
however, this did
not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------

1

Sum of scores:
16
20
21
1 li.nli
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.05
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_1 nntl 1.7
^1.7 niul '2,'A
;nul


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhang, Y; Sun, H; Zhu, H; Ruan, Y; Liu, F; Liu, X. (2014). Accumulation of
hexabromocyclododecane diastereomers and enantiomers in two microalgae, Spirulina
subsalsa and Scenedesmus obliquus. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 104:136-142.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j-ecoenv.2014.02.027.
HERO ID: 2343690
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source and purity of
chemicals were
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
Tested at 2 ng/mL
(lowest solubility is
gamma-HBCD (2.08
ng/mL).
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type study type.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
High
There were no
differences noted
between the study
groups due to
organism attrition.
1
1
1
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Transformation
products were
reported. Recoveries
were said to be
acceptable but were
not.
3
2
6

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
21
25
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.19
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
-1 mill '1.7
_1.7;uul - 2.A
-2,'A niul il3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhang, Y; Sun, H; Liu, F; Dai, Y; Qin, X; Ruan, Y; Zhao, L; Gan, Z. (2013).
Hexabromocyclododecanes in limnic and marine organisms and terrestrial plants from
Tianjin, China: diastereomer- and enantiomer-specific profiles, biomagnification, and
human exposure. Chemosphere 93:1561-1568.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.08.004.
HERO ID: 2343741
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Source and purity of
chemicals were
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
No omissions about
the testing
conditions were
likely to have
impacted the study
results.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test species were
clearly reported and
have been used in
other studies, which
were cited as
references for the
results.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Diastereomeric
profiles and trophic
magnification
factors can be
appropriately
reported using this
assessment
methodology.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
No sampling
limitations were
noted that would
have influenced the
study results.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty were
addressed using
triplicate analysis
and internal
standards. No
confounding
differences between
study groups were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
High
No differences in
attrition between
organisms were
reported.
1
1
1
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Results were
reasonable and were
compared to the
results of other
similar studies.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
21
21
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1
-1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 and - 2.A
-2,'A and :_3


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Bradshaw, C; Strid, A; von Stedingk, H; Gustafsson, K. (2015). Effects of benthos,
temperature, and dose on the fate of hexabromocyclododecane in experimental coastal
ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:1246-1257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.2947.
HERO ID: 3013490
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Some details were
omitted regarding
this metric,
including a field
blank, but may be
found in
supplemental data.
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Some details were
omitted regarding
this metric;
however, this was
not likely to have
influenced the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Low
Concentrations were
above the water
solubility of HBCD.
3
1
3

6. Testing
Conditions
Low
Some details were
omitted regarding
this metric but may
be found in
supplemental data.
3
2
6

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Variation due to the
use of data from 3
experiments; results
were graphed
together and not
clearly reported
separately.
2
1
2

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Some details were
omitted regarding
this metric; may be
found in
supplemental data.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Some details were
omitted regarding
this metric; may be
found in
supplemental data.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Some details were
omitted regarding
this metric; may be
found in
supplemental data.
3
1
3

12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Some details were
omitted regarding
this metric; may be
found in
supplemental data.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Not rated
Several details were
placed in the
supplemental
document, which
was not readily
available.
NR
NR
NR

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Inconsistent across
the three
experiments; data
were not provided
but may be found in
supplemental data.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Low
Should be linked
with its
supplemental data
for a more thorough
evaluation.
3
1
3

-------

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
30
17
39
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.29
Overall Score
(Rounded):
3
_1 nnd • 1.7
^1.7 and "2.3
_j2.3 and


Overall
Quality Level:
Low1
1 This study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Supplemental data required for
evaluation.
a more thorough


-------
Study
Reference:
Baron, E; Gimenez, J; Verborgh, R; Gauffier, P; De Stephanis, R; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D.
(2015). Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of classical flame retardants, related
halogenated natural compounds and alternative flame retardants in three delphinids
from Southern European waters. Environ Pollut 203:107-115.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.03.041.
HERO ID: 3327242
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Not rated
Test substance
purity not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Study controls not
reported.
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Not rated
Test substance
stability not
reported.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Test method details
provided in the
paper were limited.
Details are present
in supplementary
data (which can be
found at
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1
016/j.envpol.2015.0
3. 041), which is
access controlled
through a
subscription.
2
1
2







6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were well defined.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Testing consistency
well defined.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
System type and
design not well
defined in article, as
detailed information
was presented in
2
1
2

-------



supplementary
information, which
is available on a
subscription basis.



Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling methods
were well defined.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Data reporting was
not well defined.
Detailed information
was presented in
supplementary
information, which
was available on a
subscription basis.
3
2
6
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Low
Not well defined in
current source.
3
1
3
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Low
Detailed information
presented in
supplementary
article.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
14
28

-------
Ili.Ull
Mi-ilium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2
_j1 nnil ¦ 1.7
_j1.7 mul '2,'A
-2..S mul --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium

-------
Study
Reference:
Baron, E; Gimenez, J; Verborgh, R; Gauffier, P; De Stephanis, R; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D.
(2015). Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of classical flame retardants, related
halogenated natural compounds and alternative flame retardants in three delphinids
from Southern European waters. Environ Pollut 203:107-115.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.03.041.
HERO ID: 3327242
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Not rated
Test substance
purity not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Study controls not
reported.
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Not rated
Test substance
stability not
reported.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Test method details
provided in the
paper were limited.
Details are present
in supplementary
data (which can be
found at
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1
016/j.envpol.2015.0
3. 041), which is
access controlled
through a
subscription.
2
1
2







6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were well defined.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Testing consistency
well defined.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
System type and
design not well
defined in article, as
detailed information
was presented in
2
1
2

-------



supplementary
information, which
is available on a
subscription basis.



Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling methods
were well defined.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Data reporting was
not well defined.
Detailed information
was presented in
supplementary
information, which
was available on a
subscription basis.
3
2
6
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Low
Not well defined in
current source.
3
1
3
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Low
Detailed information
presented in
supplementary
article.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
20
14
28
II it'll Medium l.tnv
^1 niul 1.7 _j1.7 and - 2.3 -j2.3 ;iiul ^3
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium

-------
Study
Reference:
Baron, E; Gimenez, J; Verborgh, R; Gauffier, P; De Stephanis, R; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D.
(2015). Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of classical flame retardants, related
halogenated natural compounds and alternative flame retardants in three delphinids
from Southern European waters. Environ Pollut 203:107-115.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.03.041.
HERO ID: 3327242
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Not rated
Test substance
purity not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Study controls not
reported.
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Not rated
Test substance
stability not
reported.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Test method details
provided in the
paper were limited.
Details are present
in supplementary
data (which can be
found at
http://dx.doi.org/10
.1
016/j.envpol.2015.0
3. 041), which is
access controlled
through a
subscription.
2
1
2







6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were well defined.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Testing consistency
well defined.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
System type and
design not well
defined in article, as
detailed information
was presented in
2
1
2

-------



supplementary
information, which
is available on a
subscription basis.



Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling methods
were well defined.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Data reporting was
not well defined.
Detailed information
was presented in
supplementary
information, which
was available on a
subscription basis.
3
2
6
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Low
Not well defined in
current source.
3
1
3
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Low
Detailed information
presented in
supplementary
article.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
14
28

-------
Ili.Ull
Mi'ilium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2
_j1 nnil 1.7
_j1.7 mul '2,'A
-2..S mul --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium

-------
Study
Reference:
Tang, B; Zeng, YH; Luo, XJ; Zheng, XB; Mai, BX. (2015). Bioaccumulative characteristics of
tetrabromobisphenol A and hexabromocyclododecanes in multi-tissues of prey and
predator fish from an e-waste site, South China. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:12011-
12017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll356-015-4463-l.
HERO ID: 3350534
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified
definitively
by chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was able to be
identified by the
analytical method.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Spiked blanks and
spiked matrices
were tested to
determine
recoveries.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Conditions in the
water from which
the fish were taken
were not clearly
reported but were
unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Samples were taken
from the same pond
and underwent the
same sample
preparation.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
Not applicable.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Information about
the species tested
was given and the
two selected species
were appropriate for
the study.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Outcome assessment
methodology
addressed the
intended outcomes
of interest in the
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Not rated
Samples were only
analyzed once so the
adequacy of
sampling timing and
frequency was not
applicable.
NR
NR
NR
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Percent lipid was not
reported, although
concentrations were
reported as lipid-
normalized.
2
1
2

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Percent recovery and
lipid normalized
BCFs were reported.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
were outlined and
appropriate to the
study evaluation. No
kinetic calculations
were made.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Several other studies
were cited at various
points that validated
the study results as
being reasonable.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
15
18
21
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.17
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
-1 mill '1.7
_1.7;uul - 2.A
-2,'A niul il3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhu, C; Wang, P; Li, Y; Chen, Z; Li, H; Ssebugere, P; Zhang, Q; Jiang, G. (2017). Trophic
transfer of hexabromocyclododecane in the terrestrial and aquatic food webs from an e-
waste dismantling region in East China. Environ Sci Process Impacts 19:154-160.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c6em00617e.
HERO ID: 3546047
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
The purity of the
analytical standards
was not reported,
but this was unlikely
to have affected the
outcome.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Oxygen level, pH,
hardness, etc. of the
water at the
sampling site were
not reported, but
this was unlikely to
have affected the
results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
All fish samples
were treated equally
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study. Test
organism
information was
reported.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
All results were
considered statically
insignificant due in
part to the limited
number of species.
3
1
3

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Low
Practical comparison
with other studies of
this type was
impossible as the
results were
considered not
statically significant.
3
1
3

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
20
28
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 :nul 1.7
^1.7 ;ind 2.3
^2.3 ;nul ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhu, H; Zhang, K; Sun, H; Wang, F; Yao, Y. (2017). Spatial and temporal distributions of
hexabromocyclododecanes in the vicinity of an expanded polystyrene material
manufacturing plant in Tianjin, China. Environ Pollut 222: 338-347.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.029.
HERO ID: 3546055
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
The purity of the
analytical standards
was not reported,
but this was unlikely
to have affected the
outcome.
2
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Oxygen level, pH,
hardness, etc. of the
water at the
sampling site were
not reported, but
this was unlikely to
have affected the
results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
All fish samples
were treated
equally.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study. Test
organism
information was
reported.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
A limited number of
species was
evaluated.
2
1
2
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Similar studies gave
similar TMFs values.
2
1
2

-------

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
20
25
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
^1 :nul 1.7
_j1.7 and '2,'A
-2,'A :inil -13


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Guerra, P; De La Cal, A; Marsh, G; Eljarrat, E; Barcelo, D. (2009). Transfer of
hexabromocyclododecane from industrial effluents to sediments and biota: Case study
in Cinca River (Spain). J Hydrol 369: 360-367.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.024.
HERO ID: 3575325
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified
definitively
by chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Analytical
procedures used to
measure the
isomeric and
enantiomeric
composition of
HBCD were
discussed in
depth. No impurities
were reported in
that section and
therefore were
unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
For the depuration
experiment, 2 weeks
of acclimation were
allowed for the
zebrafish in the test
water before being
exposed to HBCD. 40
zebrafish were then
measured at time 0
to
establish
background
concentrations of
HBCD. For the in situ
bioaccumulation
experiment, barbels
were exposed at an
upstream site as a
control, compared to
fish exposed at a
downstream
contaminated site.
1
2
2







-------

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test solution
preparation was not
clearly reported but
was unlikely to have
affected the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Not reported but not
likely to have
influenced the study
results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
sample groups.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Relative standard
deviations in the
total HBCD
concentrations
reported were low,
suggesting
equilibrium was
established amongst
the study group.
However, the study
design was not
reported very
clearly.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type
of study.
1
1
1

-------

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Methods used to
collect effluent,
sediment and fish
samples were
described in general;
and were
appropriate for the
study goals.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Collecting a range of
environmental
samples over several
years could have
introduced the
potential for
uncertainty and
variability; however,
this was addressed
by
using rigorous
analytical
techniques
and statistical
analysis. No
confounding
variables
were noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
The analytical
method was suitable
for detection of the
parent compound.
Percent recovery
was
not reported but was
not likely to have
influenced the study
results.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The percent
decrease of HBCD
after 9 and 16 days
of depuration was
reported.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
No reference
substance was noted
but study results
were reasonable.
Concentrations of
HBCD in sediment
2
1
2

-------



were consistent with
data reported for
other river
sediments. HBCD
concentrations in
downstream
samples were
consistently higher
than those of
upstream samples.




18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
20
25
1 li.nli
M i'il in in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
-1 nnil 1.7
_j1.7 mul '2,'A
^2.:¦! mul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
Exact purity was not
specified but
reported to be a
composite of
commercial grade
HBCD, so any
impurities were not
likely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Although not
specifically reported,
the study was
performed following
EPA, OECD and GLP
guidelines.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported
but were unlikely to
have impacted the
study results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
The test substance
was tested at the
aqueous solubility of
gamma-HBCD, the
major component of
the isomeric
mixture.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Several details
regarding the testing
conditions were not
2
2
4

-------



reported in the
summary but
assuming the test
followed EPA OPPTS
guideline, these
omissions should
not disqualify the
study results.



7. Testing
Consistency
High
Although not
specifically reported,
the study was
performed following
EPA, OECD and GLP
guidelines.
1
1
1
8. System
Type and
Design
High
Although not
specifically reported,
the study was
performed following
EPA, OECD and GLP
guidelines.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Variability in the
measured water
concentration for
the 0.34ug/L
nominal
concentration test
was expected due to
an observed spike in
1
1
1

-------



uptake on the last
day of exposure but
was accounted for
when reporting
results. No other
differences between
the study groups
were noted.



