\vEPA PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Draft Risk Evaluation for Hexabromocyclododecane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Quality Evaluation of Environmental Fate and Transport Studies CASRN: 3194-55-6 June 2019 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Table of Contents U.S, E. P. A. (2009).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 ------- |