PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE S-EPA United States Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation of Environmental Fate and Transport Studies CASRN: 75-09-2 October 2019 DRAFT 1 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Table of Contents AT&T. (1986). HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIAL ACTION AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SITE INDIANNAPOLIS, INDIANA (INTERIM REPORT) WITH ATTACHMENTS AND COVER LETTER DATED 020690. (OTS: OTS0522315; 8EHQ Num: NA; DCN: 86-900000083; TSCATS RefID: 405919; CIS: NA). HERO ID: 4214315 6 Thiebaud, H; Merlin, G; Capovilla, MP; Blake, G. (1994). Fate of a volatile chlorinated solvent in indoor aquatic microcosms: Sublethal and static exposure to [14C]dichloromethane. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 28: 71-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/eesa.1994.1035 HERO ID: 3588425 8 ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Bioaccumulation: aquatic/sediment: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration- dossier/-/registered-dossier/15182/5/4/2# HERO ID: 3970721 11 Peijnenburg, W; Eriksson, L; De Groot, A; Sjostrom, M; Verboom, H. (1998). The kinetics of reductive dehalogenation of a set of halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons in anaerobic sediment slurries. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 5: 12-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02986368 HERO ID: 2300821 14 Melin, ES; Puhakka, JA; Strand, SE; Rockne, KJ; Ferguson, JF. (1996). Fluidized-bed enrichment of marine ammonia-to-nitrite oxidizers and their ability to degrade chloroaliphatics. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 38: 9-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(96)00004-2 HERO ID: 2310715 17 Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1993) 119:2(300) HERO ID: 1717600 20 Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1993) 119:2(300) HERO ID: 1717600 23 Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1993) 119:2(300) HERO ID: 1717600 26 Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1993) 119:2(300) HERO ID: 1717600 29 Deipser, A; Stegmann, R. (1997). Biological degradation of VCCs and CFCs under simulated anaerobic landfill conditions in laboratory test digesters. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 4: 209-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02986348 HERO ID: 1739087 32 Kim, Y; Arp, DJ; Semprini, L. (2000). Chlorinated solvent cometabolism by butane- grown mixed culture. J Environ Eng 126: 934-942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733- 9372(2000)126:10(934) HERO ID: 1747865 35 Stover, EL; Kincannon, DF. (1983). Biological treatability of specific organic compounds found in chemical industry wastewaters. J Water Pollut Control Fed 55: 97-109. HERO ID: 18214 37 Namkung, E; Rittmann, BE. (1987). Estimating Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Publicly Owned Treatment Works (pp. 670-678). (NIOSH/00172323) HERO ID: 2800806 40 Kim, JY; Park, JK; Emmons, B; Armstrong, DE. (1995). Survey of volatile organic compounds at a municipal solid waste cocomposting facility. Water Environ Res 67: 1044-1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/106143095X133284 HERO ID: 2802998 44 Klecka, GM. (1982). Fate and effects of methylene chloride in activated sludge. Appl Environ Microbiol 44: 701-707. HERO ID: 29181 47 Rittmann, BE; McCarty, PL. (1980). Utilization of dichloromethane by suspended and fixed-film bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 39: 1225-1226. HERO ID: 29191 49 2 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Tobajas, M; Verdugo, V; Polo, AM; Rodriguez, JJ; Mohedano, AF. (2016). Assessment of toxicity and biodegradability on activated sludge of priority and emerging pollutants. Environ Technol 37: 713-721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2015.1079264 HERO ID: 3070754 52 Lee, W; Park, SH; Kim, J; Jung, JY. (2015). Occurrence and removal of hazardous chemicals and toxic metals in 27 industrial wastewater treatment plants in Korea. Desalination Water Treat 54: 1141-1149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.935810 HERO ID: 3580141 55 Krausova, VI; Robb, FT; Gonzalez, JM. (2006). Biodegradation of dichloromethane in an estuarine environment. Hydrobiologia 559: 77-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0750-004-0571-5 HERO ID: 3589334 58 ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in water: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered- dossier/15182/5/3/2# HERO ID: 3970719 60 Davis, EM; Murray, HE; Liehr, JG. (1981). Basic microbial degradation rates and chemical byproducts of selected organic compounds. Water Resources 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(81)90082-8 HERO ID: 4140320 62 Freedman, DL; Gossett, JM. (1991). Biodegradation of dichloromethane and its utilization as a growth substrate under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 57: 2847-2857. HERO ID: 4140322 65 Gossett, JM. (1985). Anaerobic degradation of CI and C2 chlorinated hydrocarbons. (ESL-TR-85- 38). Tyndal AFB, FL: Air Force Engineering & Services Center. HERO ID: 4140341 68 Gossett, JM. (1985). Anaerobic degradation of CI and C2 chlorinated hydrocarbons. (ESL-TR-85- 38). Tyndal AFB, FL: Air Force Engineering & Services Center. HERO ID: 4140341 71 Gossett, JM. (1985). Anaerobic degradation of CI and C2 chlorinated hydrocarbons. (ESL-TR-85- 38). Tyndal AFB, FL: Air Force Engineering & Services Center. HERO ID: 4140341 74 Lapertot, ME; Pulgarin, C. (2006). Biodegradability assessment of several priority hazardous substances: Choice, application and relevance regarding toxicity and bacterial activity. Chemosphere 65: 682-690. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.01.046 HERO ID: 4140358 77 Chang, YC; Hatsu, M; Jung, K; Yoo, YS; Takamizawa, K. (1998). Degradation of a variety of halogenated aliphatic compounds by an anaerobic mixed culture. J Ferment Bioeng 86: 410-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0922-338X(99)89015-lHER0 ID: 4140393 80 Braus-Stromeyer, SA; Hermann, R; Cook, AM; Leisinger, T. (1993). Dichloromethane as the sole carbon source for an acetogenic mixed culture and isolation of a fermentative, dichloromethane-degrading bacterium. Appl Environ Microbiol 59: 3790-3797. HERO ID: 4140400 83 Dow Chem Co. (1977). THE INHIBITION OF ANAEROBIC SLUDGE GAS PRODUCTION BY 1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE, METHYLENE CHLORIDE, TRICHLOROETHYLENE AND PERCHLOROETHYLENE, Part 2. (OTS: OTS0517178; 8EHQ Num: NA; DCN: 86- 870002089; TSCATS RefID: 309930; CIS: NA). HERO ID: 4213887 86 Dow Chem Co. (1982). FATE AND EFFECTS OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE IN ACTIVATED SLUDGE (SEE COVER LETTER DATED 060382). (OTS: OTS0509180; 8EHQ Num: 47004 Fl-7; DCN: 40- 8224284; TSCATS RefID: 206792; CIS: NA). HERO ID: 4214069 89 Dow Chemical (Dow Chemical Company). (1980). Introductory study of the biodegradation of the chlorinated methane, ethane and ethene compounds: Progress report CR806890-01 coop agreement [TSCA Submission], (OTS: OTS0509177; 8EHQ Num: 47004 F1-2A; DCN: 40- 8024098; TSCATS RefID: 200511; CIS: NA). Midland, MI. HERO ID: 4215582 92 Tabak, HH; Quave, SA; Mashni, CI; Barth, EF. (1981). Biodegradability studies with organic priority pollutant compounds. J Water Pollut Control Fed 53: 1503-1518. HERO ID: 9861 95 Wood, PR; Parsons, FZ; DeMarco, J; Harween, HJ; Lang, RF; Payan, IL; Ruiz, MC. (1981). Introductory study of the biodegradation of the chlorinated methane, ethane and ethene compounds. Paper 3 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE presented at American Water Works Association Annual Conference and Exposition, June 7-11, 1981, St. Louis, MO. HERO ID: 9881 97 Marrone, PA; Gschwend, PM; Swallow, KC; Peters, WA; Tester, JW. (1998). Product distribution and reaction pathways for methylene chloride hydrolysis and oxidation under hydrothermal conditions. Journal of Supercritical Fluids 12: 239-254. HERO ID: 1183338 100 Oshima, Y; Bijanto, B; Koda, S. (2001). Kinetics of methylene chloride hydrolysis and the salt effect under hydrothermal conditions. Ind Eng Chem Res 40: 1026-1031.HERO ID: 3590244 103 ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Hydrolysis: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered- dossier/15182/5/2/3# HERO ID: 3970734 106 Dilling, WL; Tefertiller, NB; Kallos, GJ. (1975). Evaporation rates and reactivities of methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated compounds in dilute aqueous solutions. Environ Sci Technol 9: 833-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60107a008 HERO ID: 58054 109 Schreier, CG; Reinhard, M. (1994). Transformation of chlorinated organic compounds by iron and manganese powders in buffered water and in landfill leachate. Chemosphere 29: 1743-1753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(94)90320-4 HERO ID: 1740898 112 Dilling, WL. (1977). Interphase transfer processes. II. Evaporation rates of chloro methanes, ethanes, ethylenes, propanes, and propylenes from dilute aqueous solutions. Comparisons with theoretical predictions. Environ Sci Technol 11: 405-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60127a009 HERO ID: 18370 115 Leighton, DT, Jr; Calo, JM. (1981). Distribution coefficients of chlorinated hydrocarbons in dilute air- water systems for groundwater contamination applications. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 26: 382-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je00026a010 HERO ID: 194928 ...117 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 119 Soltanali, S; Hagani, ZS. (2008). Modeling of air stripping from volatile organic compounds in biological treatment processes. Int J Environ Sci Tech 5: 353-360. HERO ID: 2529433 122 Parker, WJ; Thompson, DJ; Bell, JP; Melcer, H. (1993). Fate of volatile organic compounds in municipal activated sludge plants. Water Environ Res 65: 58-65. HERO ID: 2803053 124 Keefe, SH; Barber, LB; Runkel, RL; Ryan, JN. (2004). Fate of volatile organic compounds in constructed wastewater treatment wetlands. Environ Sci Technol 38: 2209-2216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034661i HERO ID: 3566693 127 Blaney, BL. (1989). Applicability of steam stripping to organics removal from wastewater streams. (EPA/600/9-89/072). Cincinnati, OH: Blaney, BL. http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/23/22522.pdf HERO ID: 3986884 129 Dobbs, RA; Wang, L; Govind, R. (1989). Sorption of toxic organic compounds on wastewater solids: Correlation with fundamental properties. Environ Sci Technol 23: 1092-1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00067a004 HERO ID: 4140494 132 Dow Chem Co. (1983). N0NENZYMATIC REDUCTIVE DECHLORINATION OF CHLORINATED METHANES AND ETHANES IN AQUEOUS SOLUTION. (OTS: OTS0517182; 8EHQ Num: NA; DCN: 86-870002093; TSCATS RefID: 309938; CIS: NA). HERO ID: 4213888 134 Bell, J; Melcer, H; Monteith, H; Osinga, I; Steel, P. (1993). Stripping of volatile organic compounds at full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Environ Res 65: 708-716. http://dx.doi.Org/10.2175/WER.65.6.2 HERO ID: 658661 136 Stubin, AI; Brosnan, TM; Porter, KD; Jimenez, L; Lochan, H. (1996). Organic priority pollutants in New York City municipal wastewaters: 1989-1993. Water Environ Res 68: 1037-1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/106143096X128108 HERO ID: 658797 138 4 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Phototransformation in air: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered- dossier/15182/5/2/2# HERO ID: 3970733 140 ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Phototransformation in water: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered- dossier/15182/5/2/4# HERO ID: 3970718 142 Dilling, WL; Tefertiller, NB; Kallos, GJ. (1975). Evaporation rates and reactivities of methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated compounds in dilute aqueous solutions. Environ Sci Technol 9: 833-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60107a008 HERO ID: 58054 144 Haag, WR; Yao, CCD. (1992). Rate constants for reaction of hydroxyl radicals with several drinking water contaminants. Environ Sci Technol 26: 1005-1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00029a021 HERO ID: 658815 146 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: AT&T. (1986). HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIAL ACTION AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SITE INDIANNAPOLIS, INDIANA (INTERIM REPORT) WITH ATTACHMENTS AND COVER LETTER DATED 020690. (OTS: OTS0522315; 8EHQ Num: NA; DCN: 86-900000083; TSCATS RefID: 405919; CIS: NA). HERO ID:4214315 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 on an environmental sample. NR NR NR Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated The study did not require concurrent control groups. NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability Medium The stability of the test substance in the environment was not tested, but this was unlikely to have affected the results. