PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
s eda
<&cnr\
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
Draft Risk Evaluation for
1-Bromopropane
Systematic Review Supplemental File:
Data Quality Evaluation of Environmental Fate and
Transport Studies
CASRN: 106-94-5
August 2019

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Table of Contents
Belkin, S. (1992). BIODEGRADATION OF HALOALKANES. In International Workshop on The
Use of Microorganisms to Combat Pollution, Israel, May (pp. 10-18). (ISSN 0923-9820
HERO ID: 1737896	3
Janssen, DB; Jager, D; Witholt, B. (1987). Degradation of n-haloalkanes and alpha, omega-
dihaloalkanes by wild-type and mutants of Acinetobacter sp. strain GJ70. Appl
Environ Microbiol 53: 561-566. HERO ID: 2228540	5
Sakuratani, Y; Yamada, J; Kasai, K; Noguchi, Y; Nishihara, T. (2005). External validation of
the biodegradability prediction model CATABOL using data sets of existing and new
chemicals under the Japanese Chemical Substances Control Law. 16: 403-431.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10659360500320289 HERO ID: 2990985	8
Shochat, E; Hermoni, I; Cohen, Z; Abeliovich, A; Belkin, S. (1993). Bromoalkane- degrading
Pseudomonas strains. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:1403-1409. HERO ID: 4140374	11
Mabey, W; Mill, T. (1978). Critical review of hydrolysis of organic compounds in water
under environmental conditions [Review]. J Phys Chem Ref Data 7: 383-415. HERO ID:
9848	14
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	17
Burkholder, JB; Gilles, MK; Gierczak, T; Ravishankara, AR. (2002). The atmospheric
degradation of 1-bromopropane (CH3CH2CH2Br): The photochemistry of
bromoacetone. Geophys Res Lett 29:1822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002GL014712
HERO ID: 1733974 	20

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Belkin, S. (1992). BIODEGRADATION OF HALOALKANES. In International Workshop on
The Use of Microorganisms to Combat Pollution, Israel, May (pp. 10-18). (ISSN 0923-
9820).
HERO ID: 1737896
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-
bromopropane.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR

6. Testing
Conditions
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR

8. System Type
and Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
The test species were
reported. The pure
culture was not
routinely used for
environmentally
relevant
biodegradation
studies.
2
2
4

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article. Growth
rate data were
reported; however,
more data may be
available in primary
sources.
NR
NR
NR
12. Sampling
Methods
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.Confounding
Variables
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
review article.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
3
4
6
Hijih
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.5
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
^1 :uul 1.7
-1.7 and 2.3
_j2.3 anil :i3


Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
iThis study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: This study is a review article with limited
details reported.

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Janssen, DB; Jager, D; Witholt, B. (1987). Degradation of n-haloalkanes and alpha,
Reference:
omega-dihaloalkanes by wild-type and mutants of Acinetobacter sp. strain GJ70. Appl

Environ Microbiol 53: 561-566.




HERO ID: 2228540




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, 1-
bromopropane.




2. Test
Substance
High
Reported >97%
purity of chlorinated
1
1
1

Purity

and brominated
compounds.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Sterile controls were
used and removed the
possibility of external
influences impacting
the outcome.
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
Halide release was
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability

measured via
colorimetric assay.
Haloalkane and
associated alcohols of
degradation were
measured via GC- FID.




6. Testing
High
Aerobic conditions
1
2
2

Conditions

were reported.
Oxygen consumption
was measured with a
Clark-type oxygen
electrode. pH was
reported to be 7.5.




7. Testing
Consistency
High
Testing conditions
were monitored,
reported, and
appropriate for the
method; no
conditions other than
the test substance
varied between tests.
1
1
1

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

8. System Type
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

and Design

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.



Test
9. Test
Medium
Inoculum source was
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

reported except for
the adaptation. Not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the results.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism

applicable to this




Partitioning

study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
Degradation was
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

measured via halide
release and final
concentration
measurements of the
substrate haloalkane
and the formation of
the corresponding
alcohol was
measured.




12. Sampling
High
Half-life was not
1
1
1

Methods

reported. The amount
of halide produced
and the final
concentration of the
substrate haloalkane
were measured after
6 days of incubation,
which was sufficient
for determining the
ability of the bacteria
to degrade the
compounds.



Confounding/
13.
Medium
Minimal discussion or
2
1
2
Variable
Confounding

report of



Control
Variables

uncertainties. Most
likely did not affect
outcome assessment,
especially since rate
constants were not
being reported.




14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Unrelated to

applicable to this




Exposure

study type.




-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Transformation
products were
reported. Recovery of
halides was reported.
Sterile controls
provided sufficient
evidence that
disappearance of
parent compound
was due to the
presence of the
bacteria.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
No kinetic
calculations were
done.
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:
16
19
22
Hijih
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.16
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
-1 ;iiul - 1.7
-1.7 ;ind --2.3
niul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Sakuratani, Y; Yamada, J; Kasai, K; Noguchi, Y; Nishihara, T. (2005). External
Reference:
validation of the biodegradability prediction model CATABOL using data sets of
existing and new chemicals under the Japanese Chemical Substances Control Law.