14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Lipid content was
not reported but was
not likely to have
substantially
impacted the study
results.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical methods
and kinetic
calculations were
not clearly reported
but not likely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
20
28
II it'll Medium Low
-j 1 mill 1.7 -1.7 niul '2.'.^ -2.:-! mill
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Bioaccumulation: aquatic/sediment:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/4/2#

HERO ID: 3970741
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
Common name was
used, and isomer
components were
listed.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
No impurities were
noted in the test
material analysis.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Solvent control was
used. Acetone
(vehicle) with no
HBCD was added to
treatment group at
same concentration
as in other test
groups.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
Preparation of test
substance was
reported.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
described and is
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
(dissolved oxygen,
pH, temperature,
alkalinity,
conductance) were
monitored and
reported.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Sampling time and
frequency and
testing conditions
were the same
across testing
groups.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Achievement of a
steady state was
determined by the
measurement of
three consecutive,
non-significantly
different, uptake
concentrations.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Analysis method for
measuring HBCD
concentrations in
the
fish tissue was not
reported; however,
as
long as an
appropriate method
was used to do it
measuring HBCD
concentrations in
the
fish tissue was an
appropriate
outcome
to use for
determining BCFs.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type
of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty in the
study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation. No
confounding
variables
were noted.
1
1
1

-------

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Analytical method
was not reported;
however, this was
not likely to have
substantially
impacted the results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
and calculations
were clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
No reference
substance was
reported but the
study results were
reasonable.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
20
24
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 :nul 1.7
-1.7 ;ind • 2,'A
¦-2..S and --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Bioaccumulation: aquatic/sediment:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/4/2#

HERO ID: 3970741
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
Common name was
used, and isomer
components were
listed.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
No impurities were
noted in the test
material analysis.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Solvent control was
used. Acetone
(vehicle) with no
HBCD was added to
a treatment group at
same concentrations
as in other test
groups.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
Preparation of test
substance was
reported.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
reported and is
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
(dissolved oxygen,
pH, temperature,
alkalinity,
conductance) were
monitored and
reported.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Sampling time and
frequency and
testing conditions
were the same
across testing
groups.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Test apparatus was
capable of
appropriately
maintaining
exposure
concentrations; both
nominal and
measured
concentrations of
HBCD were
reported.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Method of analysis
for measuring HBCD
concentrations in
the
fish tissue was not
reported. However,
as long as an
appropriate method
was used to do it,
measuring HBCD
concentrations in
the
fish tissue was an
appropriate
outcome
to use for
determining BCFs.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation. No
confounding
variables
were noted.
1
1
1

-------

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Analytical method
was not reported;
however, this was
not likely to have
substantially
impacted the results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
and calculations
were clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
No reference
substance was
reported but study
results were
reasonable.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
17
20
23
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.15
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 :nul 1.7
-1.7 ;ind • 2,'A
¦-2..S and --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Bioaccumulation: aquatic/sediment:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/4/2#

HERO ID: 3970741
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
est Substance
Identity
High
imon name was used,
and isomer
components were
:d.
1
2
2

est Substance
Purity
High
mpurities were
noted in the test
material analysis.
1
1
1
Test Design
:udy Controls
High
'ent control used.
Acetone (vehicle)
with no HBCD added
to treatment group
at same
concentration as in
other test groups.
1
2
2

est Substance
Stability
High
aaration of test
substance was
reported.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
est Method
Suitability
High
t method was
reported and was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

esting
Conditions
High
ting conditions
(dissolved oxygen,
pH, temperature,
alkalinity,
conductance) were
monitored and
reported.
1
2
2

esting
Consistency
High
lpling time and
frequency and
testing conditions
were the same
across testing
groups.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Steady state was
determined by the
measurement of
three consecutive,
non-significantly
different, uptake
concentrations.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Method of analysis
for measuring HBCD
concentrations in
the
fish tissue was not
reported. However,
as long as an
appropriate method
was used to do it,
measuring HBCD
concentrations in
the
fish tissue was an
appropriate
outcome
to measure for
determining uptake
and depuration
rates.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
The sampling time
and frequency
appeared to be
appropriate for this
study and were
consistent with the
guideline cited.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation. No
confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

-------

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Analytical method
was not reported;
however, this was
not likely to have
substantially
impacted the results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
and calculations
were clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
No reference
substance was
reported but the
study results were
reasonable.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
20
24
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 :nul 1.7
-1.7 ;ind • 2,'A
-2..S and


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Law, K; Halldorson, T; Danell, R; Stern, G; Gewurtz, S; Alaee, M; Marvin, C; Whittle, M;
Tomy, G. (2007). Erratum: Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of some brominated
flame retardants in a Lake Winnipeg (Canada) food web. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:190.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620260125
HERO ID: 4140418
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Source and purity of
analytical standards
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Analytical method
did not make note of
method
temperatures for
consideration of
thermal
isomerization.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Trophic levels
confirmed in
previous study using
stable isotopes.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Limited details were
provided regarding
this metric.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty in the
study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation. No
confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
There were
omissions in
analytical method
detail; did not make
note of method
temperatures for
consideration of
thermal
isomerization.
2
2
4

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical analysis of
the data set was not
reported.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
18
24
11 igh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.33
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
-1 and ' 1.7
-1.7 and '2.3
_j2.3 and -JA


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Chemicals Inspection and Testing Institute Japan. (1995). Final report: Bioconcentration
study of hexabromocyclododecane in carp conducted with 1,2,5,6,9,10-
hexabromocyclododecane (test substance no. K-1035). Chemical Biotesting Center,
Kurume Laboratory.
HERO ID: 4140430
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Guideline method
reported; however,
some testing
conditions (pH, TOC,
and hardness) were
not reported.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Several figures
referenced were not
in the report.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------

1

Sum of scores:
17
20
24
1 li.nli
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
-1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 niul 2,'A
-2..1 niul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Research. (2002). Polybrominated diphenylethers in
the aquatic environment. (OTS: NA; 8EHQ Num: 8EHQ-0702-15166C; DCN:
89030000022; TSCATS ReflD: NA; CIS: 8EHQ-02-15166).
HERO ID: 4269990
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified
definitively
by chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Chemical was
analyzed by MS from
environmental
samples.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
Not applicable; the
study did not
require concurrent
control groups.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (using
environmental
samples).
NR
NR
NR
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Testing conditions
were not fully
reported; however,
sufficient details
were provided to
interpret study.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (using
environmental
samples).
NR
NR
NR

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (using
environmental
samples).
NR
NR
NR

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study, reporting a
biomagnification
factor.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
No notable
uncertainties or
limitations were
expected to
influence results.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the measurements
and statistical
techniques were not
considered or
accounted for in data
evaluation.
3
1
3

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
Environmental
samples were
collected. The metric
is not applicable to
this study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
The target chemical
concentrations,
extraction efficiency,
percent recovery,
and mass balance
were not reported.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Concentrations were
provided to perform
calculations,
calculations not
described.
2
1
2

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
The study results
were consistent with
physical properties.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
15
22
11 igh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.47
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.5
-1 and ¦ 1.7
-j 1.7 and ¦ 2,'A
and :_3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High1
irThis study is related to another study, HERO ID 4269983, Great Lakes Chemical, C. (2002). HBCD and TBBP-A
in sewage sludge, sediments and biota, including interlaboratory study. Final report of an environmental
monitoring study in sewage sludge / HBCD and TBBP-A in sewage sludge, sediments and biota, including
interlaboratory study.

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhang, Y; Lu, Y; Wang, P; Shi, Y. (2018). Biomagnification of hexabromocyclododecane
(HBCD) in a coastal ecosystem near a large producer in China: Human exposure
implication through food web transfer. Sci Total Environ 624:1213-1220.
HERO ID: 5099158
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
dl8- y-HBCD used as
recovery
determination
standard.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
C13-y-HBCD was
used as a surrogate
standard.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability and storage
conditions were not
reported; however,
these factors were
not likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
There were minor
omissions in testing
conditions; however,
the omissions were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
2
4

-------

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Field study;
equilibrium was not
confirmed or
reported; the
deviation may have
limited strict
interpretation of the
study results.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Outcome assessment
methodology
reported the
intended outcomes
of interest.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Sampling methods
were adequate for
the outcomes of
interest; additional
detail was provided
in supporting
information.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Potential
confounding
variables and
uncertainties were
discussed and
accounted for in the
study.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Details regarding
chemical
concentrations,
partitioning, percent
recovery, and
method accuracy
were described in
the paper and
supporting
information.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical analysis of
the results was
indicated; however,
data relating to the
specific results were
not provided.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
20
28
I
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.35
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mill 2,'A
^2mul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Veith, GD; DeFoe, DL; Bergstedt, BV. (1979). Measuring and estimating the
bioconcentration factor of chemicals in fish. J Fish Res Board Can 36:1040-1048.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f79-146.
HERO ID: 58136
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Low
The purity of the test
substance was
neither indicated
nor confirmed by
analytical methods.
3
1
3
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Controls were used
but were not
discussed.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability was
accounted for and
appropriate for the
study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Some system details
were omitted, and
quality control
measures were not
included; however,
2
1
2

-------



these omissions
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.



Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was
routinely used for
similar study types.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty in the
study were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Lipid normalized
BCF was not
reported; initial
exposure
concentration was
not included;
concentration data
over the course of
the experiment were
not included; precise
interpretation of the
results may be
limited.
2
2
4

-------

16. Statistical Methods
and Kinetic
Calculations
High
Model assumed that uptake and
depuration processes followed
first-order kinetics.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of Results
High
This metric met the criteria for
high confidence as expected for
this type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR Models
Not
rated
The metric is not applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
20
27
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.35
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.4
_1 :nul
¦ 1.7
-1.7 ;ind • 2,'A
-2.A
niul -1'A


Overall Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Sormo, EG; Jenssen, BM; Lie, E; Skaare, JU. (2009). Brominated flame retardants in
aquatic organisms from the North Sea in comparison with biota from the high Arctic
marine environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 28: 2082-2090.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/08-452.l.
HERO ID: 947918
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
Not applicable;
monitoring study.
Solvent blanks were
used to control for
background
contamination in the
laboratory analyses.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
homogeneity and
preparation were
acceptable for the
study. Details on
stability and storage
were not reported
but were not likely
to have impacted the
study results.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Limited details were
provided on testing
conditions; however,
analytical
procedures were
described in detail.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
Monitoring study.
Test samples were
analyzed
consistently across
organisms.
NR
NR
NR

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Appropriate
evaluation/use of
monitoring data.
Analytical design
was appropriate for
the test substance;
selection of
organisms sampled,
sample locations and
methods were
adequate.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Details on each
species were not
included; field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species of
different trophic
levels.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
The assessment
methodology did not
address or report
biomagnifi cation
factors.
3
1
3
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type
of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Body burdens of
HBCD were found to
be significantly
affected by
increasing
lipid content. Author
discussed the
greater
biomagnifi cation
potential of HBCD,
compared to other
test substances
studied, as being a
result of larger
digestive absorption
1
1
1

-------



or greater resistance
against
biotransformation
and biodegradation.




14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Appropriate data
were reported for
the study, including
lipid content of
samples along with
HBCD body burden,
detection limits, and
% recovery.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
Statistical analyses
were conducted
using standard
software;
discussions of
statistical
significance included
p values.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
As this study did not
evaluate specific
HBCD isomers yet
indicated a great
potential for
biomagnifi cation,
the
authors noted the
need for
bioaccumulation
potentials of the
different HBCD
diastereomers at
various trophic
levels.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
16
20
11 igh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.31
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3

-------
_j1 niul 1..- ;iiul '2.'.^ -2..S ;iiul -JA


Overall
Quality
Level:
High1
•This study is a non-guideline qualitative assessment of biomagnification in the natural environment. The
study does not fit precisely into the data evaluation metrics; however, it is an acceptable, informative study.

-------
Study
Reference:
Eljarrat, E; de la Cal, A; Raldua, D; Duran, C; Barcelo, D. (2004). Occurrence and
bioavailability of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and hexabromocyclododecane in
sediment and fish from the Cinca River, a tributary of the Ebro River (Spain). Environ Sci
Technol 38: 2603-2608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es0301424.
HERO ID: 999290
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Purity of internal
standards was not
specified.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Not reported, but
was not likely to
have affected the
outcome.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
Appropriate for field
analysis; extraction
and analytical
methods were
appropriate.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Aquatic parameters,
such as pH,
hardness, etc. of the
river water were not
specified, but this
was unlikely to have
affected the
outcome.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (field
study).
NR
NR
NR

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Test organism
information was
reported. The test
organism was not
routinely used for
similar study types.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Result was not a
quantifiable value;
depuration study
was not performed.
3
1
3
12. Sampling
Methods
High
All fish samples
were treated equally
and were
categorized for
length, weight, age,
and gender.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
Correlation
coefficients for
length vs
concentration were
low.
3
1
3
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Percent lipid of fish
was not reported;
degradation
products were
observed but not
quantified or
identified.
3
2
6
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Unacceptable
Result was
qualitative:
"bioaccumulation
was indicated."
4
1
4
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Although the result
was qualitative, it is
accurate.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
II it'll Mi-ilium Low
-1 mill 1.7 _j1.7 nnil 2.:-! mul iiS
Sum of scores:
27
19
37
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.95
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4


Overall
Quality
Level:
Unaccepta
ble1
'Results reported without quantification and other study limitations (i.e., depuration not performed) hindering
data evaluation. Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a
metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be
unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics was rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.