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study on an environmental sample. NR NR NR 6. Testing Conditions Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study on an environmental sample. NR NR NR 7. Testing Consistency Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study on an environmental sample. NR NR NR 8. System Type and Design Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study on an environmental sample. NR NR NR 6 ------- PEER REVIEW DRA T - 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 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 Medium Inconsistencies were noted in some samples 2 1 2 Confounding / Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low The results were inconclusive. 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 Records were kept for sampling at several dates and locations. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Not rated Not applicable; result was based only on the presence or absence of the chemical. NR NR NR Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low The results were inconclusive. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 13 9 15 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.67 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 ¦ ¦1 mikI <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦¦2.3 ¦2.3 Mild ''3 Overall Quality Level: Medium 7 ------- Study Reference: Thiebaud, H; Merlin, G; Capovilla, MP; Blake, G. (1994). Fate of a volatile chlorinated solvent in indoor aquatic microcosms: Sublethal and static exposure to [14C]dichloromethane. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 28: 71-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/eesa.1994.1035 HERO ID: 3588425 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 source and purity of the test substance were not reported but this was unlikely to have influenced the study results. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls High The study included negative controls. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability High The study characterized test substance stability using a sublethal, static system and radiolabeled DCM; volatilization was measured, and recovery was determined to be 88- 98% in biomass. 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 monitored and reported, including temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High Differences in the biomass in each microcosm were reported. No other inconsistencies were noted. 1 1 1 8 ------- 8. System Type and Design High Test system was described in great detail and was capable of maintaining appropriate 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 High Test organism information was reported, including biomass, biotic composition of test microcosms, and sample preparations. 1 2 2 Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment methodology addressed the intended outcome of interest. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Minor limitations existed in sampling methods, but they were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study 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. No confounding variables were noted. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure High There were multiple organisms in three experimental mesocosms, and no differences among the mesocosms occurred that would have influenced the study results. 1 1 1 9 ------- Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Transformation product concentrations were not reported; however, the concentration of DCM and [14C] in the medium were very similar, and therefore, it can be assumed that most of the [14C] remained as [14C]DCM. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High Statistical methods were clearly described and adequately addressed the dataset. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High Study results were in agreement with earlier estimates that >80% of DCM volatilized into the atmosphere. 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 23 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.1 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 >1 and <1.7 ¦-1.7 ;ill(l :2.3 ¦ -2.'A ;ind -~'A Overall Quality Level: High 10 ------- Study Reference: ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Bioaccumulation: aquatic/sediment: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15182/5/4/2# HERO ID: 3970721 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 and CASRN. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High Test substance purity was reported as >99%. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Not reported, likely because only the summary was translated from Japanese. However, the test guideline cited called for use of a control group. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability High Stability of the test substance was confirmed before and after the experiment by IR spectra. 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 Not reported, likely because only the summary was translated from Japanese. The study took place in natural freshwater at a temperature of 25 degrees C (+/- 2 degrees). 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High Test was run using 2 exposure concentrations; each group of fish was exposed under similar test conditions. 1 1 1 11 ------- 8. System Type and Design Medium Equilibrium was not reported, likely because only the summary was translated from Japanese. However, the test system reported (semi- static, 6 week exposure) was not likely to have had a substantial impact on 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 species was reported, along with average length and weight. 1 2 2 Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Medium Outcome assessment methodology was not reported, likely because only the summary was translated from Japanese. 2 1 2 12. Sampling Methods Medium Not reported, likely because only the summary was translated from Japanese. However, the test guideline (OECD Guideline 305) was listed and certified as GLP compliant. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium No discussion of uncertainty or variability was included, likely because only the summary was translated from Japanese. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 12 ------- Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Data reporting was adequate: nominal concentrations were reported, as well as the lipid content, and concentrations in test water and BCFs at 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks of exposure. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Not reported, likely because only the summary was translated from Japanese. 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 29 11 i.nh Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.45 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.5 ¦ -1 Mild <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind -¦2.'A Mild ¦ •' A Overall Quality Level: High 13 ------- Study Reference: Peijnenburg, W; Eriksson, L; De Groot, A; Sjostrom, M; Verboom, H. (1998). The kinetics of reductive dehalogenation of a set of halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons in anaerobic sediment slurries. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 5:12-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02986368 HERO ID: 2300821 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 source was reported without specifics given: 'common commercial sources and were of analytical grade.' 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Some concurrent control group details were not included regarding toxicity. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability High Hydrolysis control was provided. Protection from light/photolysis was not addressed; however, this was not likely to be a concern. 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 The conditions were suitable for the test substance. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency Medium Test conditions across samples and study groups were not reported, but these discrepancies were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 14 ------- 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 test organism information or inoculum source 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 This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Sampling time and frequency were not reported in method; they were inferred from figure. 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 Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium The target chemical and transformation product(s) concentrations, extraction efficiency, percent recovery, and mass balance were not reported; however, relative concentration was reported. 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 15 ------- 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 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.35 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 ¦ -1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦¦2.'A ¦ -2.'A Mild *o Overall Quality Level: High 16 ------- Study Reference: Melin, ES; Puhakka, JA; Strand, SE; Rockne, KJ; Ferguson, JF. (1996). Fluidized-bed enrichment of marine ammonia-to-nitrite oxidizers and their ability to degrade chloroaliphatics. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 38: 9-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(96)00004-2 HERO ID: 2310715 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 and CASRN. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance purity and source were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated Controls were not reported; however, they were not required for this experimental study type. 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 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 17 ------- 7. Testing Consistency High Test conditions were consistent across samples or study groups. The conditions of the exposure were documented. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design Medium Equilibrium was not reported. 2 1 2 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation High The test organism information or inoculum source 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 methodology addressed the intended outcome of interest. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High The study reported the use of sampling methods that address the outcome(s) of interest, and used widely accepted methods / approache s for the chemical and media being analyzed. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements and statistical techniques and between study groups were reported in the study. The minor deviations or omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 18 ------- 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 Kinetic calculations were clearly described and address the dataset(s). 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium The study results were reasonable. No serious study deficiencies were identified, and the value was plausible. