PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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

-------