-------
Study
Reference:
Law, K; Halldorson, T; Danell, R; Stern, G; Gewurtz, S; Alaee, M; Marvin, C; Whittle, M;
Tomy, G. (2006). Bioaccumulation and trophic transfer of some brominated flame
retardants in a Lake Winnipeg (Canada) food web. Environ Toxicol Chem 25: 2177-2186.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1897/05-500R.l.
HERO ID: 999306
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Analytical quality
assurance and
quality controls
were reported.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Medium
Details on each
species were not
included; field study
investigated
concentrations in
aquatic species of
different trophic
levels.
2
2
4
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------

1

Sum of scores:
14
18
20
1 li.nli
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.11
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
-1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 niul 2,'A
-2..1 niul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in soil:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu /registration-dossier /- /registered-dossier /15003 /5 /3 /4#

HERO ID: 3970740
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
common
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
isomeric
composition was
reported from
FTIR spectroscopy.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Sterile soil and
sludge control
groups and
blank (no HBCD
added) control
groups
were reported.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
Concentration and
preparation of stock
test solution was
reported.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance. OECD
Guideline 307 for
aerobic and
anaerobic
transformation was
followed.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were reported and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
System design was
reported and
appropriate.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Inoculum source
was reported.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study. The
concentration of
HBCD was measured
with HPLC-MS.
Degradation
products
were not detected in
the soil or volatile
phases at the end of
the study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling was
frequent and long
enough to observe
the desired
outcomes.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Standard deviation
was reported for the
extraction efficiency.
No variables
between
the test groups were
likely to have
impacted the study
results.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Target chemical
concentration was
reported as long as
the absence of
transformation
products. Extraction
efficiency was also
reported.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Kinetic calculations
were not very
clearly reported;
however,
this was unlikely to
have impacted the
study results.
2
1
2

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
No reference
substances were
used but the results
were reasonable.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
17
20
22
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_1 nnd • 1.7
_j1.7 and ¦2,'A
-j2.:¦> aiul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Le, TT; Son, MH; Nam, IH; Yoon, H; Kang, YG; Chang, YS. (2017). Transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in contaminated soil in association with microbial
diversity. J Hazard Mater 325: 82-89.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.ll.058
HERO ID: 3575047
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
common name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity was reported
as the highest grade
commercially
available.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Control experiments
were performed
using NaN3 treated
soils.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stock solution
preparation was
reported.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were reported and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
System design was
reported and
appropriate. Closed
system and low
vapor pressure
minimized chance of
volatilization loss.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Soil sources were
reported. Population
of microorganisms
was also studied
using PCR.
1
2
2

-------

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study. Residual
HBCD concentration
was measured in
three combined
50/50 DCM/Hex
extracts.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Amount of soil taken
for each sampling
was not reported but
was unlikely to have
influenced the
results. Samples
were continuously
shaken so the
concentration of
HBCD was likely
homogenous
throughout.
Triplicate assays
were also done.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Transformation
products were not
identified; however,
their omission was
unlikely to have
influenced the study
results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical method
was defined for
calculating residual
concentrations.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Study results were
reasonable although
no ranges were
defined using
reference
substances.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
22
I
Mi'ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mul 2,'A
-2..S mul --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Le, TT; Son, MH; Nam, IH; Yoon, H; Kang, YG; Chang, YS. (2017). Transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in contaminated soil in association with microbial
diversity. J Hazard Mater 325: 82-89.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.ll.058
HERO ID: 3575047
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
common name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity was reported
as the highest grade
commercially
available.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Control experiments
were performed
using NaN3 treated
soils.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stock solution
preparation was
reported.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were reported and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No variables were
noted between tests
besides study length.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
System design was
reported and
appropriate. Closed
system and low
vapor pressure
minimized chance of
volatilization loss.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Soil sources were
reported. Population
of microorganisms
was measured.
1
2
2

-------

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study. Residual
HBCD concentration
was measured in
three combined
50/50 DCM/Hex
extracts.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Amount of soil taken
for each sampling
was not reported but
was unlikely to have
influenced the
results. Samples
were continuously
shaken so the
concentration of
HBCD was likely
homogenous
throughout.
Triplicate assays
were also done so
sampling error is
accounted for.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Transformation
products were not
identified; however,
their omission was
unlikely to have
influenced the study
results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical method
was defined for
calculating residual
concentrations.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Study results were
reasonable although
no ranges were
defined using
reference
substances.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
22
I
Mi'ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mul 2,'A
-2..S mul --A


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments.
Water Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported and
confirmed by FTIR
spectroscopy.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Control groups were
reported; however,
long-term results
were outside the
range for strict
validation of
microbial
degradation.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability was
included.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were reported;
OECD guideline
referenced and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Guideline method
was referenced for
system design.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Soil and activated
sludge sources were
reported.
1
2
2

-------

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
The sampling was
reported and
suitable for the
study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Biotransformation
half-lives were
reported.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Kinetic calculations
were clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
22
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
-1 unci ' 1.7
-j 1.7 and 2,'A
-j2.:¦! and


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in soil:
hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/3/4#
HERO ID: 3970740
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
common name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
isomeric
composition was
reported from FTIR
spectroscopy.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Sterile soil and
sludge controls and
blank (no HBCD
added) controls
were included in this
study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
Concentration and
preparation of stock
test solution were
reported.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance. OECD
Guideline 307 for
aerobic and
anaerobic
transformation was
followed.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were reported and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No variables were
noted between tests
besides sampling
days.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
System design was
reported and
appropriate.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Inoculum source
was reported.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study. The
concentration of
HBCD was measured
with HPLC-MS.
Degradation
products were not
detected in the soil
or volatile phases at
the end of the study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Sampling was
frequent and long
enough to observe
the desired
outcomes.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Standard deviation
was reported for the
extraction efficiency.
No variables
between the test
groups were likely to
have impacted the
study results.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Target chemical
concentration was
reported as well as
the absence of
transformation
products. Extraction
efficiency was also
reported.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Kinetic calculations
were not very
clearly reported;
however, this was
unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
No reference
substances were
used but the results
were reasonable.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
17
20
22
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_1 nnd • 1.7
_j1.7 and ¦2,'A
-j2.:¦> aiul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant
Industry Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm.
HERO ID: 1443881
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
A blank control
group was included.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
The test substance
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported
but their omission
was unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Guideline method
was referenced.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
1
2
2
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2
12. Sampling
Methods
High
The sampling was
reported and
suitable for the
study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Kinetic calculations
were clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
20
29

-------
II it'll Mi-ilium Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.45
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.5
_j1 mill 1.7 _j1.7 mill '2.3 _j2.3 mul :i3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High1
iPrimary reference (BFRIP, Dow, 2003 (Davis J, Gonsior S and Marty G. 2003. Evaluation of Aerobic and
Anaerobic Transformation of Hexabromocyclododecane In Soil. Study Number 021082. Environmental
Chemistry Research Laboratory. Toxicology & Environmental Research and Consulting. The Dow Chemical
Company. Midland, MI)).

-------
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and isomeric
composition was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Abiotic control
groups were
included in this
study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported
but their omission
was unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Some testing
conditions (pH)
were not provided;
however, the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No variables were
noted between tests
besides sampling
times.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
Not reported. This
was a secondary
source; the primary
source may contain
more detail.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Inoculum source
was reported.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study. The
concentration of
HBCD was measured
in the soil and the
headspace was
monitored for
brominated
transformation
products.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Some details
regarding sample
preparation for LC-
MS were not
reported but were
not likely to have
impacted the study
results since OECD
Test Guideline 307
was followed.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Extraction efficiency
and percent
recovery were not
reported; however,
the reported HBCD
decrease in controls
of 3% and 1%
suggest adequate
recoveries were
obtained during
analysis.
2
2
4

-------

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Kinetic calculations
were not clearly
described but this
was not likely to
have impacted the
results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
No reference
substances were
used; however, the
results were
reasonable.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
19
27
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.42
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.4
-1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 and - 2.A
-j2.:¦! and lJ!-?


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
purity was reported
as commercial grade
HBCD. Impurities, if
any, were not likely
to have impacted the
study results.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Abiotic control
groups were
included in this
study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported
but their omission
was unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Some testing
conditions (soil
composition) were
not provided;
however, the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
Not reported. This
was a secondary
source; the primary
source may contain
more detail.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Inoculum source
was reported and is
commonly used.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Limited detail
reported in the
secondary source;
primary may contain
more detail.
Sampling details
reported were
appropriate.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
variables were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Transformation
products and
percent recovery
were not reported;
however, this was
not likely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical methods
and kinetic
calculations were
not clearly reported;
however, their
omission was not
likely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
19
26
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.37
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
-1 mill '1.7
_1.7;uul - 2.A
-2,'A niul il3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
purity was reported
as commercial grade
HBCD. Impurities, if
any, were not likely
to have impacted the
study results.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Controls were not
reported. However,
the use of
radiolabeled HBCD
reduces the chance
of transformation
products existing in
the background.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported
but their omission
was unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test substance
was added in
nominal
concentrations
above its solubility
so that
transformation
products could be
identified.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Low
Limited details were
reported in this
secondary source;
3
2
6

-------



however, the
primary source may
contain more detail.
Since this is an
IUCLID review,
which gave the study
a score of '(1): valid
without restriction,'
disqualifying the
study did not seem
appropriate.



7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Testing conditions
across groups were
not reported as
stated in metric 6,
but a score of 4 was
not given since the
IUCLID report likely
left out these details.
2
1
2
8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
Not reported. This
was a secondary
source; the primary
source may contain
more detail.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Low
Details regarding the
inoculum source
were not reported
but were likely left
out by the summary
and the study should
not be disqualified
due to this.
3
2
6
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Sampling methods
were not described
but were unlikely to
have impacted the
results.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Differences between
study groups or
uncertainty in the
measurements that
would impact the
study results were
not noted.
2
1
2

-------

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
The only result
reported was the
lack of degradation
of HBCD.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
No statistical
methods or kinetic
calculations were
reported.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Limited details were
reported in the
secondary source;
the primary source
may contain more
detail.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
26
18
37
I
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.06
Overall Score
(Rounded):
2.3
_j1 :nul 1.7
^1.7 and 2.3
	
_j2.3 and ^3


Overall
Quality Level:
Low1
1 This study's overall quality rating was downgraded: By itself this report provides very little information
about the study. The high rating given to it by IUCLID suggests there is additional information that is not
provided here, but without it this report may not be useful.

-------
Study
Reference:
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2003). Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): An
activated sludge, respiration inhibition test. (OTS: NA; 8EHQ Num: FYI-03-01472; DCN:
84040000010; TSCATS ReflD: NA; CIS: FYI-03-01472).
HERO ID: 4269929
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
common name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and isomeric
composition were
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
A blank group was
included in the
study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability was
included in this
study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were reported and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Some deviations
from the protocol
were reported, but
these were not likely
to have impacted the
result.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Soil and activated
sludge sources were
reported.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
The sampling was
reported and
suitable for the
study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Concurrent controls
for abiotic
degradation allowed
differentiation
between biotic and
abiotic degradation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study. HBCD
concentrations were
reported during the
study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
21
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.05
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 :nul 1.7
-1.7 ;iiul ¦ 2,'A
-2..S and --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments.
Water Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported and
confirmed by FTIR
spectroscopy.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
A concurrent control
group was included.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability was
included.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were reported;
OECD guideline
referenced and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Guideline method
was referenced for
system design.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Soil and activated
sludge sources were
reported.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
The sampling was
reported and
suitable for the
study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty
were considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Biotransformation
half-lives were
reported.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Kinetic calculations
were clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
15
20
20
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1
^1 :nul 1.7
-1.7 ;iiul • 2,'A
-2,'A ;ind :_3


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Hoh, E; Hites, RA. (2005). Brominated flame retardants in the atmosphere of the East-
Central United States. Environ Sci Technol 39: 7794-7802.
http://dx.doi.orp/10.1021/es050718k
HERO ID: 999242
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighte
d Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Sources of test
material used for
analytical purposes
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Quality controls
were included.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
High temperature
isomerization of
HBCD was
accounted for.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Low
Appropriate;
however, the
application of air-
transport modeling
was not
applied/reported for
HBCD.
3
1
3

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
The application of
air- transport
modeling was not
applied/reported for
HBCD.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Appropriate;
however, the
application of air-
transport modeling
was not
applied/reported for
HBCD.
2
1
2

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Appropriate;
however, the
application of air-
transport modeling
was not
applied/reported for
HBCD.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some data were not
reported, but
omissions were
unlikely to have
substantially
impacted the results.
2
2
4

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Medium
Some statistical
method data were
not reported, but
omissions were
unlikely to have
substantially
impacted the results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Medium
The study results
were reasonable;
however, this was a
monitoring study.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
18
27

-------
High
Mi-ilium
I.CHY
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.5
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
1 nnil 1.7
^1.7 mul 2,'A
^2.:¦! mul


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
'This study overall quality rating was downgraded: Air-transport modeling was not applied/reported for HBCD;
however, informative data was reported on isomeric mixture in air.