16: 403-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10659360500320289


HERO ID: 2990985




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
Low
The source and purity
3
1
3

Substance

of the test substance




Purity

in the experimental
study being compared
were not reported or
verified by analytical
means.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The study did not
require concurrent
control groups.
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2

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
Medium
There were omissions
2
2
4

Conditions

in the reporting of
testing conditions;
however, this was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the results.




7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Consistency

applicable to this
study type
(modeling).




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

8. System Type
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

and Design

applicable to this
study type
(modeling].



Test
9. Test
Medium
Limited detail;
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

however, the method
for biodegradation
was a guideline study
and routinely used for
similar study types
and appropriate.




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type
(biodegradation].



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
The experimental
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

method and model
were suitable for
biodegradation
assessment.




12. Sampling
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Methods

applicable to this
study type
(modeling].



Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were noted.
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables






14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Unrelated to

applicable to this




Exposure

study type.



Data
15. Data
Medium
Some data were not
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting

reported and may be
available from
referenced sources,
but omissions were
unlikely to
substantially impact
the results.




16. Statistical
Medium
Details for the
2
1
2

Methods and

prediction model




Kinetic

were general.




Calculations





Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
Model validation
results were low for
1-bromopropane.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Medium
This metric met the
2
1
2

Models

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.






Sum of scores:
20
15
27

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.8
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
1 ;nid 1 "
1 " ;ind : ^
2 ' ;md '


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Shochat, E; Hermoni, I; Cohen, Z; Abeliovich, A; Belkin, S. (1993). Bromoalkane-
Reference:
degrading Pseudomonas strains. Appl Environ Microbiol 59:1403-1409.


HERO ID: 4140374




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, 1-
bromopropane.




2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2

Substance

source was not




Purity

reported; however,
the omissions were
not likely to have had
a substantial impact
on the study results.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
The study tested a
bromoalkane
emulsification in
aqueous medium with
varying
concentrations of
bacteria, including a
sterile control, which
showed no
emulsification
activity.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
High
Detailed preparation
of the test substance
1
1
1

Stability

was outlined in the
methodology.



Test
5. Test
Medium
Initial 1-
2
1
2
Conditions
Method
Suitability

bromopropane
concentration was not
reported for the
dehalogenation
assays, although its
omission was not
likely to have
impacted the results.
1-Bromooctane
concentration was
reported to be ca.




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



10 - ca. 20 mmol/L so






if 1- bromopropane
was used in similar






concentrations, it






would be below its






aqueous solubility of
2,450 mg/L (19,910






Hmol/L").




6. Testing
Conditions
High
Conditions were
adequately monitored
and reported.
1
2
2

7. Testing
High
Every substrate was
1
1
1

Consistency

tested under the same
conditions.




8. System Type
High
This metric met the
1
1
1

and Design

criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.



Test
9. Test
High
Inoculum source
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation

reported and
concentration of cells
used in each assay
reported (2x10s cells
per mL).




10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism

applicable to this




Partitioning

study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
The outcome
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

assessment was
appropriate for this
study but limited; the
transformation
products of 1-
bromopropane were
not identified or
quantified.




12. Sampling
High
Sampling methods
1
1
1

Methods

were sufficient for
monitoring the
outcome of interest
(Br- release
specifically").



Confounding/
13.
High
Standard deviation
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding

was reported for



Control
Variables

some assays and no
uncertainties were
expected to have
affected the outcome
assessment.




14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Unrelated to

applicable to this




Exposure

study type.




-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
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
High
Determination of Br-
1
1
1

Methods and

release rate was done




Kinetic
Calculations

using triplicate assays
and the authors
reported a standard
error of only 15%.



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
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
17
19
22
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.16
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 :uul "2.A
and


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Mabey, W; Mill, T. (1978). Critical review of hydrolysis of organic compounds in
Reference:
water under environmental conditions [Review]. J Phys Chem Ref Data 7: 383-415.

HERO ID: 9848




Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


[i.e., High,


Factor



Medium, Low,






Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
abbreviated name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Medium
Substance purity was
2
1
2

Substance

not reported but may




Purity

be retrievable from
referenced article.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Control group
information was not
reported in this study
but may be
retrievable from
referenced article.
2
2
4

4. Test
Medium
Storage condition
2
1
2

Substance

was not reported but




Stability

may be retrievable
from referenced
article.



Test
5. Test
Medium
The test method was
2
1
2
Conditions
Method
Suitability

not reported but may
be retrievable from
the referenced article.




6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
The testing
conditions were not
reported but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Testing consistency
could not be
determined from this
study but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
1
2

8. System Type
Medium
More details may be
2
1
2

and Design

retrievable from the
referenced article.