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 18 18 22 lli.nh Medium l.ow -1 ;ind -1.7 ;ind -2.S Mild ¦: 1.7 ¦¦¦2/A "¦:< Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.22 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.2 Overall Quality Level: High 19 ------- Study Reference: Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)073 3-93 72 (1993)119:2 (300) HERO ID: 1717600 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 Not applicable, the test substance was formed as a degradation byproduct. NR NR NR 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 20 ------- 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 The quantitative data presented were of limited use. Analytical methods were not sensitive enough to measure low concentrations of DCM formed and DCM was formed as a byproduct, so an initial concentration was unknown. 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 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 Medium Some details were omitted; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low The analytical methods were not sensitive enough to measure low concentrations of DCM formed; the quantitative data presented were of limited use. 3 1 3 21 ------- 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 18 18 23 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.28 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 ¦ -1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind -2.'A Mild o Overall Quality Level: Medium1 'The reviewer downgraded this study's overall quality rating. They noted: Methylene chloride is a byproduct and not the chemical being studied in this report. 22 ------- Study Reference: Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1993)119:2(300) HERO ID: 1717600 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 Not applicable, the test substance was formed as a degradation byproduct. NR NR NR 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 23 ------- 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 The quantitative data presented were of limited use. Analytical methods were not sensitive enough to measure low concentrations of DCM formed and DCM was formed as a byproduct, so an initial concentration was unknown. 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 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 Medium Some details were omitted; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low The analytical methods were not sensitive enough to measure low concentrations of DCM formed; the quantitative data presented were of limited use. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 18 18 23 24 ------- lli.nh Medium Low ¦¦¦ImikI -1.7 Mild ¦ -2.'A ;ind o ¦: 1.7 ¦2/A Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.28 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 Overall Quality Level: Medium1 •The reviewer downgraded this study's overall quality rating. They noted: Methylene chloride is a byproduct and not the chemical being studied in this report. 25 ------- Study Reference: Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)073 3-93 72 (1993)119:2 (300) HERO ID: 1717600 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 Not applicable, the test substance was formed as a degradation byproduct. NR NR NR 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 26 ------- 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 The quantitative data presented were of limited use. Analytical methods were not sensitive enough to measure low concentrations of DCM formed and DCM was formed as a byproduct, so an initial concentration was unknown. 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 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 Medium Some details were omitted; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 27 ------- Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low The analytical methods were not sensitive enough to measure low concentrations of DCM formed; the quantitative data presented were of limited use. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 18 18 23 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.28 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 ¦ ¦1 ;ind <1.7 ¦¦¦1.7 ;ind ¦ 2.3 ¦2.3 Mud ¦¦:¦: Overall Quality Level: Medium i •The reviewer downgraded this study's overall quality rating. They noted: Methylene chloride is a byproduct and not the chemical being studied in this report. 28 ------- Study Reference: Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)073 3-93 72 (1993)119:2 (300) HERO ID: 1717600 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 Not applicable; the test substance was formed as a degradation byproduct. NR NR NR 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 29 ------- 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 Analytical methods were not sensitive enough to measure low concentrations of DCM formed; quantitative data presented were of limited use; DCM was formed as a byproduct, so an initial concentration was unknown. 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 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 Medium Some details were omitted; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Quantitative data presented were of limited use; DCM was formed as a byproduct so an initial concentration was unknown. 3 1 3 30 ------- 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 18 18 23 lli.nh Medium l.ow ¦ 1 ;ind -1.7 ;ind -2.A Mild ¦' 1.7 -'A Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.28 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 Overall Quality Level: Medium1 'The reviewer downgraded this study's overall quality rating. They noted: Methylene chloride is a byproduct and not the chemical being studied in this report. 31 ------- Study Reference: Deipser, A; Stegmann, R. (1997). Biological degradation of VCCs and CFCs under simulated anaerobic landfill conditions in laboratory test digesters. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 4: 209-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02986348 HERO ID:1739087 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 source and purity of the test substance were not reported nor verified by analytical means. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls Unacceptable The study did not include or report control groups to validate the system used 4 2 8 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 Some details were omitted (temp); however, sufficient data were presented to determine that 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 32 ------- 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 Unacceptable The test inoculum was not routinely used for similar study types; degradation capability was not confirmed using controls. 4 2 8 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Unacceptable Outcome assessment was unable to be evaluated due to no detail or reference to methods for analysis besides a statement that "standard analytical methods used." 4 1 4 12. Sampling Methods Low Details regarding sampling and analysis methods of the outcome were not fully reported, and the omissions were likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low Only very low concentrations of perc initially added were found in the gas phase, attributed to adsorption and rapid decomposition; no validation with quantitative data. 3 1 3 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 33 ------- Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Unacceptable The target chemical and transformation product concentrations, extraction efficiency, percent recovery, and mass balance were not reported; it is unclear if this chemical was added initially to the system or present as a degradation product. 4 2 8 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Statistical analysis or kinetic calculations were not fully described, and the omissions may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 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: 35 19 50 lli.uli Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.63 Overall Score (Rounded): 4 ¦ -1 Mild <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind <2.'A -2.3 Mild -3 Overall Quality Level: Unacceptable1 !The study did not include or report control groups to validate the system used. 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, four of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. 34 ------- Study Reference: Kim, Y; Arp, DJ; Semprini, L. (2000). Chlorinated solvent cometabolism by butane- grown mixed culture. J Environ Eng 126: 934-942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)073 3-93 72(2000)126:10(934) HERO ID:1747865 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 Medium There were omissions in the reporting of test conditions. 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 35 ------- 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 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 Medium Kinetic calculations were not clearly described. 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: 17 20 23 High Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.15 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.2 >1 and <1.7 ¦1.7 Mllll -:2.3 ¦ -2.3 ;ind Overall Quality Level: High 36 ------- Study Reference: Stover, EL; Kincannon, DF. (1983). Biological treatability of specific organic compounds found in chemical industry wastewaters. I Water Pollut Control Fed 55: 97-109. HERO ID: 18214 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 source and purity were not reported. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium There were some omissions in the reporting of study controls. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Details regarding this metric were omitted; however, this was not likely to have influenced the interpretation of the results. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Medium Limited details on the test method were reported. 2 1 2 6. Testing Conditions Medium There were some omissions in the reporting of test conditions, such as pH and darkness. 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 37 ------- Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Medium Details regarding the inoculum were not reported; however, their omission was not expected to have impacted the interpretation of the study results. 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 High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Sampling technique and timing was not well reported; however, the omissions did not likely impact the interpretation of the study results. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements and statistical techniques and between study groups/controls were not reported. 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 Some data were not reported, but omissions were unlikely to have substantially impacted the results. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High Calculations were summarized; all experimental values were not reported. 1 1 1 38 ------- 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: 25 20 34 lli.nh Medium l.ow ¦ l;iii(l • 1.7 :inil ¦: 1.7 ¦¦2.-A <4 Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.7 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 Overall Quality Level: Medium 39 ------- Study Reference: Namkung, E; Rittmann, BE. (1987). Estimating Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Publicly Owned Treatment Works (pp. 670-678). (NIOSH/00172323). Namkung, E; Rittmann, BE. HERO ID: 2800806 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 Medium The test substance was collected from a monitoring samples, chemical purity was not reported but was not likely to have impacted the study results. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Control was not used but was not likely to have impacted the study results. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (monitoring). 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 Medium Some testing conditions were not reported but were unlikely to have impacted the study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency Not rated Not applicable; multiple study groups were not reported. NR NR NR 40 ------- 8. System Type and Design Medium Some system design details were not provided; however, this was not likely to have influenced the interpretation of the results. 