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhou, DN; Chen, L; Wu, F; Wang, J; Yang, F. (2012). Debromination of
hexabromocyclododecane in aqueous solutions by UV-C irradiation. Fresen Environ
Bull 21:107-111.
HERO ID: 1106077
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance was
identified by chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
A control photolysis
experiment was run
using a UV-A lamp.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Measurements were
made twice with a
reported error of less
than 5%.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Methodology
considered multiple
parameters.
1
1
1

-------

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
The study's aim was to
consider multiple
parameters related to
this endpoint.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Most of the results were
in the form of graphs,
making quantitative
interpretation
impossible.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Most of the results were
in the form of graphs,
making quantitative
interpretation
impossible.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
18
21
1 lijili
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.17
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
_j1 nnil 1.7
^1.7 mul -'2.3
-2.3 mul ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhou, DN; Chen, L; Wu, F; Wang, J; Yang, F. (2012). Debromination of
hexabromocyclododecane in aqueous solutions by UV-C irradiation. Fresen Environ
Bull 21:107-111.
HERO ID: 1106077
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance was
identified by chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
A control photolysis
experiment was run
using a UV-A lamp.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Measurements were
made twice with a
reported error of less
than 5%.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR

-------
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Methodology
considered multiple
parameters.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
The study's aim was to
consider multiple
parameters related to
this endpoint.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Most of the results were
in the form of graphs,
making quantitative
interpretation
impossible.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Most of the results were
in the form of graphs,
making quantitative
interpretation
impossible.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
18
21
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Tactors:
1.17
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 niul • 1.7
^1.7 and '2.3
-2.3 and ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhou, DN; Chen, L; Wu, F; Wang, J; Yang, F. (2012). Debromination of
hexabromocyclododecane in aqueous solutions by UV-C irradiation. Fresen Environ
Bull 21:107-111.
HERO ID: 1106077
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance was
identified by chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
A control photolysis
experiment was run
using a UV-A lamp.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The control experiment
indicated stability in
aqueous media.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Measurements were
made twice with a
reported error of less
than 5%.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Methodology
considered multiple
parameters.
1
1
1

-------

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
The study's aim was to
consider multiple
parameters related to
this endpoint.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Most of the results were
in the form of graphs,
making quantitative
interpretation
impossible.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Most of the results were
in the form of graphs,
making quantitative
interpretation
impossible.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
18
21
1 lijili
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.17
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
_j1 nnil 1.7
^1.7 mul -'2.3
^2.:-! mul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Tomy, GT; Pleskach, K; Ferguson, SH; Hare, J; Stern, G; Maclnnis, G; Marvin, CH; Loseto, L.
Reference:
(2009). Trophodynamics of some PFCs and BFRs in a western Canadian Arctic marine
food web. Environ Sci Technol 43: 4076-4081. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es900162n

HERO ID: 1279130




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or Not
rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
Sources of test
1
1
1

Substance

material used for




Purity

analytical purposes
were reported.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Quality assurance
and controls were
included and
referenced to
previous work.
1
2
2

4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Consistency

applicable to this
study type.




8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Type and

criteria for high




Design

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Organism
Partitioning

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




-------
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study (with
supplemental
document)
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
13
18
18
II ii>h
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
_j1 niiil '1.7
_j1.7 mill 2.3
^.3 anil il3


Overall
Quality Level:
Medium1
'This sliiily's overall qualily rating was downgraded: Not a designated/specific Fate endpoint; monitoring data
field sampling data presented.

-------
Study
Reference:
Klosterhaus, SL; Stapleton, HM; La Guardia, MJ; Greig, DJ. (2012). Brominated and
chlorinated flame retardants in San Francisco Bay sediments and wildlife. Environ Int
47: 56-65. http://dx.doi.orp/10.1016/i.envint.2012.06.005
HERO ID: 1443796
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The source of the
test material was
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Analytical
controls/blanks
were used.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study;
monitoring study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
No definitive results
nor analysis of data
were conducted to
evaluate the
biomagnifi cation
factor quantitatively.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
This was primarily a
monitoring study.
2
1
2

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study;
additional
information can be
obtained in
supporting/ supplem
ental data.
1
2
2

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
17
20
22

-------
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
1 and -1.7
^1.7 :nul
-2.A ;nul


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
lrThe study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Not a designated/specific Fate endpoint; monitoring study
with a qualitative assessment of the results.

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhao, YY; Zhang, XH; Sojinu, OS. (2010). Thermodynamics and photochemical
properties of alpha, beta, and gamma-hexabromocyclododecanes: a theoretical study.
Chemosphere 80:150-156. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.chemosphere.2010.04.002

HERO ID: 1443819
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance was
identified by chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Molecular modeling
study where the isomer
structures were
optimized and
consistent with
experimental data.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Low
Appropriate; however,
the UV wavelength
employed did not
represent aquatic
environmental
conditions.
3
2
6

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR

-------

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR
come
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type-
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Appropriate; additional
data in supplemental
material.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1



Sum of scores:
14
15
19
1 lijili
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.27
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
-1 nnil 1.7
-1.7 mill 2,'A
mill -JA


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
irThe study's overall quality rating was downgraded: This study provides sound results; however, the
relevancy to photolysis under environmental conditions may be limited since the UV wavelength employed
does not represent aquatic environmental conditions.

-------
Study
Reference:
Gerecke, AC; Giger, W; Hartmann, PC; Heeb, NV; Kohler, HP; Schmid, P; Zennegg, M;
Kohler, M. (2006). Anaerobic degradation of brominated flame retardants in sewage
sludge. Chemosphere 64: 311-317.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.12.016
HERO ID: 1443845
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling timing was
based on figure, not
reported.
2
1
2
Confoundin
g
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentatio
n and
Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Relative results were
reported.
3
2
6
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Medium
Kinetic results were
reported but
calculations were
not described.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
NR
NR
NR

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
19
25
1 lijili
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.32
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.3
^1 mill 1.7
_j1.7 mul 2.3
mul --A


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Gerecke, AC; Giger, W; Hartmann, PC; Heeb, NV; Kohler, HP; Schmid, P; Zennegg, M;
Kohler, M. (2006). Anaerobic degradation of brominated flame retardants in sewage
sludge. Chemosphere 64: 311-317.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.12.016
HERO ID: 1443845
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling timing was
based on figure, not
reported.
2
1
2
Confoundin
g
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentatio
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Relative results were
reported.
3
2
6
n and
Analysis
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Medium
Kinetic results were
reported but
calculations were
not described.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
NR
NR
NR

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
19
25
1 ligh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.32
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.3
^1 and 1.7
_j1.7 ;ind 2.3
_j2.3 and ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Gerecke, AC; Giger, W; Hartmann, PC; Heeb, NV; Kohler, HP; Schmid, P; Zennegg, M;
Kohler, M. (2006). Anaerobic degradation of brominated flame retardants in sewage
sludge. Chemosphere 64: 311-317.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.12.016
HERO ID: 1443845
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling timing was
based on figure, not
reported.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentatio
n and
Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Relative results were
reported.
3
2
6
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Medium
Kinetic results were
reported but
calculations were
not described.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
19
25
High Mi-ilium Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.32
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.3

-------
1 mill 1..- :inil ¦ 2.'.$ -2:.$ mul _:¦!


Overall
High



Quality



Level:


-------
Study
Reference:
Gerecke, AC; Giger, W; Hartmann, PC; Heeb, NV; Kohler, HP; Schmid, P; Zennegg, M;
Kohler, M. (2006). Anaerobic degradation of brominated flame retardants in sewage
sludge. Chemosphere 64: 311-317.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.12.016
HERO ID: 1443845
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
Testing conditions
were monitored,
reported, and
appropriate for the
method; based on a
water solubility of
6.6x10-2 at 20 °C
(EINECS 2008).
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Appropriate;
however, primers
were used to initiate
anaerobic
biodegradation.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling timing was
based on figure, not
reported in the
study text.
2
1
2
Confoundin
g
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentatio
n and
Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
The target chemical
and transformation
product(s)
concentrations were
not reported.
2
2
4
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Medium
Kinetic results were
reported but
calculations were
not described.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
19
25

-------
High Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.32
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.3
-1 nnil '1.7 -1.7 niul 2.3
-2.3 niul :13


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Davis, JW; Gonsior, SJ; Markham, DA; Friederich, U; Hunziker, RW; Ariano, JM. (2006).
Biodegradation and product identification of [14C]hexabromocyclododecane in
wastewater sludge and freshwater aquatic sediment. Environ Sci Technol 40: 5395-5401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060009m
HERO ID: 1443842
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity and source
were reported; non-
radiolabeled
confirmed by FTIR.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Reported results
from abiotic control
groups were outside
the ranges specified
for test validity.
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Some details were
omitted.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Biodegradation was
not confirmed, and
specific rates were
not reported.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Some sampling
details were
omitted.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
There was
appropriate
discussion of
possible loss
scenarios; recovery
was 63% of
the initial
radioactivity.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
23
20
31
1 lijili
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.55
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
^1 mill 1.7
^1.7 mill ¦ 2.3
_j2.3 mul n3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Davis, JW; Gonsior, SJ; Markham, DA; Friederich, U; Hunziker, RW; Ariano, JM. (2006).
Biodegradation and product identification of [14C]hexabromocyclododecane in
wastewater sludge and freshwater aquatic sediment. Environ Sci Technol 40: 5395-
5401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060009m
HERO ID: 1443842
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported; non-
radiolabeled test
substance identity
was confirmed by
FTIR.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Reported results
from abiotic control
groups were outside
the ranges specified
for test validity;
however, this was
briefly discussed
(not confirmed).
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
There were
omissions in testing
conditions; however,
the omissions were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
2
1
2
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Some details were
omitted; however,
the omissions were
unlikely to have
hindered the
interpretation of
results.
2
1
2
Confoundin
g
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentatio
n and
Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
1

Sum of scores:
23
20
31
High Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.55
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
-1 niul 1.7 _j1.7 :nul '2.3
^2.3 :nul i!3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Davis, JW; Gonsior, SJ; Markham, DA; Friederich, U; Hunziker, RW; Ariano, JM. (2006).
Biodegradation and product identification of [14C]hexabromocyclododecane in
wastewater sludge and freshwater aquatic sediment. Environ Sci Technol 40: 5395-
5401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es060009m
HERO ID: 1443842
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported; non-
radiolabeled test
substance identity
was confirmed by
FTIR.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Reported results
from abiotic control
groups were outside
the ranges specified
for test validity;
however, this was
briefly discussed
(not confirmed).
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
There were
omissions in testing
conditions; however,
the omissions were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
1
1
1

-------



expected for this
type of study.




8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled in the
system design.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Biodegradation was
not confirmed and
specific rates were
not reported; strict
validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
3
1
3

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Some details were
omitted; however,
the omissions were
unlikely to have
hindered
interpretation of
results.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Appropriate
discussion of
possible loss
scenarios.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Initial concentration
of test material in
paragraph did not
match the values
reported in the
tables.
3
2
6

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Some details were
omitted; however,
these omissions
were not likely to
have had a
2
1
2

-------



substantial impact
on the study results.



Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Low
Unaccounted loss of
radioactivity was
noted in the abiotic
controls.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
29
20
39
Nigh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.95
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2
^1 niul 1.7
-1.7 :uul 2.3
-2.3 nnd ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium

-------
Study
Reference:
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments. Water
Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity and source
were reported; FTIR
confirmation.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Reported results
from abiotic control
groups were outside
the ranges specified
for test validity;
however, this was
discussed (not
confirmed) and
attributed to abiotic
processes such as
reductive
dehalogenation.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption did not
appear to be
controlled.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Briefly described
and OECD guideline
referenced.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Guideline method
was referenced.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Details on the
microbial population
of the sediment
system were not
characterized.
2
2
4
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
2
1
2
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved;
however, the results
were discussed.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
20
28

-------
High Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 :nul 1.7 .j 1.7 :nul
-2..S niul --A


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments. Water
Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity and source
were reported; FTIR
confirmation.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Reported results
from abiotic control
groups were outside
the ranges specified
for test validity;
however, this was
discussed (not
confirmed) and
attributed to abiotic
processes such as
reductive
dehalogenation.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption did not
appear to be
controlled.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Briefly described
and OECD guideline
referenced.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Guideline method
was referenced.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Details on the
microbial population
of the sediment
system were not
characterized.
2
2
4
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
2
1
2
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved;
however, the results
were discussed.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
20
28

-------
High Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 :nul 1.7 .j 1.7 :nul
-2..S niul --A


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments. Water
Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity and source
were reported; FTIR
confirmation.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Reported results
from abiotic control
groups were outside
the ranges specified
for test validity;
however, this was
discussed (not
confirmed) and
attributed to abiotic
processes such as
reductive
dehalogenation.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption did not
appear to be
controlled.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Briefly described
and OECD guideline
referenced.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Guideline method
was referenced.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Details on the
microbial population
of the sediment
system were not
characterized.
2
2
4
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
2
1
2
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved;
however, the results
were discussed.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
20
28

-------
High Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 :nul 1.7 .j 1.7 :nul
-2..S niul --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Davis, JW; Gonsior, S; Marty, G; Ariano, J. (2005). The transformation of
hexabromocyclododecane in aerobic and anaerobic soils and aquatic sediments. Water
Res 39:1075-1084. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.ll.024
HERO ID: 1443846
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity and source
were reported; FTIR
confirmation.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Reported results
from abiotic control
groups were outside
the ranges specified
for test validity;
however, this was
discussed (not
confirmed) and
attributed to abiotic
processes such as
reductive
dehalogenation.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption did not
appear to be
controlled.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Briefly described
and OECD guideline
referenced.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Guideline method
was referenced.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Details on the
microbial population
of the sediment
system were not
characterized.
2
2
4
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved.
2
1
2
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
Strict validation of
biodegradation was
not achieved;
however, the results
were discussed.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
20
28

-------
High Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 :nul 1.7 .j 1.7 :nul
-2..S niul --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant
Industry Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.pov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cvclodod/cl3459tc.htm

HERO ID: 1443881
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighti
ng
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Limited details
regarding this
metric; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a reference was
provided.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
No details regarding
this metric;
however, this was
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted and the
dosed concentration
was above the
reported water
solubility for HBCD;
however, this source
is a robust summary
and a reference was
provided which may
provide detail.
3
1
3

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Limited details
regarding this
metric; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a reference was
provided.
2
2
4

-------

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type
of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Limited details
regarding this
metric; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a reference was
provided.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
No details regarding
source of
microorganisms;
however, this source
is a robust summary
and a reference was
provided.
2
2
4

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a reference was
provided.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Information
regarding this metric
was not reported.
3
1
3
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Limited details were
provided; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a reference was
provided.
2
2
4

-------

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
High
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
1
1
1



Sum of scores:
26
20
35
1 lifili
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.75
Overall
Score
(Rounde
d):
1.8
_j1 mill 1.7
^1.7 mul 2,'A
^2.:¦! mul


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium

-------
Study
Reference:
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant
Industry Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm
HERO ID: 1443881
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
No details regarding
this metric;
however, this was
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
3
2
6

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
Not applicable;
multiple study
groups were not
reported.
NR
NR
NR

-------

8. System
Medium
Details regarding
2
1
2

Type and

this metric were




Design

omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.