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

10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism

applicable to this




Partitioning

study type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
The outcome
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

assessment
methodology could




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



not be evaluated from






this study but






reviewing the
referenced article






would most likely






provide relevant
information.




12. Sampling
Medium
Sampling methods
2
1
2

Methods

could not be
evaluated without
reviewing the
referenced article in
which the hydrolysis
rate was reported.



Confounding/
13.
High
Values for kh
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding

estimated in section 5



Control
Variables

at 298K are probably
not more accurate
than a factor of 2 (+/-
100%) or less
accurate than a factor
of 5 (+/- 250%)
owing to
uncertainties in pH,
temperature
coefficients, and, in
some cases, solvent
effects.




14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Unrelated to

applicable to this




Exposure

study type.



Data
15. Data
Medium
Whether the
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting

degradation was due



and Analysis


to another process
could not be
evaluated in this
study but review of
the referenced article
would most likely
provide relevant
information.




16. Statistical
High
Calculations to derive
1
1
1

Methods and

the rate constant and




Kinetic

half- life at 298K and




Calculations

pH 7 were clearly
outlined.



Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Low
Calculated hydrolysis
rates and half-lives at
298 K and pH 7 were
extrapolated from
measured hydrolysis
rates at higher
temperatures that
were reported in
3
1
3

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



other articles. This






caused information






required to evaluate






several metrics to be






missing. However,
the authors (W.






Mabey and T. Mill)






are reputable sources
and it is likely that






upon review of
referenced articles,






several questions
could be answered.




18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Models

applicable to this
study type.






Sum of scores:
26
18
33
1 ligli
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.83
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
^1 :nul ' 1.7
-j 1.7 and 2.3
-2.3 and ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'This sludy's overall qualily rating was downgraded. Rationale: Article not useful without cited reference
(Laughton, P.M., and Robertson, R.E., Can. J. Chem. 37,1491 (1959)1 which were not available in HERO").

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Estimation Programs
Reference:
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
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
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Substance
Purity

applicable to this
study type fSAR],



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type fSAR],
NR
NR
NR

4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Substance

applicable to this




Stability

study type fSAR],



Test
5. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
Method
Suitability

applicable to this
study type fSAR],




6. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Conditions

applicable to this
study type fSAR],




7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Consistency

applicable to this
study type fSAR],




8. System
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Type and
Design

applicable to this
study type fSAR],



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
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

applicable to this
study type fSAR],




12. Sampling
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Methods

applicable to this
study type fSAR],



Confounding/
13.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables

applicable to this
study type fSAR],




14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Unrelated to

applicable to this




Exposure

study type.




-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
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
Calculations
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 models in EPI
Suite™ have defined
endpoints. Chemical
domain and
performance
statistics for each
model are known,
and unambiguous
algorithms are
available in the EPI
Suite™
documentation
and/or cited
references to
establish their
scientific validity.
Many EPI Suite™
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

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
II it>h
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sinn of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1
-1 mill 1.7
_j1.7 mul
mul


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Burkholder, JB; Gilles, MK; Gierczak, T; Ravishankara, AR. (2002). The atmospheric
Reference:
degradation of 1-bromopropane (CH3CH2CH2Br): The photochemistry of
bromoacetone. Geophys Res Lett 29:1822.


http://dx.doi
.org/10.1029/2002GL014712 HERO ID: 1733974


Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted


Determination

Score
Weighting
Score


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


Factor



Unacceptable, or
Not rated]




Test Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance, 1-
bromoacetone, was a
major degradant of 1-
bromopropane.
1
2
2

2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2

Substance

source and purity were




Purity

not reported.



Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Study controls were not
reported; however, the
lack of data was not
likely to have a
substantial impact on
study results.
2
2
4

4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Substance
Stability

applicable to this study
type.



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
High
This metric met the
1
2
2

Conditions

criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.




7. Testing
Medium
No repeated
2
1
2

Consistency

experiments were done
to check for accuracy;
however, this was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.




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

10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Organism

applicable to this study




Partitioning

type.



Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology

criteria for high
confidence as expected




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



for this type of study.




12. Sampling
Medium
Sampling intervals were
2
1
2

Methods

not reported but their
omission was not likely
to have influenced the
results.



Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in the
1
1
1
Control
Variables

measurements were
accounted for in data
evaluation.




14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR

Unrelated to

applicable to this study




Exposure

type.



Data
15. Data
High
Concentrations of both
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting

target chemical and



and Analysis


transformation products
were reported.




16. Statistical
Medium
Kinetic calculations for
2
1
2

Methods and

loss rate coefficients




Kinetic

were not clearly




Calculations

described but their
absence was not likely
to have influenced the
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
17
23
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum
of Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.35
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 and 1.7
_j1.7 and 2.:-!
_j2.3 and ^3


Overall
Quality
Level:
High

-------