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 Multiple removal processes using specific WWTP operational conditions were considered in this study that may have caused incomplete reporting of the biodegradation outcome. 2 1 2 12. Sampling Methods Medium Sampling methods were not clearly reported but were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the results. 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 41 ------- Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low DCM was likely an intermediate in the transformation of other VOCs present in the reactors, which made DCM influent/effluent concentrations an inaccurate representation of the removal efficiency. The model's predicted removal for all VOCs was within 10% of the actual removal so using the models prediction for DCM was likely much more accurate. 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 Medium The plausibility of the measured removal efficiency being accurate was low due to the strong possibility of intermediates being formed during the treatment and impacting the effluent concentrations. The model presented a much more plausible outcome that was somewhat verified by its overall VOC removal prediction being within 10% for both WWTPs. 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 31 1 li.^h Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.72 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 42 ------- ¦ 1 ;ind -¦ 1.7 -1.7 ;ind --'Z.'A ¦ -2.A ;ind o Overall Medium Quality Level: 43 ------- Study Reference: Kim, JY; Park, JK; Emmons, B; Armstrong, DE. (1995). Survey of volatile organic compounds at a municipal solid waste cocomposting facility. Water Environ Res 67: 1044-1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/106143095X133284 HERO ID: 2802998 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 collected from monitoring samples; chemical purity was not reported but was not likely to have impacted the study results. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls High CS2 blanks were analyzed every sixth sample for gas and solid samples and showed "no significant peaks." Reagent water blanks and 10 ug/L standards in water were analyzed every 10th sample during liquid sample analysis. sample for gas and solid samples and showed "no significant peaks." Reagent water blanks and 10 ug/L standards in water were analyzed every 10th sample during liquid sample analysis. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (monitoring). 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 44 ------- 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 details regarding this metric were omitted; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 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 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 Sources of variability were mentioned, such as VOCs that adsorbed to solids during composting not being differentiate from VOCs that were present in the solids initially. The authors noted that the concentration of VOCs in solids was low, so it was unlikely to have impacted the results. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 45 ------- Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Transformation product concentrations were not reported but their omission was not likely to have affected the study results. 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: 18 19 24 lli.nh Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.26 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 ¦ -1 Mild <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦ -2.'A Mild -o Overall Quality Level: High 46 ------- Study Reference: Klecka, GM. (1982). Fate and effects of methylene chloride in activated sludge. Appl Environ Microbiol 44: 701-707. HERO ID:29181 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 source and purity of the test substance were not reported nor verified by analytical means. 3 1 3 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 47 ------- 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 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 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 11 i.nh Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.1 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 ¦ ¦1 mikI <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦¦Z.'A ¦2.3 Mild ¦ O Overall Quality Level: High 48 ------- Study Reference: Rittmann, BE; McCarty, PL. (1980). Utilization of dichloromethane by suspended and fixed-film bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 39:1225-1226. HERO ID:29191 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 source and purity of the test substance were not reported nor verified by analytical means. 3 1 3 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; volatilization loss was minimized. 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 49 ------- Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Medium Adapted inoculum was used in this study that was not representative of natural environmental conditions. 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 Quantitative results were not reported; C02 evolution and intermediate formation were not examined. 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 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 Steady state conditions were suggested; however, data were not presented to confirm. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Kinetic calculations were not included, quantifiable rate constants could not be calculated due to plate count method limitations. 2 1 2 50 ------- 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 lli.nh Medium l.ow ¦ l;md • 1.7 :inil ¦: 1.7 ¦¦¦Z.-A <¦: Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.45 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The reviewer downgraded this study's overall quality rating. They noted: Quantitative results were not reported. The reported qualitative results are not representative of natural environmental conditions. 51 ------- Study Reference: Tobajas, M; Verdugo, V; Polo, AM; Rodriguez, JJ; Mohedano, AF. (2016). Assessment of toxicity and biodegradability on activated sludge of priority and emerging pollutants. Environ Technol 37: 713-721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2015.1079264 HERO ID: 3070754 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 Medium OECD 302 B requires blank controls but their use was not reported in this study. 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 52 ------- 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 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 Percent recovery was not reported but was unlikely to have impacted the results. 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: 17 20 24 53 ------- 11 i.nh Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.2 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.2 ¦ ¦1 mikI <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦ -2.S Mild 'O Overall Quality Level: High 54 ------- Study Reference: Lee, W; Park, SH; Kim, J; Jung, JY. (2015). Occurrence and removal of hazardous chemicals and toxic metals in 27 industrial wastewater treatment plants in Korea. Desalination Water Treat 54:1141-1149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.935810 HERO ID: 3580141 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 collected from monitoring samples; chemical purity was not reported but not likely to have impacted the study results. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium The use of controls was not reported but likely did not impact the study results. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Sample storage conditions were not reported but were unlikely to have influenced the study 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 Medium As this was a screening study looking at several WWTPs, specific conditions were not reported but were not critical to 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 55 ------- 8. System Type and Design Medium Some system details were omitted but these omissions were unlikely to have impacted the study results. 2 1 2 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Medium Details regarding the inoculum at each WWTP were not given but their omission did not likely impact the study results. 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 High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Some sampling details were omitted but this was unlikely to have impacted the study results. 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 Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Transformation products were not reported, and volatilization was likely a factor in the lower effluent concentrations since the removal rates were proportional to air to water ratios. 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 56 ------- 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 32 lli.^h Medium Low ¦ImikI -1.7 Mild ¦¦^.:i;ind ¦¦ 1.7 -:2.-A Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.6 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.6 Overall Quality Level: High 57 ------- Study Reference: Krausova, VI; Robb, FT; Gonzalez, JM. (2006). Biodegradation of dichloromethane in an estuarine environment. Hydrobiologia 559: 77-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0750-004-0571-5 HERO ID: 3589334 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 Medium The test substance source and purity were not reported, but were not likely to have affected the result. 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 Lack of degradation in the controls established the test material's stability to the reaction conditions. 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 Not reported, but not likely to have affected the result. 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 Some test conditions, such as light control, were not reported; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 58 ------- 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 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 details were lacking, but this was not likely to have affected the results. 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 Medium Results were difficult to compare as the media were atypical. 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 27 High Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.35 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 ¦ ¦1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦¦2.A ¦¦¦2.'A Mild -A Overall Quality Level: High 59 ------- Study Reference: ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in water: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15182/5/3/2 # HERO ID: 3970719 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 Medium Not reported, but not likely to have impacted 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 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 60 ------- 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 this metric were not reported; however, this was not likely to have influenced the interpretation of the results. 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 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: 17 20 22 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.1 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 ¦ 1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦-2,'A -¦2,'A ;ind <3 Overall Quality Level: High 61 ------- Study Reference: Davis, EM; Murray, HE; Liehr, JG. (1981). Basic microbial degradation rates and chemical byproducts of selected organic compounds. Water Resources 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(81)90082-8 HERO ID: 4140320 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 source and purity were not reported; however, test substance was measured by GC-MS. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Control details were missing, which may have had an impact of the study result interpretation. 3 2 6 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 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 omissions in the reporting of test conditions. Light/dark conditions, and pH were not reported. 