Test
9. Test
Low
Details regarding
3
2
6
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
Details regarding
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.




12. Sampling
Low
Details regarding
3
1
3

Methods

this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.



Confounding
/ Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables

noted.




14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Outcomes

applicable to this




Unrelated to

study type.




Exposure





Data
15. Data
Low
Details regarding
3
2
6
Presentation
Reporting

this metric were



and


omitted; however,



Analysis


this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.




16.
Not rated
Not reported;
NR
NR
NR

Statistical

secondary source;




Methods and

the primary source




Kinetic

may
have more detail.




-------
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
27
17
40
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.35
Overall Score
(Rounded):
2.2
_j1 :nul 1.7
_j1.7 and -2,'A
-2.:¦! aiul --A


Overall
Quality Level:
Medium

-------
Study
Reference:
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant
Industry Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm
HERO ID: 1443881
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
routine guidelines
were cited.
3
2
6

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this was not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study;
multiple guidelines
cited.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Limited details were
reported; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
routine guidelines
were cited.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary
2
1
2

-------



and routine
guidelines were
cited.



8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
routine guidelines
were cited.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
routine guidelines
were cited.
2
2
4
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
routine guidelines
were cited.
3
1
3
12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
routine guidelines
were cited.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
routine guidelines
were cited.
2
1
2
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and
Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary
3
2
6

-------



and routine
guidelines were
cited.



16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
routine guidelines
were cited.
3
1
3
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
routine guidelines
were cited.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
32
20
43
II it'll Mi-ilium Low
_j1 mill 1.7 ^1.7 mul '2.3 _j2.3 mul n3
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.15
Overall Score
(Rounded):
2.2


Overall
Quality Level:
Medium

-------
Study
Reference:
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2005). HPV data summary and test plan for
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD). Arlington, VA: Brominated Flame Retardant Industry
Panel (BFRIP), American Chemistry Council.
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/cyclodod/cl3459tc.htm
HERO ID: 1443881
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this was not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the results.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
1
1
1

-------



expected for this
type of study.



Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
2
4
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2
12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Details regarding
this metric were
omitted; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
28
20
37
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.85
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
_j1 and 1.7
^1.7 and 2.3
-2.3 and n3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High1
'The sludy's overall qualily ruling was upgraded: This is a secondary source; however, it is a robust summary
with a routine OECD guideline and primary references were cited (BFRIP and Davis et al., Evaluation of Aerobic
And Anaerobic Transformation of Hexabromocyclododecane In Aquatic Sediment Systems. Study Number
021081. Environmental Chemistry Research Laboratory, Toxicology & Environmental Research and Consulting.
The Dow Chemical Company Midland, Michigan. (2003)").

-------
Study
Reference:
Hu, J; Jin, J; Wang, Y; Ma, Z; Zheng, W. (2011). Levels of polybrominated diphenyl ethers
and hexabromocyclododecane in the atmosphere and tree bark from Beijing, China.
Chemosphere 84: 355-360. http://dx.doi.orp/10.1016/i.chemosphere.2011.04.002
HERO ID: 1927637
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2
2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study;
analytical blanks did
not have target
chemicals.
1
2
2
4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Ambient conditions
during sampling
were not defined.
2
2
4
7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Low
The test organism
was not routinely
used for similar
study types.
3
2
6
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Isomer specific
results from
concentrations of
total HBCD.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Concentrations of
the individual
isomers were not
reported, preventing
meaningful
interpretation of the
isomeric specific
calculations.
3
2
6

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Low
Limited data
regarding this
metric made it
difficult to confirm
the validity of the
estimated values for
the individual
isomers as
concentrations of
HBCD were for total
HBCD.
3
1
3

18. QSAR
Models
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1



Sum of scores:
23
20
33

-------
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.65
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
3
1 niul -1.7
^1.7 :nul
-2.A ;nul


Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
lrThe study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Study does not lend new insight or valid data to an existing
model. Studies that apply an existing model to a specific site/situation should be excluded unless it's also
presented alongside new data. Could be considered for monitoring data.

-------
Study
Reference:
Hermanson, MH; Isaksson, E; Forsstrom, S; Teixeira, C; Muir, DC; Pohjola, VA; van de Wal,
RS. (2010). Deposition history of brominated flame retardant compounds in an ice core
from Holtedahlfonna, Svalbard, Norway. Environ Sci Technol 44: 7405-7410.
http://dx.doi.orp/10.1021/esl016608
HERO ID: 1927665
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Source and purity of
analytical standards
were not reported.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
The study did not
require concurrent
control groups;
analytical blanks and
contamination were
assessed.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study; field
monitoring.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Limited detail on the
characterization/rel
evance of the site.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Definitive
atmospheric
deposition was not
confirmed/ analyzed;
study modeled air
trajectories and
measured
concentrations in
ice, but other
environmental
media were not
assessed.
3
1
3

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Analytical method
did not account for
isomerization above
160 °C; therefore,
quantified results
were reported as
total HBCD due to
thermal
isomerization;
however, this was
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the
interpretation of the
reported study
results.
2
2
4

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Medium
Due to limited
information,
assessment of the air
trajectory model
was not possible;
however, this was
not a QSAR and not
directly related to
quantifiable results.
2
1
2



Sum of scores:
18
16
24
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.5
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
_j1 and 1.7
-j 1.7 and 2,'A
and :_3


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Study results not relevant to a specific/designated Fate
endpoint.

-------
Study
Reference:
Haukas, M; Mariussen, E; Ruus, A; Tollefsen, KE. (2009). Accumulation and disposition of
hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).
Aquat Toxicol 95:144-151. http://dx.doi.orp/10.1016/i.aquatox.2009.08.010
HERO ID: 1927701
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Study employed a
negative control
group of organisms
appropriately.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Low
Dilution steps during
food preparation
and administration
likely influenced the
concentration of the
test substance and
may have led to
uncertainty in
analytical
measurements;
stability of test
material in feed was
not reported.
3
1
3
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
Test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Feed was not well
characterized.
However, water
flow, temperature,
pH, and oxygen
content were
monitored.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
sample groups.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
System design was
appropriate for
maintaining
exposure
concentrations
during the study
period.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Information was
provided regarding
the test organisms,
including source,
fork length and body
weight. Organisms
were acclimated
appropriately before
test initiation.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Unacceptable
The assessment
methodology did not
address or report
bioaccumulation
factors. Rather,
accumulation was
loosely described as
the measured
concentrations in
fish over time.
4
1
4

12. Sampling
Methods
High
No notable
uncertainties or
limitations were
expected to
influence
results.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Fish were not fed
after exposure; this
may have affected
the rate of
elimination.
2
1
2

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Unacceptable
LODs for specific
isomers were
reported as ranges;
d-18-y-HBCD used
for internal standard
for (3-HBCD
measurements may
4
2
8

-------



have led to
uncertainties in the
initial food
measurements and
during experimental
analysis, an
increasing trend was
evident but could
not be strictly
quantified; the
analytical method
may not have been
suitable for
meaningful
detection of the test
substance.



16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
Statistical methods
were clearly
described and
addressed the data
collected.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Low
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
27
20
36
II it'll Mi-ilium Low
^1 niul ¦ 1.7 _j1.7 mul '2.3 ^2.3 mul ^3
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.8
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4


Overall
Quality
Level:
Unaccepta
ble1
'BCF not reported. Disposition data may be useful to other disciplines; however, the analytical method may not
be suitable for meaningful detection of the test substance. Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review
in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As
such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.

-------
Study
Reference:
Harrad, S; Abdallah, MA; Covaci, A. (2009). Causes of variability in concentrations and
diastereomer patterns of hexabromocyclododecanes in indoor dust. Environ Int 35: 573-
579. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.envint.2008.10.005
HERO ID: 1927725
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighte
d Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
purity and source
were not reported;
however, the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No confounding
differences between
the study groups
were noted.
1
1
1

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
15
18
19

-------
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.06
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_j! mul -1.7
-1.7 mul '2,'A
-2,'A niul --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Ichihara, M; Yamamoto, A; Takakura, K; Kakutani, N; Sudo, M. (2014). Distribution and
pollutant load of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in sewage treatment plants and
water from Japanese Rivers. Chemosphere 110: 78-84.
httD://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i.chemosDhere.2014.03.074

HERO ID: 2343678




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Analytical
controls/blanks
were not reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Analytical
procedures did not
discuss/account for
possible thermal
isomerization;
however, total HBCD
concentrations were
reported; therefore,
this was not
considered a serious
flaw.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Sewage sludge
samples were not
assessed to account
for loss of material.
2
1
2

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Appropriate for a
general screening of
STP removal.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Medium
Some calculations
were not reported,
but omissions were
unlikely to have
substantially
impacted the results.
2
1
0
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
17
14
19
I
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.36
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
_1 mill 1.7
_j1.7 mul ¦ 2.3
^2.3 mul ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Takigami, H; Watanabe, M; Kajiwara, N. (2014). Destruction behavior of
hexabromocyclododecanes during incineration of solid waste containing expanded and
extruded polystyrene insulation foams. Chemosphere 116: 24-33.
httD://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i.chemosDhere.2014.01.082

HERO ID: 2343703




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
A baseline
experiment was
included; however,
analytical blanks
were not reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Thermal
isomerization of
individual isomers
was not discussed;
however, this
omission did not
greatly flaw the
overall results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Flow rate for the
baseline experiment
was greater;
however, this was
not likely to have
influenced the
results.
2
1
2

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
This was a pilot-
study; scale-up and
long- term
experiments were
necessary.
2
1
2

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some information
was not reported;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------

I 1

Sum of scores:
19
18
25
11 it'll
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.39
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 :nul 1.7
^1.7 niul • 2,'A
:nul -'A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Zhou, D; Wu, Y; Feng, X; Chen, Y; Wang, Z; Tao, T; Wei, D. (2014). Photodegradation
of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) by Fe(III) complexes/H20 2 under simulated
sunlight. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 21: 6228-6233.

http://dx.doi.orp/10.1007/sll356-014-2553-0
HERO ID: 2343710



Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

source and purity




Purity

were reported.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
Controls were not
required to
interpret the study
results.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
High
Solutions were
1
1
1

Substance
Stability

freshly prepared.



Test
5. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Conditions
Method
Suitability

concentration was
not reported (but
available in the
supplementary
information").




6. Testing
Medium
There were
2
2
4

Conditions

omissions in the test
condition reporting
(temperature,
intensity").




7. Testing
High
Rate constant
1
1
1

Consistency

studies were
performed in
triplicate for three
systems in a
consistent manner




8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Type and
Design

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
_
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
Appropriate method
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

for a
photodegradation




-------



study.




12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Sample timing
details were not
reported.
3
1
3
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
High
Pyrex tubes were
used to eliminate
1
1
1
Control
Variables

UV- wavelengths; it
was established that
the active species
were hydroxy
radicals.




14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Unrelated to

applicable to this




Exposure

study type.



Data
15. Data
High
Graphed data of
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting

various conditions



and Analysis


included but
concentrations and
% recovery not
reported; the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on study results.




16. Statistical
Not rated
Not reported but not
NR
NR
NR

Methods and

required to




Kinetic
Calculations

interpret results.



Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
High
Results were
reasonable (did not
photodegrade after
unknown time
period - likely 200
min].
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
16
15
20
1 ligh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.33
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 ;ind • 2.3
-2..S niul ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Arinaitwe, K; Muir, DC; Kiremire, BT; Fellin, P; Li, H; Teixeira, C. (2014). Polybrominated
Reference:
diphenyl ethers and alternative flame retardants in air and precipitation samples from
the northern Lake Victoria region, East Africa. Environ Sci Technol 48:1458-1466.

http://dx.doi.orp/10.1021/es403600a
HERO ID: 2343716



Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

was identified by




Purity

analytical means.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Type and
Design

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as




-------



expected for this






type of study.




12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Methods

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Outcomes

applicable to this




Unrelated to

study type.




Exposure





Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting

criteria for high



and Analysis


confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




16.
High
Statistical methods
1
1
1

Statistical
Methods and

were reported;
kinetic calculations




Kinetic

were not made.



Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
14
18
18
1 litili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1
_1 and 1.7
_j1.7 ;ind ¦2,'A
^2.:¦! and iiii


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Zhang, Y; Sun, H; Liu, F; Dai, Y; Qin, X; Ruan, Y; Zhao, L; Gan, Z. (2013).

Reference:
Hexabromocyclododecanes in limnic and marine organisms and terrestrial plants from

Tianjin, China: diastereomer- and enantiomer-specific profiles, biomagnification, and

human exposure. Chemosphere 93:1561-1568.




httD://dx.doi.ore/10.1016/i.chemosDhere.2013.08.004



HERO ID: 2343741




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,


Factor



Medium, Low,






Unacceptable,






or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance

was identified by




Identity

chemical name.




2. Test
High
Source and purity of
1
1
1

Substance

chemicals were




Purity

reported.



Test Design
3. Study
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Controls

criteria for high






confidence as






expected for this






type of study.




4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as






expected for this






type of study.



Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method

criteria for high




Suitability

confidence as






expected for this






type of study.




6. Testing
High
No omissions about
1
2
2

Conditions

the testing






conditions were






likely to have






impacted the study






results.




7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high






confidence as






expected for this






type of study.




8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Type and

criteria for high




Design

confidence as






expected for this






type of study.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism

applicable to this




Degradation

study type.




-------

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
High
Test species were
clearly reported and
have been used in
other studies, which
were cited as
references for the
results.
1
2
2
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Diastereomeric
profiles and trophic
magnification
factors can be
appropriately
reported using this
assessment
methodology.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
No sampling
limitations were
noted that would
have influenced the
study results.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty
were addressed
using triplicate
analysis and internal
standards. No
confounding
differences between
study groups were
noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
High
No differences in
attrition between
organisms were
reported.
1
1
1
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
Results were
reasonable and were
compared to the
results of other
similar studies.
1
1
1

-------

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
21
21
11 it'll
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall Score
(Rounded):
1
-1 and ¦ 1.7
-j 1.7 and ¦ 2.:-!
-2.:¦! niul US


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Schreder, ED; La Guardia, MJ. (2014). Flame retardant transfers from U.S. households
Reference:
(dust and laundry wastewater) to the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol 48:
11575-11583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es502227h
HERO ID: 2528320
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or Not
rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

was identified by




Purity

analytical means.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Type and

criteria for high




Design

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




-------

10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism

applicable to this




Partitioning

study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Methods

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables

noted.




14. Outcomes
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Unrelated to

criteria for high




Exposure

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




16. Statistical
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2

Methods and

omitted; however,




Kinetic

these omissions




Calculations

were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.



Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
15
18
19
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.06
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_j1 and *1.7
-j 1.7 and "2.3
_j2.3 anil ^3


Overall
Quality Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Rauert, C; Harrad, S; Stranger, M; Lazarov, B. (2014). Test chamber investigation of the
volatilization from source materials of brominated flame retardants and their

subsequent deposition to indoor dust. Indoor Air 25: 393-404.



http://dx.doi.orp/10.llll/ina.12151
HERO ID: 2528329



Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

was identified by




Purity

analytical means.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




8. System
Type and
Medium
Equilibrium was not
established
2
1
3

Design

preventing
quantifiable
assessment of
partitioning.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.




-------
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
This study was an
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

indicator of the
importance of sink
effects when
studying migration
to dust since steady-
state was not
achieved due to
limited study time.




12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
_
1

Methods

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Confounding
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
/ Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Outcomes

applicable to this




Unrelated to

study type.




Exposure





Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting

criteria for high



and Analysis


confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




16.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Statistical

criteria for high




Methods and

confidence as




Kinetic

expected for this
type of study.



Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
17
_
22
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.22
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
^1 and 1.7
_j1.7 and 2.3
_j2.3 and -JA


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Overall this test is an indicator of the importance of sink
effects when studying migration to dust since steady-state was not achieved due to limited study time.	

-------
Study
Brads haw, C; Strid, A; von Stedingk, H; Gustafsson, K. (2015). Effects of benthos,
Reference:
temperature, and dose on the fate of hexabromocyclododecane in experimental coastal
ecosvstems. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:1246-1257. http://dx.doi.orp/10.1002/etc.2947
HERO ID: 3013490
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Purity

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Type and

criteria for high




Design

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Organism
Partitioning

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




-------
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Methods

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




14.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Outcomes

criteria for high




Unrelated to

confidence as




Exposure

expected for this
type of study.



Data
15. Data
Medium
Extraction efficiency
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting

was not reported but
was unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.




16.
Statistical
High
Statistical analysis
was clearly defined.
1
1
1

Methods and






Kinetic





Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
17
21
23
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 niul • 1.7
^1.7 ;ind 2.3
;iiul ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Brads haw, C; Strid, A; von Stedingk, H; Gustafsson, K. (2015). Effects of benthos,
Reference:
temperature, and dose on the fate of hexabromocyclododecane in experimental coastal
ecosvstems. Environ Toxicol Chem 34:1246-1257. http://dx.doi.orp/10.1002/etc.2947
HERO ID: 3013490
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

source and purity




Purity

were reported.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Controls were
included in the
study; however,
control results were
not reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Low
Nominal
3
1
3

Substance

concentration above




Stability

the water solubility
of HBCD.



Test
5. Test
Medium
Field water was not
2
1
2
Conditions
Method
Suitability

examined prior to
experiment; field
blanks were not
reported.




6. Testing
Conditions
Unacceptable
Temperature was
not reported or
monitored (may be
included in SI); this
was a serious flaw
that hindered the
interpretation of the
results based on
HBCD behavior with
respect to
temperature.
4
2
8

7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




8. System
Medium
Limited details
2
1
2

Type and

hindered the




Design

interpretation of the
results.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.




-------
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Unacceptable
Analytical details
were not included;
no quantitative
partitioning was
reported; thermal
isomerization
cannot be ruled out;
precise evaluation of
the results was not
possible; the
supplementary data
were not readily
available
4
1
4

12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Not reported.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Some details were
omitted, and
supplemental data
were not readily
available.
3
2
6

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Low
Quantitative results
on partitioning were
not provided.
3
1
3

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
31
18
41
1 lijih
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.28
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
^1 nnil -1.7
^1.7 mul 2.3
_j2.3 mul


Overall
Quality
Level:
Unaccepta
ble1

-------
'Analytical details were not included. Supplemental data should be evaluated for a more thorough assessment.
Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data
source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this
case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score
is presented solely to increase transparency.	

-------
Study
Lee, SC; Sverko, E; Harner, T; Pozo, K; Barresi, E; Schachtschneider, J; Zaruk, D; Dejong, M;
Reference:
Narayan, J. (2016). Retrospective analysis of "new" flame retardants in the global
atmosphere under the GAPS Network. Environ Pollut 217: 62-69.

http://dx.doi.orp/10.1016/i-envpol.2016.01.080
HERO ID: 3350487



Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

source and purity




Purity

was reported.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Medium
Samples were
2
1
2

Substance

extracted in 2005-




Stability

2006 but analyzed
for this study in
2009. The authors
assumed that the
integrity of the
samples was
maintained during
that time but also
acknowledged that
further study should
be done in the future
regarding that issue.
This most likely did
not have an impact
on the study results.



Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type
of study.




8. System
	High	
This metric met the
1
1
1

-------

Type and

criteria for high




Design

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
The inconsistency of
wind speed during
sampling times was
one factor that
changed between
study groups;
however, this was
discussed by the
authors and
accounted for by the
use of depuration
standards.
1
1
1

14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
_
NR

Outcomes

applicable to this




Unrelated to

study type.




Exposure





Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




16.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Statistical

criteria for high




Methods and

confidence as




Kinetic

expected for this
type of study.



Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
15
18
19

-------
High Mi-ilium l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.06
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 ;iiul ' 1.7 _j1.7 :nul -2.'.^ -2..S nnd -JA


Overall
High



Quality




Level:


-------
Study
Reference:
Zhu, H; Sun, H; Zhang, Y; Xu, J; Li, B; Zhou, Q. (2016). Uptake pathway, translocation, and
isomerization of hexabromocyclododecane diastereoisomers by wheat in closed

chambers. Environ Sci Technol 50: 2652-2659.




http://dx.doi.orp/10.1021/acs.est.5b05118
HERO ID: 3350492



Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
Medium
Reagent details were
2
1
2

Substance

given in the




Purity

supplemental
information but not
in the study.
Impurity effects
were unlikely to
have influenced the
study results.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Type and

criteria for high




Design

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




-------

10. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Organism
Partitioning

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Methods

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Confounding
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
/ Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




14.
Outcomes
High
No organism
attrition was noted
1
1
1

Unrelated to

between study




Exposure

groups.



Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
_
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




16.
Medium
Calculations were
2
1
2

Statistical

not clearly described




Methods and

in this study, but




Kinetic

supplemental
information was
cited that contained
more tables and
equations so the
omission in the
study was unlikely
to have impacted the
study results.



Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
18
21
23
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1

-------
_j1 mill I..- -1..- mill ¦ 2.'.$ -2:.l mul -JA


Overall
High



Quality




Level:


-------
Study
Reference:
Stiborova, H; Vrkoslavova, J; Pulkrabova, J; Poustka, J; Hajslova, J; Demnerova, K. (2015).
Dynamics of brominated flame retardants removal in contaminated wastewater sewage
sludge under anaerobic conditions. Sci Total Environ 533:439-445.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.06.131
HERO ID: 3350527
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Steam sterilized
sludge was used as
the abiotic control.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
The pH and
temperature were
not reported;
however, their
omission was
unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No differences were
noted among sample
groups. Each sample
was also done in
triplicate, which
reduced variability
inside sample
groups.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
The inoculum
sources were
reported.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Actual data were in
supplementary data;
no quantifiable
answer was
reported.
3
1
3

12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Sampling began
after HBCD
concentrations had
already decreased to
below detectable
levels.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Although the
authors stated that
the loss of HBCD was
due to microbial
degradation, the
data were only
presented in the
supplementary
material.
2
1
2

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Transformation
products were not
reported but were
unlikely to have
impacted the study
results. Sufficient
testing was done to
show that sorption
did not impact the
study results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
were clearly
outlined.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
20
29
11 ii>h
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.45
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.5
_j1 and • 1.7
^1.7 and 2,'A
-2.'.^ niul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Kim, UJ; Lee, IS; Oh, JE. (2016). Occurrence, removal and release characteristics of
dissolved brominated flame retardants and their potential metabolites in various kinds
of wastewater. Environ Pollut 218: 551-557.
http://dx.doi.orp/10.1016/i-envpol.2016.07.037
HERO ID: 3545985
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Control groups were
not used by this was
not likely to have
affected the study
results
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
Detailed procedure
presents no issues
involving
preparation and
process of test
samples.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Testing controls
were not reported in
depth for each
treatment plant;
however, the types
of treatment used
and sewage sources
at each plant were
given so study
results were useful.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Differences between
treatment plants and
any sampling or
processing were
reported.
1
1
1

-------

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Inoculum sources
were reported for all
test groups.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The concentration of
HBCD in the effluent
and influent of the
treatment plants
was an appropriate
outcome to monitor.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Composite samples
were said to be
taken over a 24-48-
hour period;
however, whether
this was a
continuous sampling
or done in intervals
is unknown; unlikely
to have substantially
impacted study
results.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Sources of
uncertainty between
study groups were
not noted; however,
this was unlikely to
have impacted the
study results as
overall removal
percentages were
investigated, and
treatments were not
being compared
directly to one
another.
2
1
2

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Analytical method
was suitable for
identifying and
quantifying the
parent compound.
1
2
2

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
Simple kinetic
calculations based
on the concentration
of the parent
compound in the
influent and effluent
were made.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
20
26
1 lijili
Medium
l.ow
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.3
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
^1 mill ¦ 1.7
-j 1.7 mill 2,'A
mul -'A


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
'The sludy's overall qualily ruling was downgraded: Sludy results not relevant to a specific/designated Fate
endpoint.

-------
Study
Reference:
Barontini, F; Cozzani, V; Petarca, L. (2001). Thermal stability and decomposition
products of hexabromocyclododecane. Ind Eng Chem Res 40: 3270-3280.
http://dx.doi.orp/10.1021/ie001002v
HERO ID: 3575301
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

was identified by




Purity

analytical means.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance
Stability

stability was
evaluated.



Test
5. Test
High
The test method was
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

suitable for the test
substance.




6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




7. Testing
High
Test conditions were
1
1
1

Consistency

consistent across
samples or study
groups.




8. System
Type and
Design
High
The system type and
design were
adequate for the
study.
1
1
1
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
__
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Methods

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




-------
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
13
_
16
II it'll Medium Low
_j1 and 1.7 _j1.7 :nul ¦ 2.3 _j2.3 ;iiul i:3
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in water: screening
tests: hexabromocyclododecane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15003/5/3/2#
HERO ID: 3970739
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
common name and
CASRN.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

source and purity




Purity

were reported.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Toxicity and
biologically
inhibited controls
were used.
1
2
2

4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
5. Test
Medium
HBCD was tested at
2
1
2
Conditions
Method
Suitability

a concentration a
degree of magnitude
higher than its
aqueous solubility
so that
[14C]products of
transformation
would be
identifiable.