2 2 4 62 ------- 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 The control of volatility was slow stirring; there may have been loss of test substance by volatility. 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 High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Low Sampling technique and timing was not well reported. 3 1 3 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements and statistical techniques and between study groups/controls 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 63 ------- 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 Not rated Not performed in this study. 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: 24 19 32 lli.uli Medium Low Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.68 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 ¦ ¦1 mikI <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦ -2.'A Mild o Overall Quality Level: Medium 64 ------- Study Reference: Freedman, DL; Gossett, JM. (1991). Biodegradation of dichloromethane and its utilization as a growth substrate under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 57: 2847-2857. HERO ID: 4140322 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, and a non- radiolabeled impurity was identified. 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 Protection from light or use of amber bottles was 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 65 ------- Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Low Source and type of organism were not well described beyond enrichment cultures and methanogens / nonm ethanogens. The omission may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 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 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 Data were summarized in figures; all experimental values were not reported. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Calculations were summarized; all experimental values were 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 66 ------- 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 20 20 29 11 i.nh Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.45 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.5 ¦ -1 mikI <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind <2.'A ¦¦¦2.S Mild Overall Quality Level: High 67 ------- Study Reference: Gossett, JM. (1985). Anaerobic degradation of CI and C2 chlorinated hydrocarbons. (ESL-TR-85-38). Tyndal AFB, FL: Air Force Engineering & Services Center. HERO ID:4140341 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 source was reported but the purity was not reported. 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 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 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 omissions in the reporting of test conditions, such as protection from light/amber bottles. 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 68 ------- 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 times were summarized in figures, not well described in study; however, the limitations were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the results. 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 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 Medium Calculations were summarized, all experimental values were not reported. 2 1 2 69 ------- 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 lli.^h Medium Low ¦ImikI -1.7 Mild ¦¦^.:i;ind ¦¦ 1.7 -:2.-A Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.3 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 Overall Quality Level: High 70 ------- Study Reference: Gossett, JM. (1985). Anaerobic degradation of CI and C2 chlorinated hydrocarbons. (ESL-TR-85-38). Tyndal AFB, FL: Air Force Engineering & Services Center. HERO ID:4140341 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 Medium The test substance source was reported but the purity was not reported. 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 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 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 omissions in the reporting of test conditions, such as protection from light/amber bottles. 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 71 ------- 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 times were summarized in figures, not well described in study; however, the limitations were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the results. 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 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 Medium Calculations were summarized; all experimental values were not reported. 2 1 2 72 ------- 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 lli.^h Medium Low ¦ImikI -1.7 Mild ¦¦^.:i;ind ¦¦ 1.7 -:2.-A Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.3 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 Overall Quality Level: High 73 ------- Study Reference: Gossett, JM. (1985). Anaerobic degradation of CI and C2 chlorinated hydrocarbons. (ESL-TR-85-38). Tyndal AFB, FL: Air Force Engineering & Services Center. HERO ID:4140341 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 Unacceptable The test substance identity could not be verified from the information provided. 4 2 8 2. Test Substance Purity Medium The test substance was formed as a biodegradation intermediate. 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 Not rated Not applicable; the test substance was formed as a biodegradation intermediate. NR NR NR Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Unacceptable The test method suitability for the test substance was not able to be evaluated due to limited information. 4 1 4 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 Not applicable; multiple study groups were not reported. 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 74 ------- 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 Unacceptable Assumptions made about the test substance were likely to have had a substantial impact on the results. This was a serious flaw that made the study unusable. 4 1 4 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 Medium There were omissions in the results details however, these were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Calculations were summarized; all experimental values were not reported. 2 1 2 75 ------- 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: 24 16 33 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.06 Overall Score (Rounded): 4 -1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦ -2.3 Mild ' • .¦) Overall Quality Level: Unacceptable1 iThe test substance identity could not be verified from the information provided. 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, three of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. 76 ------- Study Reference: Lapertot, ME; Pulgarin, C. (2006). Biodegradability assessment of several priority hazardous substances: Choice, application and relevance regarding toxicity and bacterial activity. Chemosphere 65: 682-690. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.01.046 HERO ID:4140358 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 Medium Protection from light or use of amber bottles was 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 77 ------- 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 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 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 78 ------- 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.1 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 >1 and <1.7 ¦-1.7 ;ill(l ¦ Mild o Overall Quality Level: High 79 ------- Study Reference: Chang, YC; Hatsu, M; Jung, K; Yoo, YS; Takamizawa, K. (1998). Degradation of a variety of halogenated aliphatic compounds by an anaerobic mixed culture. J Ferment Bioeng 86:410-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0922-338X(99)89015-l HERO ID:4140393 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 source and purity were not reported; however, analytical techniques were used to measure test substance concentrations. 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 Medium The test substance stability was not addressed but was not expected to have impacted study 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 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 80 ------- Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Medium A nonstandard inoculum was used in the study; however, the deviation was not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 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 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 about sampling method and frequency were 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 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 Not rated Statistics and kinetics were not reported for the test substance. 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 19 24 81 ------- 11 i.nh Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.26 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 ¦ 1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦ -2.3 Mild ¦ O Overall Quality Level: High 82 ------- Study Reference: Braus-Stromeyer, SA; Hermann, R; Cook, AM; Leisinger, T. (1993). Dichloromethane as the sole carbon source for an acetogenic mixed culture and isolation of a fermentative, dichloromethane-degrading bacterium. Appl Environ Microbiol 59: 3790-3797. HERO ID:4140400 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 83 ------- Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Medium An enriched, nonstandard organism was used in the study; however, the deviation was not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 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 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 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 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 84 ------- Sum of scores: 16 20 22 lli.^h Medium Low ¦ 1 ;ind -1.7 ;lnd -2.A ;ind -'A Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.1 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 Overall Quality Level: High 85 ------- Study Reference: Dow Chem Co. (1977). THE INHIBITION OF ANAEROBIC SLUDGE GAS PRODUCTION BY 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE, METHYLENE CHLORIDE, TRICHLOROETHYLENE AND PERCHLOROETHYLENE, Part 2. (OTS: OTS0517178; 8EHQ Num: NA; DCN: 86- 870002089; TSCATS RefID: 309930; CIS: NA). HERO ID:4213887 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 source and purity were not reported or verified by analytical means. 3 1 3 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 86 ------- 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 Study described inhibition of gas production, not biodegradation. 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 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 The study results were reasonable, and the reported value was outside expected range (the extraction recovery was 50%); however, no serious study deficiencies were identified. 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 87 ------- lli.nh Medium Low ¦ ImikI -1.7 Mild -2.A Mild 1.7 ¦¦¦2:a ¦-:< Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.25 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 iThe reviewer downgraded this study's overall quality rating. They noted: Study describes inhibition of gas production not biodegradation rates or transformation pathways. 88 ------- Study Reference: Dow Chem Co. (1982). FATE AND EFFECTS OF METHYLENE CHLORIDE IN ACTIVATED SLUDGE (SEE COVER LETTER DATED 060382). (OTS: OTS0509180; 8EHQ Num: 47004 Fl-7; DCN: 40-8224284; TSCATS RefID: 206792; CIS: NA). HERO ID: 4214069 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 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 89 ------- 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 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 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 90 ------- lli.