6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




8. System
Type and
High
Equilibrium was
established and the
1
1
1

Design

samples were
constantly stirred
throughout testing.




-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
Limited details were
reported in the
secondary source;
the primary source
may contain more
detail. Standard
deviations were not
reported for any
results.
3
1
3

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and
Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
HBCD and
transformation
product
concentrations were
reported along with
extraction efficiency
of method spikes.
1
2
2

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Medium
Limited kinetic
calculations were
done and were not
reported clearly.
However, this did
not likely have had a
substantial impact
on the results.
2
1
2

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Medium
The study results
were reasonable, but
no range was
defined by a
reference substance
in the results.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
20
20
25
1 lijili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 ;ind ' 1.7
_1.7 ;ind '2.A
-2,'A ;iiul -1'A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Jenssen, B; Sormo, E; Salmer, M; Baek, K; Skaare, J. (2004). Brominated flame retardants
Reference:
(BFRs) in the Arctic marine food chain. Third International Workshop on Brominated

Flame Retardants.





HERO ID: 4140373




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

was identified by




Purity

analytical means.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
5. Test
Low
No details were
3
1
3
Conditions
Method
Suitability

provided regarding
the sampling, work-
up, or analytical
techniques.




6. Testing
Conditions
Unacceptable
Sampling dates and
storage conditions
were not reported.
4
2
8

7. Testing
Unacceptable
No details on
4
1
4

Consistency

sampling or storage
were provided.




8. System
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
_
NR

Type and
Design

applicable to this
study type.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
Low
The test organism is
3
2
6

Organism
Partitioning

not routinely used
for similar study
types.



Outcome
11. Outcome
Unacceptable
Details on
4
1
4
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

methodology were
not provided.




12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Only the sampling
location was
provided; all other
data, such as dates
and storage
conditions, were not
provided.
3
1
3

-------
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Unacceptable
Tissue types were
not reported.
4
1
4

14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Outcomes

applicable to this




Unrelated to

study type.




Exposure





Data
15. Data
Unacceptable
Number of samples
4
2
8
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting

of each species was
not reported.




___
Low
Standard deviations
3
1
3

Statistical

were not reported.




Methods and






Kinetic





Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Unacceptable
Not enough details
in the sample types
to verily the results
as plausible.
4
1
4

18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
39
17
51
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
3
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
_j1 niul ¦ 1.7
_j1.7 ;nul ¦ 2,'A
-2.3 niul


Overall
Quality
Level:
Unaccepta
ble1
'Study results not relevant to a specific/designated Fate endpoint. Limited details reported (i.e., no details were
provided regarding the sampling, work-up, or analytical techniques). Consistent with our Application of
Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of
Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, six of the metrics were
rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to
increase transparency.	

-------
Study
Leonards, P; Vethaak, D; Brandsma, S; Kwadijk, C; Micic, D; Jol, J; Schout, P; de Boer, J.
Reference:
(2004). Species specific accumulation and biotransformation of polybrominated
diphenyl ethers and hexabromocyclododecane in two Dutch food chains. Third
International Workshop on Brominated Flame Retardants.

HERO ID: 4140495




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

was identified by




Purity

analytical means.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Substance

criteria for high




Stability

confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




6. Testing
Medium
Some details were
2
2
4

Conditions

missing, but this was
not likely to have
affected the
interpretation of the
result.




7. Testing
Medium
Some study details
2
1
2

Consistency

were not reported;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have
affected the
interpretation of the
result.




8. System
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Type and
Design

applicable to this
study type.



Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

applicable to this
study type.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
	High	
This metric met the
1
1
1

-------
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




12. Sampling
Medium
Details on storage
2
1
2

Methods

conditions were not
provided.



Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Medium
As reported, the
cause of distribution
2
1
2
Control
Variables

of the isomers was
not discernable.




14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Outcomes

applicable to this




Unrelated to

study type.




Exposure





Data
15. Data
Low
Only a graph of the
3
2
6
Presentation
Reporting

results was



and Analysis


provided; numerical
results were not
reported. Results
were only reported
for 3 of the species
collected.




'Y6.
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2

Statistical

omitted; however,




Methods and

these omissions




Kinetic

were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results
(standard deviation
bars were shown in
the graph").



Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
19
15
25
1 ligh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.67
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
^1 :iikI 1.7
_j1.7 mill '2.3
_j2.3 niiil i!3


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium

-------
Study
Zeger, BN; Mets, A; van Bommel, R; Minkenberg, C; Hamers, T; Kamstra, JH; Learmont, JA;
Reference:
Vasquez, BS; Pierce, G; Ried, B; Patterson, T; Rogan, E; Murphy, S; Addink, M; Hartmann,
MG; Smeenk, C; Dabin, W; Ridoux, V; Gonzalez, AF; Lopez, A; Jauniaux, T; Boon, JP. (2004).
Stereo-isomer specific bioaccumulation of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in marine
mammals. Paper presented at Third International Workshop on Brominated Flame

Retardants, June 6-9, 2004, Toronto, Ontario.




HERO ID: 4140500




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination [i.e.,

Score
Weighting
Score


High, Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test
1. Test
Medium
Chemical name was
2
2
4
Substance
Substance
Identity

reported; however,
the CASRN was
reported incorrectly.




2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

was identified by




Purity

analytical means.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Controls were
included in the
study; however,
control results were
not reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1

Substance

stability,




Stability

homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.



Test
5. Test
High
The test method was
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

suitable for the test
substance.




6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
High
Test conditions were
1
1
1

Consistency

consistent across
samples or study
groups




8. System
Medium
Test system was not
2
1
2

Type and

fully described.




Design






-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Test organisms
described.
1
2
2

10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism

applicable to this




Partitioning

study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Methods

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.



Confounding/
13.
Medium
Deviations or
2
1
2
Variable
Confounding

omissions were not



Control
Variables

likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.




14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Outcomes

applicable to this




Unrelated to

study type.




Exposure





Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting

criteria for high



and Analysis


confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




16.
Medium
Statistical analysis
2
1
2

Statistical

or kinetic




Methods and

calculations were




Kinetic

not conducted or
were not described
clearly.



Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18.QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
20
20
27
1 litili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.35
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
_1 and • 1.7
-1.7 and • 2.3
_j2.3 and ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
ACC (American Chemistry Council). (2003). Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD): An
activated sludge, respiration inhibition test. (OTS: NA; 8EHQ Num: FYI-03-01472; DCN:
84040000010; TSCATS ReflD: NA; CIS: FYI-03-01472).
HERO ID: 4269929
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
common name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and isomeric
composition were
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
A blank group was
included in the
study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
The test substance
stability was
included in this
study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were reported and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Some deviations
from the protocol
were reported, but
these were not likely
to have impacted the
result
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
Soil and activated
sludge sources were
reported.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome
assessment was
appropriate for this
study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
The sampling was
reported and
suitable for the
study.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Concurrent controls
for abiotic
degradation allowed
differentiation
between biotic and
abiotic degradation.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study. HBCD
concentrations were
reported during the
study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
16
20
21
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.05
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 :nul 1.7
-1.7 ;iiul ¦ 2,'A
-2..S and --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation - Research & Development. (1988). Product
information sheet, MSDS, and Toxicity Data Summaries: acute oral rats, acute dermal
rabbits, primary skin irritation rabbits, eye irritation rabbits, acute inhalation rats,
Ames test, acute fish toxicity test, pilot cataractogenic study in chicks, cataractogenic
study in chicks, biodegradation, hydrolysis, partition coefficient, solubility. (OTS:
OTS0001106; 8EHQ Num: FYI-OTS-0794-1106; DCN: 84940000189; TSCATS RefID:
NA; CIS: FYI-94-001106).
HERO ID: 4270831
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
common name was
reported.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
source and purity
was not reported.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The study did not
require concurrent
control groups.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability,
homogeneity,
preparation, and
storage conditions
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Light/dark was not
reported but no
degradation was
reported so did not
impact study
interpretation.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Temperature and pH
details were not
reported but were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact.
2
2
4

-------

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across
samples or study
groups.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
The system type and
design were capable
of appropriately
maintaining
substance
concentrations.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Medium
Bromide ion
formation was
monitored.
2
1
2

12. Sampling
Methods
High
No notable
uncertainties or
limitations were
expected to
influence results.
1
1
1
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
No reported
variability or
uncertainty.
1
1
1

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
The target chemical
and transformation
product
concentrations,
extraction efficiency,
percent recovery,
and mass balance
were not reported;
however, they were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
2
4

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Not rated
Not reported.
NR
NR
NR

-------
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
15
23
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.53
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.5
_j1 :nul '1.7
_j1.7 and 2,'A
-2.3 niul n3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation - Research & Development. (1988). Product
information sheet, MSDS, and Toxicity Data Summaries: acute oral rats, acute dermal
rabbits, primary skin irritation rabbits, eye irritation rabbits, acute inhalation rats,
Ames test, acute fish toxicity test, pilot cataractogenic study in chicks, cataractogenic
study in chicks, biodegradation, hydrolysis, partition coefficient, solubility. (OTS:
OTS0001106; 8EHQ Num: FYI-OTS-0794-1106; DCN: 84940000189; TSCATS ReflD:

NA; CIS: FYI-94-001106).





HERO ID: 4270831




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified
definitively by
common name.




2. Test
Medium
The test substance
_
1
2

Substance

source and purity




Purity

were not reported.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Concurrent control
group details were
not included;
however, the lack of
data was not likely
to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4

4. Test
Low
The test substance
3
1
3

Substance

stability,




Stability

homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported
and altered study
interpretation.



Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Unacceptable
Study method
details were not
reported, making the
data unusable.
4
1
4

6. Testing
Conditions
Unacceptable
Testing conditions
were not reported,
making the data
unusable.
4
2
8

7. Testing
Not rated
Not applicable;
NR
_
NR

Consistency

multiple study
groups were not
reported.




8. System
Type and
Unacceptable
Not reported;
secondary source;
4
1
4

Design

the primary source
may contain more
detail.




-------
Test
9. Test
Unacceptable
The test inoculum
4
2
8
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

source was not
reported.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism

applicable to this




Partitioning

study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
Due to limited
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

information,
evaluation of the
assessment
methodology was
not possible.




12. Sampling
Unacceptable
Serious
4
1
4

Methods

uncertainties or
limitations were
identified in
sampling methods of
the outcome(s) of
interest and these
were likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the
results, resulting in
serious flaws, which
made the study
unusable.



Confounding
/ Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables

noted.




14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
_
NR

Outcomes

applicable to this




Unrelated to

study type.




Exposure





Data
15. Data
Low
There was
3
2
6
Presentation
Reporting

insufficient evidence



and


presented to confirm



Analysis


that parent
compound
disappearance was
not likely due to
some other process.




16.
Low
Statistical analysis or
3
1
3

Statistical

kinetic calculations




Methods and

were not conducted




Kinetic

or were not
described clearly
and the lack of
information was
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.




-------
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
NR
NR
NR

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
37
17
51
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
3
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
_j1 :nul 1.7
^1.7 nnil - 2.A
-j2.:¦> mul -A


Overall
Quality
Level:
Unaccepta
ble1
•Study method details were omitted making the data unusable. Consistent with our Application of
Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of
Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, five of the metrics
was rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to
increase transparency.

-------
Study
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:

Reference:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from
https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216



Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
Substance
High
Composite of 3 lots
of commercial grade
1
1
1

Purity

HBCD, not likely to
have impurities that
would have affected
the results of this
study.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Not reported in
IUCLID report but
according to test
guidelines, an
inoculum blank was
most likely tested.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Medium
Not reported in
IUCLID report but
2
1
2

Stability

most likely did not
have had a
substantial impact
on the results.



Test
5. Test
High
Test method is in
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

accordance with
established
guidelines.




6. Testing
Medium
Testing conditions
2
2
4

Conditions

were not reported
but likely were not
such that they
disqualified the
results.




7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

Consistency

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




8. System
Type and
Medium
Limited system
design details were
2
1
2

Design

reported; however,
the omissions were
unlikely to have
hindered the




-------



interpretation of
results.



Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Details regarding
sampling were left
out of the IUCLID
summary but were
not expected to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
Confoundin
g
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentatio
n and
Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
No data other than
the reported 0%
degradation were
presented. However,
omissions were not
likely to change the
study results.
2
2
4

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Medium
Statistical methods
were not reported;
however, their
omission was
unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Results were
reasonable but no
reference substances
were used.
2
1
2

-------

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
23
20
31
11 ii>h
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.55
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
^1 niul '1.7
_j1.7 ;ind 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High1
•Although this IUCLID summary omits several details concerning test conditions and sampling methods,
the OECD and OPPTS guidelines followed suggest appropriate conditions were met even if not reported in
this study.

-------
Study
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:

Reference:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
Medium
Purity was not
2
1
2

Substance

reported but




Purity

commercial grade
HBCD was unlikely
to have impurities
that impacted the
study results.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Controls were not
reported. However,
the use of
radiolabeled HBCD
reduces the chance
of transformation
products existing in
the background.
2
2
4

4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
_
2

Substance
Stability

preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported
but their omission
was unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.



Test
5. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

was added in
nominal
concentrations
above its aqueous
solubility so that
transformation
products could be
identified




6. Testing
Low
Testing conditions
3
2
6

Conditions

were not reported
and would have
been given an
unacceptable score,
however, since this
was an IUCLID
review, which gave
the study a score of
'(1) valid without
restriction,'




-------



disqualifying the
study did not seem
appropriate.



7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Testing conditions
across groups were
not reported as
stated in metric 6,
but
a score of 4 was not
given since the
IUCLID
report likely left out
these details.
2
1
2
8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Some system design
details were not
provided in this
secondary source;
however, references
cited may contain
more information.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Low
Details regarding the
inoculum source
were not reported
but were likely left
out by the summary
and the study should
not be disqualified
due to this.
3
2
6
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type
of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Sampling methods
were not clearly
described but were
unlikely to have
impacted the
reported
degradation
products.
3
1
3

-------
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
The only reported
data were the
identification of
transformation
products and
'substantial'
degradation of
HBCD.
Concentrations of
transformation
products were not
given but were not
likely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
No statistical
methods or kinetic
calculations were
reported.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
The study results
were reasonable.
2
1
2







18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
28
19
39
1 ligh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.05
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.5
_j1 ;nul 1.7
	
-1.7 mill • 2.3
^2.3 mill il3


Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: By itself this report provides very little information about
the study. The high rating given to it by IUCLID suggests there is additional information that is not provided
here, but without it this report may not be useful.

-------
Study
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:

Reference:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
Medium
Purity was not
2
1
2

Substance

reported but




Purity

commercial grade
HBCD was unlikely
to have impurities
that impacted the
study results.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Controls were not
reported. However,
the use of
radiolabeled HBCD
reduces the chance
of transformation
products existing in
the background.
2
2
4

4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
_
2

Substance
Stability

preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported
but their omission
was unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.



Test
5. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

was added in
nominal
concentrations
above its aqueous
solubility so that
transformation
products could be
identified




6. Testing
Low
Testing conditions
3
2
6

Conditions

were not reported
and would have
been given an
unacceptable score,
however, since this
was an IUCLID
review, which gave
the study a score of
'(1) valid without
restriction,'




-------



disqualifying the
study did not seem
appropriate.



7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Testing conditions
across groups were
not reported as
stated in metric 6,
but a score of 4 was
not
given since the
IUCLID
report likely left out
these details.
2
1
2
8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Some system design
details were not
provided in this
secondary source;
however, references
cited may contain
more information.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Low
Details regarding the
inoculum source
were not reported
but were likely left
out by the summary
and the study should
not be disqualified
due to this.
3
2
6
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Sampling methods
were not clearly
described but were
unlikely to have
reported
degradation
products.
3
1
3

-------
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
The only reported
data were the
identification of
transformation
products and
'substantial'
degradation of
HBCD.
Concentrations of
transformation
products were not
given but were not
likely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
No statistical
methods or kinetic
calculations were
reported.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
The study results
were reasonable.
2
1
2







18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
28
19
39
1 ligh
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.05
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.5
_j1 mill 1.7
^1.7 mul '2.3
_j2.3 mul ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: By itself this report provides very little information about
the study. The high rating given to it by IUCLID suggests there is additional information that is not provided
here, but without it this report may not be useful.

-------
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
Composite of 3
samples, purity was
unknown but was
not likely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Toxic control using
3,5-dichlorophenol
was used.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
preparation,
homogeneity and
storage were not
reported. Not likely
to have impacted the
study results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Low
Some test conditions
were not reported
(pH and
temperature) and
may have impacted
the study results.
3
2
6

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Did not report the
number of trials
done, only an
average was given
for inhibition.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
OECD Guideline 209
was followed;
however, details
regarding the
system
setup were not
given.
2
1
2
Test
9. Test
Medium
Adaptation and
2
2
4

-------
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

source of sludge
were not reported
but likely did not
impact the study
results.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.




12. Sampling
Medium
Sampling was only
2
1
2

Methods

done at one time,
after 3 hours. Since
respiration rates
were reported in mg
02/L/hr, a higher
sampling frequency
would have been
better to gain more
than one data point.



Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Two control groups
with a percent
difference in
respiration rates of
9.0% were used to
establish
consistency across
sample types.
1
1
1

14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
_
NR

Outcomes

applicable to this




Unrelated to

study type.




Exposure





Data
15. Data
Medium
The concentrations
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting

of the parent



and Analysis


compound and
transformation
products were not
measured; only the
respiration rate of
the sludge was
measured.




16. Statistical
Medium
Kinetic calculations
2
1
2

Methods and

were not clearly




Kinetic

detailed; however, it




Calculations

was not likely to
have
had a substantial
impact on the
results.




-------
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Medium
Study results were
reasonable.
Reference substance
results were not
reported clearly
enough to be useful.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
26
20
35
1 li.nli
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.75
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
_j1 ;ind 1.7
^1.7 mill - 2.A
¦-2..S :nul --A


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium

-------
Study
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2017). IUCLID data set:

Reference:
hexbromocyclododecane. Retrieved from https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970216
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name.




2. Test
Medium
Purity was not
2
1
2

Substance

reported but




Purity

commercial grade
HBCD was unlikely
to have impurities
that impacted the
study results.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Controls were not
reported. However,
radiolabeled HBCD
was used.
2
2
4

4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2

Substance
Stability

preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported
but their omission
was unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.



Test
5. Test
High
The test substance
1
_
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

was added in
nominal
concentrations
above its aqueous
solubility so that
transformation
products could be
identified.




6. Testing
Low
Testing conditions
3
_
6

Conditions

were not reported
and would have
been given an
unacceptable score;
however, since this
is an IUCLID review,
which gave the study
a score of '(1) valid
without restriction,'
disqualifying the
study did not seem
appropriate. Also, if
the guidelines were
followed, testing




-------



conditions were
adequate and should
not have impacted
the results.



7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Testing conditions
across groups were
not reported, as
stated before in
metric 6, but a score
of 4 was not given
since the IUCLID
report likely left out
these details.
2
1
2
8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Some system design
details were not
provided in this
secondary source;
however, references
cited may contain
more information.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Low
Details regarding the
inoculum source
were not reported
but were likely left
out by the IUCLID
summary and the
study should
not be disqualified
due to this.
3
2
6
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Sampling methods
were not clearly
described but were
unlikely to have
impacted the
reported
degradation
products.
3
1
3
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
limited; however,
this source is a
robust summary and
a routine OECD
guideline was cited.
2
1
2
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
NR
NR
NR

-------

Exposure

study type.



Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
The only reported
data were the
identification of
transformation
products and
'substantial'
degradation of
HBCD.
Concentrations of
transformation
products were not
given but were not
likely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
No statistical
methods or kinetic
calculations were
reported.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
The study results
were reasonable.
2
1
2







18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
28
_
39
1 lifili
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.05
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.5
_1 niul 1.7
^1.7 ;iiul ¦ 2,'A
-2.:-! ;nul -I'.i


Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: By itself this report provides very little information about
the study. The high rating given to it by IUCLID suggests there is additional information that is not provided
here, but without it this report may not be useful.

-------
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Hydrolysis: hexabromocyclododecane.
Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-
/registered-dossier/15003/5/2/3#.
HERO ID: 3970738
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,


Factor



Unacceptable,
or Not rated]




Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name and
CASRN.




2. Test
Substance
Low
The composition of
the test substance,
3
1
3

Purity

Firemaster 100, was
not reported. HBCD
concentration was
completely
unknown.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The use of controls
was not reported.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Medium
Minimal information
2
1
2

Substance
Stability

regarding
Firemaster 100
storage or
homogeneity of
Firemaster 100 was
reported.



Test
5. Test
Low
Concentration of
3
1
3
Conditions
Method
Suitability

HBCD in the tests
was not reported
and therefore could
be above the
aqueous solubility.




6. Testing
Unacceptable
No pH values or
4
2
8

Conditions

temperatures were
reported.




7. Testing
Consistency
Unacceptable
No testing
conditions were
reported for any
samples so
differences between
samples could not be
noted.
4
1
4

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Samples were placed
in tightly capped
flasks and shaken for
an unknown amount
of time.
2
1
2

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Bromide ion
concentration was
mentioned as an
analytical method,
but no results were
reported.
3
1
3

12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Sampling was done
twice weekly for pH
and bromide ion
formation. However,
no details were
given on the
sampling method.
3
1
3
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Unacceptable
No uncertainty or
variability was
addressed in the
report. It is
unknown how
similar any results
were throughout the
nine trials.
4
1
4

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Unacceptable
Neither target
chemical nor
transformation
product
concentrations were
reported. Percent
recovery was not
reported.
4
2
8

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Medium
Kinetic calculations
were not clearly
described but were
not likely to impact
the results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Unacceptable
The lack of data in
this study renders it
useless and if there
were any data
presented, it would
4
1
4

-------



not be useful since
there were so many
unknowns regarding
the methodology.



18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
39
16
48
II it'll Medium Low
1 :intl 1.7 _j1.7 iiiuI -2.'.^ _j^.3 niul ^3
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
3
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4


Overall
Quality
Level:
Unaccepta
ble1
'Several deficiencies were noted in this secondary source. For example, neither target chemical or
transformation product concentrations were reported. Percent recovery was not reported. Consistent with
our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source
receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case,
five of the metrics was rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is
presented solely to increase transparency.

-------
Study
Reference:
Kajiwara, N; Takigami, H. (2013). Behavior of additive brominated flame retardants in
textile products. In 5th International Symposium on Brominated Flame Retardants, April
07-April 09, 2010, Kyoto, Japan (pp. 4). Kajiwara, N; Takigami, H.
httD://dtsc.ca.eov/bfr2013/abstract download/2010/uDload/90074.Ddf

HERO ID: 3809158




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Some concurrent
control group details
were not included;
however, the lack of
data was not likely
to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability,
homogeneity,
preparation, and
storage conditions
were not reported.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
The test method was
likely suitable for
the test substance;
however, it is
unclear how much
chemical was
exposed to sunlight
in the material.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Testing conditions
were reported with
minor omissions.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
Test conditions were
consistent across 2
samples.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
The system type and
design were not fully
described.
2
1
2

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Deficiencies in the
outcome assessment
methodology (using
samples in fabric to
evaluate
photodegradation]
may have had a
substantial impact
on the results.
3
1
3

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the measurements
were not considered
or accounted for in
data evaluation
resulting in some
uncertainty.
3
1
3

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Target chemical
concentration was
reported.
1
2
2

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Not rated
Not applicable.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
NR
NR
NR

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
21
16
27

-------
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.69
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
1 and -1.7
^1.7 :nul
-2.A ;nul


Overall
Quality
Level:
Low
The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Data not likely useful for photodegradation in the
environment.

-------
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2002). EPA HPV Track:
1,2,5,6,9,10- Hexabromocyclododecane. https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/
HERO ID: 3970217
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

-------
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Details were
omitted; however,
the omissions were
unlikely to have
hindered
interpretation of
results.
2
1
2
Confounding
/ Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR

14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and
Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
15
19
20

-------
High Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.05
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
-1 nnil '1.7 -1.7 niul
-2.:¦! niul --.i


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Estimation Programs
Interface Suite™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11 [Computer Program]. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-
program- interface.
HERO ID: 2347246
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test Substance
Identity
High
The test
substance
was
identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2
2. Test Substance
Purity
Not rated
The metric
is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").
NR
NR
NR
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric
is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").
NR
NR
NR
4. Test Substance
Stability
Not rated
The metric
is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").
NR
NR
NR
Test
Conditions
5. Test Method
Suitability
Not rated
The metric
is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").
NR
NR
NR
6. Testing
Conditions
Not rated
The metric
is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").
NR
NR
NR
7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
The metric
is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").
NR
NR
NR
8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric
is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").
NR
NR
NR

-------
Test
9. Test Organism
Not rated
The metric
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Degradation

is not
applicable
to this
study type.




10. Test Organism
Not rated
The metric
NR
NR
NR

Partitioning

is not
applicable
to this
study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
Not rated
The metric
NR
NR
NR
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").




12. Sampling
Not rated
The metric
NR
NR
NR

Methods

is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").



Confounding
/ Variable
13. Confounding
Variables
Not rated
The metric
is not
NR
NR
NR
Control


applicable
to this study
type fSAR").




14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric
NR
NR
NR

Unrelated to

is not




Exposure

applicable
to this
study type.



Data
Presentation
15. Data Reporting
Not rated
The metric
is not
NR
NR
NR
and Analysis


applicable
to this study
type fSAR").




16. Statistical
Not rated
The metric
NR
NR
NR

Methods and

is not




Kinetic

applicable




Calculations

to this study
type fSAR").



Other
17.Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
The metric
is not
applicable
to this study
type fSAR").
NR
NR
NR

-------

18. QSAR Models
High
The models in
EPI SuiteTM
have defined
endpoints.
Chemical
domain and
performance
statistics for
each model are
known, and
unambiguous
algorithms are
available in the
EPI SuiteTM
documentation
and/or cited
references to
establish their
scientific
validity. Many
EPI SuiteTM
models have
correlation
coefficients >0.7,
cross-validated
correlation
coefficients >0.5,
and standard
error values
<0.3; however,
correlation
coefficients (r2,
q2) for the
regressions of
some
environmental
fate models
(i.e.BIOWIN) are
lower, as
expected,
compared to
regressions
which have
specific
experimental
values such as
water solubility
or log Kow
(octanol-water
partition
coefficient").
1
1
1



Sum of
scores:
2
3
1

-------
II it>h
Mi'ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of
Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric
Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1
-1 niul 1.7
^1.7 mul
mul LiS


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------