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1 Overall Score (Rounded): 1 ¦ 1 ;ind <1.7 -¦1.7 ;ind -¦^.S ;ind • o Overall Quality Level: High 91 ------- Study Reference: Dow Chemical (Dow Chemical Company). (1980). Introductory study of the biodegradation of the chlorinated methane, ethane and ethene compounds: Progress report CR806890-01 coop agreement [TSCA Submission]. (OTS: OTS0509177; 8EHQ Num: 47004 F1-2A; DCN: 40-8024098; TSCATS RefID: 200511; CIS: NA). Midland, MI. HERO ID: 4215582 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 Low The source and purity of the test substance were not reported. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls High A concurrent positive control and results from controls were within the ranges specified for test validity. 1 2 2 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 and the target chemical was tested at concentrations below its aqueous solubility. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Unacceptable Testing conditions were not reported, and data provided were insufficient to interpret results. 4 2 8 92 ------- 7. Testing Consistency Medium Test conditions appeared to be consistent across samples; however, details of the test conditions, such as pH, temperature, aerobic / anaerobic, etc., were not provided. 2 1 2 8. System Type and Design Unacceptable System type and design details were not definitively reported. 4 1 4 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Medium The inoculum source was reported, but is not routinely used for similar study types; however, the deviation was not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 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 High The outcome assessment methodology reported the intended outcome of interest. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Low Details regarding sampling methods were not fully reported, and the omissions were likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements and statistical techniques and between study groups (if applicable) were not considered or accounted for in data evaluation resulting in some uncertainty. 3 1 3 93 ------- 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 Test substance and transformation product concentrations were reported along with suitable detection methods. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Not rated Statistical methods or kinetic calculations were not reported. NR NR NR Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Limited information was provided about the test system. Samples were taken from a new vial at each testing period. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 31 19 40 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.11 Overall Score (Rounded): 4 ¦ 1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦-2.A -¦2.3 Mild ''3 Overall Quality Level: Unacceptable1 ^Testing conditions were not reported, and data provided were insufficient to interpret results. 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. 94 ------- Study Reference: Tabak, HH; Quave, SA; Mashni, CI; Barth, EF. (1981). Biodegradability studies with organic priority pollutant compounds. J Water Pollut Control Fed 53:1503-1518. HERO ID: 9861 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 source and purity were not reported. 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 95 ------- 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 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 quantitative details were omitted; however, overall results were clearly reported. 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: 17 20 23 11 i.nh Medium l.u\V Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.15 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.2 ¦ 1 ;ind <1.7 -¦1.7 ;ind -¦2.3 Mild <3 Overall Quality Level: High 96 ------- Study Reference: Wood, PR; Parsons, FZ; DeMarco, J; Harween, HJ; Lang, RF; Payan, IL; Ruiz, MC. (1981). Introductory study of the biodegradation of the chlorinated methane, ethane and ethene compounds. Paper presented at American Water Works Association Annual Conference and Exposition, June 7-11,1981, St. Louis, MO. HERO ID: 9881 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 Methylene chloride was formed as a transformation product and detected by GC-MS analytical technique. 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 Not rated Not applicable; methylene chloride was a transformation product from carbon tetrachloride in this study. 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 Some test conditions, such as pH, specific temperature and light control, were not reported. 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 97 ------- 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 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 Absorption concerns were discussed 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 Medium Specific chemical concentrations were not reported. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Half-life calculation was not described. 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 98 ------- Sum of scores: 19 19 27 lli.nh Medium l.ow ¦¦¦ImikI ¦ ¦ 1.7;ind ¦ -2.'A Mild "o Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.42 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 Overall Quality Level: Medium i 'The reviewer downgraded this study's overall quality rating. They noted: Methylene chloride was studied as a transformation product. 99 ------- Study Reference: Marrone, PA; Gschwend, PM; Swallow, KC; Peters, WA; Tester, JW. (1998). Product distribution and reaction pathways for methylene chloride hydrolysis and oxidation under hydrothermal conditions. Journal of Supercritical Fluids 12: 239-254. HERO ID: 1183338 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 source and purity of the test substance were not reported or verified by analytical means. 3 1 3 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 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 omissions in testing conditions; however, omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on 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 1 100 ------- 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 Low The assessment methodology did not address or report the outcome of interest; analytical methods were not detailed; no rate constant or half-life was determined; however, transformation products and a proposed mechanism for hydrolysis were reported. 3 1 3 12. Sampling Methods Low Details regarding sampling methods were not included. 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 Low Limited supporting data were included for the detection and identification of the transformation products were reported. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Statistical analysis and kinetic calculations were not clearly described. 2 1 2 101 ------- Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Identification of transformation products was not detailed. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 25 15 31 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.07 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 ¦ ¦1 mikI <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦¦¦2.3 mikI ''3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The reviewer downgraded this study's overall quality rating. They noted: Limited supporting data were included for the detection and identification of the transformation products; analytical methods were not detailed and neither a rate constant nor half-life were determined. 102 ------- Study Reference: Oshima, Y; Bijanto, B; Koda, S. (2001). Kinetics of methylene chloride hydrolysis and the salt effect under hydrothermal conditions. Ind Eng Chem Res 40:1026-1031. HERO ID: 3590244 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 source and purity of the test substance were not reported or verified by analytical means. 3 1 3 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 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 This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium The pH was not reported for this hydrolysis study. 2 2 4 103 ------- 7. Testing Consistency Medium The test conditions across samples or study groups were not reported. 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 Unacceptable The temperature range is too high to be relevant to typical environmental conditions. 4 1 4 12. Sampling Methods Medium Some details regarding this metric were not reported; however, the omissions were unlikely to have hindered the interpretation of results. 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 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 1 104 ------- 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: 24 18 30 11 i.L^h Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.67 Overall Score (Rounded): 4 1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦ ¦2.'A Mild o Overall Quality Level: Unacceptable1 'The temperature range is too high to be relevant for typical environmental conditions. 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. 105 ------- Study Reference: ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Hydrolysis: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered- dossier/15182/5/2/3# HERO ID: 3970734 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 and CASRN. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium Test substance purity was not reported. 2 1 2 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 Substance Stability Medium The test substance preparation was not specified, but was not likely to have affected 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 High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency Medium The testing consistency was not specified, but was not likely to have affected 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 1 106 ------- 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 Not specified, but not likely to have affected the results. 2 1 2 12. Sampling Methods Medium Not specified, but not likely to have affected the results. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low The title of the primary source indicated that the study was an evaporation study, but was filed in ECHA as a hydrolysis study. The test details also indicated that it was a hydrolysis study. 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 Not specified, but not likely to have affected the results. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Pseudo-first-order kinetics were assumed, but the basis for this assumption was not specified. 3 1 3 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium No serious study deficiencies were identified, and the value was plausible; however, limited details were available in this secondary source. 2 1 2 107 ------- 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 26 18 32 lli.^h Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.78 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.8 ¦ -1 mikI <1.7 ¦¦¦1.7 ;ind ¦:2.3 ¦¦¦2.3 ;ind "O Overall Quality Level: Medium1 Secondary source (ECHA) citing primary source (HERO ID 58054, Dilling, W. L., et al. (1975). "Evaporation rates and reactivities of methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated compounds in dilute aqueous solutions." Environmental Science and Technology 9(9): 833-838.). 108 ------- Study Reference: Dilling, WL; Tefertiller, NB; Kallos, GJ. (1975). Evaporation rates and reactivities of methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated compounds in dilute aqueous solutions. Environ Sci Technol 9: 833-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60107a008 HERO ID: 58054 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 Purity was not reported; however, MS analysis was performed at start of study. The detection method was specifically at the m/z of the desired compound, so the purity was not likely to have affected the results. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated Controls were not reported for the hydrolysis study. Methanol was used as a co-solvent. NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability High MS analysis performed at start 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 Water was purged with air 15 min prior to initiation of study; the authors appeared to be assuming that hydrolysis was followed by oxidation; thus, by having an abundance of oxygen, they ensured that the rate-determining step was hydrolysis. 1 2 2 109 ------- 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 The outcome of interest and its basis were reported. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Sampling methods were omitted. Sampling timing was suitable. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium Transformation products were assumed; however, they were never determined experimentally. 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 not identified. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Statistical methods or kinetic calculations were not reported. 2 1 2 110 ------- 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 16 22 11 i l^Ii Medium l.ow ¦ImikI ¦1.7;iii(l ¦ -2.'A Mild -'A ¦: 1.7 ¦¦2/A Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.38 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 Overall Quality Level: High Ill ------- Study Reference: Schreier, CG; Reinhard, M. (1994). Transformation of chlorinated organic compounds by iron and manganese powders in buffered water and in landfill leachate. Chemosphere 29:1743-1753. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(94)90320-4 HERO ID: 1740898 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 Low There was uncertainty regarding the radiolabeling and source of the test substance. 3 2 6 2. Test Substance Purity Low The source and purity of the test substance were not reported or verified by analytical means. 3 1 3 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 Medium Protection from light/photolysis was not addressed; however, not likely to have been a concern. 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 High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 112 ------- 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 Low Incomplete reporting of outcome assessment methods; however, such differences or absence of details were not likely to have been severe or to have had a substantial impact on the study results. Could have been considered hydrolysis study but buffer was used. 3 1 3 12. Sampling Methods Medium Sampling time and frequency were not reported in method, inferred from figure. 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 Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Quantitative data for DCM were not fully reported or discussed beyond figures. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Quantitative calculations for DCM were not fully reported or discussed beyond figures. 2 1 2 113 ------- 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: 24 18 31 11 i l^Ii Medium Low ¦ 1:111(1 ¦¦¦ 1.7;iii(l ¦ -2,'A Mild 1.7 -Z/A Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.72 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 Overall Quality Level: Medium 114 ------- Study Reference: Dilling, WL. (1977). Interphase transfer processes. II. Evaporation rates of chloro methanes, ethanes, ethylenes, propanes, and propylenes from dilute aqueous solutions. Comparisons with theoretical predictions. Environ Sci Technol 11: 405-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.102 l/es6012 7a009 HERO ID: 18370 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 There were possible mixture concerns since two to five compounds were run together. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium A series of compounds were run, but no mention of controls. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Not discussed but were not likely to have influenced the test 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 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 115 ------- 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 was not described and may have influenced the test results. 3 1 3 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements and statistical techniques and between study groups were not considered or accounted for in data evaluation. 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 Medium Statistics were not conducted / reported for the experimental study. 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: 23 18 28 11 i l^Ii Medium Low Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.56 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.6 >1 and <1.7 ¦1.7 Mllll :2.3 ¦¦¦2.3 ;ind ''3 Overall Quality Level: High 116 ------- Study Reference: Leighton, DT, Jr; Calo, JM. (1981). Distribution coefficients of chlorinated hydrocarbons in dilute air-water systems for groundwater contamination applications. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 26: 382-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/je00026a010 HERO ID: 194928 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 source and purity were not reported, and analytical data were not reported to verify the test substance. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Controls were not included. 3 2 6 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 Some test method details were not provided; however, the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 6. Testing Conditions Medium Concentration of test material was vague; some details were omitted (pH). 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 1 117 ------- 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 Medium Some sampling details were omitted. 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 Medium Some results details were omitted; but this was not likely to have impacted the interpretation of study results. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Some results details were omitted, but this was not likely to have impacted the interpretation of 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: 22 17 29 1 ligli Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.76 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.8 >1 and <1.7 ¦1.7 ;ill(l -:V S ¦ -2.'A ;ind o Overall Quality Level: Medium 118 ------- 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 (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 119 ------- 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 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 120 ------- 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 11 i l^Ii Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1 Overall Score (Rounded): 1 ¦ -1 mikI <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦ -2.3 Mild '-'3 Overall Quality Level: High 121 ------- Study Reference: Soltanali, S; Hagani, ZS. (2008). Modeling of air stripping from volatile organic compounds in biological treatment processes. Int J Environ Sci Tech 5: 353-360. HERO ID: 2529433 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 test substance was identified by analytical means. NR NR NR Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Study control was not reported but was not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 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 The test method measured influent, effluent and VOCs. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Low Some test conditions were reported but not all (i.e. unnamed facilities). 3 2 6 7. Testing Consistency High The metric is not applicable to this study type. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design Medium Retention time and temperature were not reported. 2 1 2 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Low Not clear of test organism source (domestic or industrial sewage). 3 2 6 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 122 ------- Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Low May have given site- /WWTP-specific results. 3 1 3 12. Sampling Methods Low Sample timing was not well described. 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 Sampling results were not clearly reported. 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: 25 18 36 11 i l^Ii Medium Low ¦ 1:111(1 -1.7 Mild ¦ -2.3 Mild ''3 Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.06 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The reviewer downgraded this study's overall quality rating. They noted: Modeling study that did not report the related experimental details well. 123 ------- Study Reference: Parker, WJ; Thompson, DJ; Bell, JP; Melcer, H. (1993). Fate of volatile organic compounds in municipal activated sludge plants. Water Environ Res 65: 58-65. HERO ID:2803053 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 Chemical name(s) of external control(s) not reported. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Not rated This was a field type study were stability was not considered. 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 Unacceptable Testing conditions not well reported (pH, temperature, sludge concentrations). 4 2 8 7. Testing Consistency Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 8. System Type and Design Medium Likely an open system where test material could have been lost. 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 124 ------- Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Unacceptable The extent of air stripping was a function of the compound physical- chemical properties and a function of WWTP design and operation. 4 1 4 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 metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of 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; 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 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 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: 22 17 32 11 i l^Ii Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.88 Overall Score (Rounded): 4 125 ------- ¦ 1 ;ind ¦: 1.7 -1.7 ;ind ¦¦'Z.'A -2.'A Mild o Overall Quality Level: Unacceptable1 xStudy evaluates removal based on air stripping. The extent of air stripping is a function of the compound pchem properties and a function ofWWTP design and operation. 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. 126 ------- Study Reference: Keefe, SH; Barber, LB; Runkel, RL; Ryan, JN. (2004). Fate of volatile organic compounds in constructed wastewater treatment wetlands. Environ Sci Technol 38: 2209-2216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034661i HERO ID: 3566693 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 (field samples). NR NR NR Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (field samples). NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (field samples). 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 Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (field samples). NR NR NR 7. Testing Consistency Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (field samples). 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 (field samples). NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (field samples). NR NR NR 127 ------- Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High This was primarily a modeling study based on field samples. 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. 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 The study results were reasonable. 2 1 2 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: 11 12 13 lli.^h Medium l.mv Overall Score = Sum ofWeighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.08 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 -¦ 1 ;ind -1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦¦23 ¦¦¦2.3 Mild -3 Overall Quality Level: High 128 ------- Study Reference: Blaney, BL. (1989). Applicability of steam stripping to organics removal from wastewater streams. (EPA/600/9-89/072). Cincinnati, OH: Blaney, BL. http://infohouse.p2ric.Org/ref/2 3/2 2 52 2 .pdf HERO ID: 3986884 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 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 There were reported deviations or omissions in testing conditions, and these were likely to have had a substantial impact on the results (temperature). 3 2 6 7. Testing Consistency Medium There were omissions in the reporting across study groups, but these not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 129 ------- 8. System Type and Design Medium The system designs were not described well but the omission was not likely to have had a substantial impact on 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 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 Details regarding sampling methods of the outcome(s) were not fully reported, and the omissions were likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements and statistical techniques and between study groups (if applicable) 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 130 ------- Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low There was insufficient evidence presented to confirm that parent compound disappearance was not likely to have been due to some other process. Analytical details were not well reported. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Statistical analysis or kinetic calculations were not conducted or were not described clearly. 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: 25 17 34 11 i l^Ii Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2 Overall Score (Rounded): 2 ¦ -1 Mild <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind -¦2.A -¦2.3 Mild <3 Overall Quality Level: Medium 131 ------- Study Reference: Dobbs, RA; Wang, L; Govind, R. (1989). Sorption of toxic organic compounds on wastewater solids: Correlation with fundamental properties. Environ Sci Technol 23: 1092-1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00067a004 HERO ID: 4140494 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 Study control results not discussed. 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 Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 132 ------- 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 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 Kinetics data for DCM were not fully reported. 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: 16 18 22 11 i l^Ii Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.22 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.2 ¦ -1 mikI <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦ -2.3 Mild Overall Quality Level: High 133 ------- Study Reference: Dow Chem Co. (1983). NONENZYMATIC REDUCTIVE DECHLORINATION OF CHLORINATED METHANES AND ETHANES IN AQUEOUS SOLUTION. (OTS: OTS0517182; 8EHQ Num: NA; DCN: 86-870002093; TSCATS RefID: 309938; CIS: NA). HERO ID:4213888 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 source and purity were not reported; however, GC-ECD analytical method was used to detect compound. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Reference compound was unnamed. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Limited details provided however; the omission was not expected to have impacted 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 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 1 134 ------- 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 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 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 18 22 11 i l^Ii Medium I.IIU' Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.22 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.2 ¦1 Mild ¦: 1.7 ¦1.7 Mild :2.3 ¦2,'A Mild -o Overall Quality Level: High 135 ------- Study Reference: Bell, J; Melcer, H; Monteith, H; Osinga, I; Steel, P. (1993). Stripping of volatile organic compounds at full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Environ Res 65: 708-716. http://dx.doi.Org/10.2175/WER.65.6.2 HERO ID: 658661 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 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 Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 7. Testing Consistency Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 8. System Type and Design Medium Open system where test substance may have been lost. 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 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 1 136 ------- Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated The study noted that design parameters may have impacted the results. 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 Medium Emission rates were estimated by multiplying the average VOC concentrations by the appropriate airflow rates 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium The study results were reasonable; however, due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 12 11 14 lli.^h Medium l.ow ¦ ImikI -1.7;iii(l ¦ -2.'A Mild o ¦: 1.7 -2/A Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.27 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 Overall Quality Level: High 137 ------- Study Reference: Stubin, AI; Brosnan, TM; Porter, KD; Jimenez, L; Lochan, H. (1996). Organic priority pollutants in New York City municipal wastewaters: 1989-1993. Water Environ Res 68: 1037-1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/106143096X128108 HERO ID:658797 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 metric is not applicable to this study type. 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 Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 138 ------- 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 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 Not rated The analysis of data was clearly described. 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: 14 17 19 11 i.nh Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.12 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 ¦ ¦1 mikI <1.7 -1.7 ;ind -2.'A Mild --'A Overall Quality Level: High 139 ------- Study Reference: ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Phototransformation in air: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15182/5/2/2# HERO ID: 3970733 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 (QSAR). NR NR NR Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (QSAR). NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (QSAR). NR NR NR Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (QSAR). NR NR NR 6. Testing Conditions Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (QSAR). NR NR NR 7. Testing Consistency Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (QSAR). NR NR NR 8. System Type and Design Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (QSAR). 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 (QSAR). NR NR NR 12. Sampling Methods Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (QSAR). NR NR NR Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (QSAR). NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type- NR NR NR 140 ------- 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 Calculations Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (QSAR). NR NR NR Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium The study results were reasonable; presented in a secondary source. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models High The QSAR model (AOPWIN vl.91) has a defined, unambiguous endpoint and the model performance was known. 1 1 1 Sum of scores: 6 6 9 11 i.nh Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.5 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.5 -¦ 1 ;ind <1.7 ¦•¦1.7 ;ind ¦¦2,'A -2.'A Mild <¦> Overall Quality Level: High 141 ------- Study Reference: ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Phototransformation in water: Dichloromethane. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15182/5/2/4# HERO ID: 3970718 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 but not likely to have affected the outcome. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Consecutive dark controls were not reported. 3 2 6 4. Test Substance Stability Low Test substance stability in water was not established. 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 Some system design details were not provided; however, the primary source may contain more information. 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 Details were not reported, but this was not likely to have affected the outcome. 2 1 2 12. Sampling Methods High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 142 ------- Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low The possibility that the results may have been due to other reactions, i.e. hydrolysis or indirect photolysis, was not addressed. 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 Insufficient data were reported to confirm the result. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Insufficient data were reported to confirm the result. 3 1 3 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Insufficient data were presented to confirm the results were due to direct photolysis. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type- NR NR NR Sum of scores: 29 18 37 11 i.nh Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.06 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.1 -¦ 1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦¦¦2.3 Mild ¦ O Overall Quality Level: Medium1 !The reviewer agreed with this study's overall quality level. Secondary source (ECHA) study citing primary source (HERO ID 58054, Dilling, W. L., et al. (1975). "Evaporation rates and reactivities of methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated compounds in dilute aqueous solutions." Environmental Science and Technology 9(9): 833-838.) 143 ------- Study Reference: Dilling, WL; Tefertiller, NB; Kallos, GJ. (1975). Evaporation rates and reactivities of methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated compounds in dilute aqueous solutions. Environ Sci Technol 9: 833-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60107a008 HERO ID: 58054 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 not reported; however, MS analysis was performed at start of study. The detection method was specifically at the m/z of the desired compound, so the purity was not likely to have affected the results. 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 High Mass spectra analysis was performed at start of study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High Methanol was used as a co-solvent. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High Water was purged with air 15 min prior to initiation of study; the authors appear to be assuming that hydrolysis is followed by oxidation; thus, by having an abundance of oxygen, they ensure that the rate- determining step is hydrolysis. 1 2 2 144 ------- 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 Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome of interest and its basis were reported. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Sampling methods were omitted. Sampling timing was suitable. 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 Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Transformation products were not identified. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Statistical methods or kinetic calculations were 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: 18 18 25 lli.nh Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.33 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 >1 and <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind --2.'A -¦2.3 ;ind ''3 Overall Quality Level: High1 'The reviewer agreed with this study's overall quality level. Related HERO ID 3970783, Echa. Phototransformation in water: Tetrachloroethylene. 2017. 145 ------- Study Reference: Haag, WR; Yao, CCD. (1992). Rate constants for reaction of hydroxyl radicals with several drinking water contaminants. Environ Sci Technol 26:1005-1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021 /es00029a021 HERO ID: 658815 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 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 146 ------- 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 Some sampling details (timing, methods) not well described. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium The study did not discuss low pH value of system or report temperature. 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 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 18 20 11 i .n h Medium l.ow Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.11 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 ¦ ¦ 1 ;ind <1.7 ¦ 1.7 ;ind ¦r'A.'A ¦ -2.3 ;ind "o Overall Quality Level: High 147 ------- |