PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE AEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA Document# EPA-740-R1-8010 October 2019 DRAFT Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Draft Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane, DCM) Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation for Data Sources on Consumer and Environmental Exposure October 2019 NOTICE: This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or policy. It is being circulated for review of its technical accuracy and science policy implications. CASRN: 75-09-2 H ------- Table of Contents HERO ID Monitoring 27974 28993 29192 49414 75004 78782 632310 645789 758690 824555 1062239 Data Type Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Reference Chan, C. C.,Vainer, L.,Martin, J. W.,Williams, D. T.. 1990. Determination of organic contaminants in residential indoor air using an adsorption-thermal desorption technique. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 40 Ferrario, J. B.,Lawler, G. C.,Deleon, I. R.,Laseter, J. L.. 1985. Volatile organic pollutants in biota and sediments of Lake Pontchartrain. Bulletin of Environ- mental Contamination and Toxicology 34 Singh, H. B.,Salas, L. J.,Stiles, R. E.. 1983. Selected man-made halogenated chemicals in the air and oceanic environment. Journal of Geophysical Research 88 Ryan, T. J.,Hart, E. M.,Kappler, L. L.. 2002. VOC exposures in a mixed-use university art building. AIHA Journal 63 Otson, R.,Doyle, E. E., Williams, D. T.,Bothwell, P. D.. 1983. Survey of selected organics in office air. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 31 Lindstrom, A. B.,Proffitt, D.,Fortune, C. R.. 1995. Effects of modified residen- tial construction on indoor air quality. Indoor Air 5 Adgate, J. L.,Church, T. R.,Ryan, A. D.,Ramachandran, G.,Fredrickson, A. L.,Stock, T. H.,Morandi, M. T.,Sexton, K.. 2004. Outdoor, indoor, and per- sonal exposure to VOCs in children. Environmental Health Perspectives 112 Yamamoto, K.,Fukushima, M.,Kakutani, N.,Kuroda, K.. 1997. Volatile organic compounds in urban rivers and their estuaries in Osaka, Japan. Environmental Pollution 95 Guo, H.,Lee, S. C.,Chan, L. Y.,Li, W. M.. 2004. Risk assessment of exposure to volatile organic compounds in different indoor environments. Environmental Research 94 Chao, C. Y.,Chan, G. Y.. 2001. Quantification of indoor VOCs in twenty mechanically ventilated buildings in Hong Kong. Atmospheric Environment 35 X. M. Wu, M. G. Apte, R. Maddalena, D. H. Bennett. 2011. Volatile organic compounds in small- and medium-sized commercial buildings in California. En- vironmental Science and Technology 45 2 2 10 11 12 13 14 ------- 1065844 1066049 1441544 1642248 1978790 2443355 2667557 Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring 3242836 Monitoring 3449449 Monitoring 3453092 Monitoring 3453725 Monitoring 3488897 Monitoring Dodson, R. E.,Levy, J. I.,Spengler, J. D.,Shine, J. P.,Bennett, D. H.. 2008. Influence of basements, garages, and common hallways on indoor residential volatile organic compound concentrations. Atmospheric Environment 42 S. N. Sax, D. H. Bennett, S. N. Chillrud, P. L. Kinney, J. D. Spengler. 2004. Differences in source emission rates of volatile organic compounds in inner-city residences of New York City and Los Angeles. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 14 van de Meent, D.,Den Hollander, H. A.,Pool, W. G.,Vredenbregt, M. J.,van Oers, H. A. M.,de Greef, E.,Luijten, J. a. 1986. Organic micropollutants in Dutch coastal waters. Water Science and Technology 18 Lee, S. C.,Li, W. M.,Chan, L. Y.. 2001. Indoor air quality at restaurants with different styles of cooking in metropolitan Hong Kong. Science of the Total Environment 279 Chan, C.,Lee, S. C.,Chan, W.,Ho, K.,Tian, L.,Lai, S.,Li, Y.,Huang, Y. u. 2011. Characterisation of Volatile Organic Compounds at Hotels in Southern China. Indoor and Built Environment 20 Chin, J. Y.,Godwin, C.,Parker, E.,Robins, T.,Lewis, T.,Harbin, P.,Batterman, S.. 2014. Levels and sources of volatile organic compounds in homes of children with asthma. Indoor Air 24 Abtahi, M.,Naddafi, K.,Mesdaghinia, A.,Yaghmaeian, K.,Nabizadeh, R., Jaafarzadeh, N.,Rastkari, N.,Saeedi, R.,Nazmara, S.. 2013. Dichloromethane emissions from automotive manufacturing industry in Iran: Case study of the SAIPA automotive manufacturing company. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 95 Christof, 0.,Seifert, R.,Michaelis, W.. 2002. Volatile halogenated organic com- pounds in European estuaries. Biogeochemistry 59 Duan, H.,Liu, X.,Yan, M.,Wu, Y.,Liu, Z.. 2016. Characteristics of carbonyls and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in residences in Beijing, China. 10 T. Hoang, R. Castorina, F. Gaspar, R. Maddalena, P. L. Jenkins, Q. Zhang, T. E. Mckone, E. Benfenati, A. Y. Shi, A. Bradman. 2016. VOC exposures in California early childhood education environments. Indoor Air 27 Dai, H.,Jing, S.,Wang, H.,Ma, Y.,Li, L.,Song, W.,Kan, H.. 2017. VOC charac- teristics and inhalation health risks in newly renovated residences in Shanghai, China. Science of the Total Environment 577 Ma, H.,Zhang, H.,Wang, L.,Wang, J.,Chen, J.. 2014. Comprehensive screening and priority ranking of volatile organic compounds in Daliao River, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ------- 3489827 3490937 3545469 3580141 3587944 4140523 4152056 Experimental 28339 3023273 3032678 3540771 3587655 Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Bianchi, E.,Lessing, G.,Brina, K. R.,Angeli, L.,Andriguetti, N. B.,Peruzzo, J. R.,Do Nascimento, C. A.,Spilki, F. R.,Ziulkoski, A. L.,da Silva, L. B.. 2017. Monitoring the Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Potential and the Presence of Pesti- cides and Hydrocarbons in Water of the Sinos River Basin, Southern Brazil. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 72 Tobiszewski, M.,Namiesnik, J.. 2013. Distribution of volatile organohalogen compounds in petrochemical plant water streams. Chemistry and Ecology 29 Amagai, T.,01ansandan,,Matsushita, H.,Ono, M.,Nakai, S.,Tamura, K.,Maeda, K.. 1999. A survey of indoor pollution by volatile organohalogen compounds in Katsushika, Tokyo, Japan. Indoor and Built Environment 8 Lee, W.,Park, S. H.,Kim, J.,Jung, J. Y.. 2015. Occurrence and removal of hazardous chemicals and toxic metals in 27 industrial wastewater treatment plants in Korea. Desalination and Water Treatment 54 Duclos, Y.,Blanchard, M.,Chesterikoif, A.,Chevreuil, M.. 2000. Impact of paris waste upon the chlorinated solvent concentrations of the river Seine (France). Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 117 Helz, G. R.,Hsu, R. Y.. 1978. Volatile chloro- and bromocarbons in coastal waters. Limnology and Oceanography 23 Turoski, V. E.,Woltman, D. L.,Vincent, B. E.. 1983. Determination of organic priority pollutants in the paper industry by GC/MS. Tappi Journal 66 Sack, T. M.,Steele, D. H.,Hammerstrom, K.,Remmers, J.. 1992. A survey of household products for volatile organic compounds. Atmospheric Environment 26 Steinemann, A.. 2015. Volatile emissions from common consumer products. Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health 8 Cheng, W.,Lai, C. H.,Tzeng, W.,Her, C.,Hsu, Y.. 2015. Gaseous Products of Incense Coil Combustion Extracted by Passive Solid Phase Microextraction Samplers. Atmosphere 6 Ursin, C.,Hansen, C. M.,Van Dyk, J. W.,Jensen, P. 0.,Christensen, I. J.,Ebbehoej, J.. 1995. Permeability of commercial solvents through living hu- man skin. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 56 28 29 30 31 32 33 35 37 37 38 39 40 Cheng, W. enHsi,Tsai, D. Y.,Lu, J. iaYu,Lee, J. enWei. 2016. Extracting Emis- sions from Air Fresheners Using Solid Phase Microextraction Devices. Aerosol and Air Quality Research 16 41 ------- 4532343 Experimental 4663242 Experimental 4683360 Experimental 4683366 Experimental Databases Not Unique to a Chemical 1359400 Databases Not Unique to a Chemi- cal 3970047 3970233 3970265 3970848 3981160 4663145 Databases Not Unique to a Chemi- cal Databases Not Unique to a Chemi- cal Databases Not Unique to a Chemi- cal Databases Not Unique to a Chemi- cal Databases Not Unique to a Chemi- cal Databases Not Unique to a Chemi- cal Completed Exposure Assessments 17595 Completed Exposure Assessment 18169 Completed Exposure Assessment 95570 Completed Exposure Assessment C. B. Keil, M. Nicas. 2003. Predicting room vapor concentrations due to spills of organic solvents. AIHA Journal 64 42 Won, D. Yang W.. 2012. Material emission information from: 105 building materials and consumer products. A. T. Hodgson. 2001. Predicted concentrations in new relocatable classrooms of volatile organic compounds emitted from standard and alternate interior finish materials. A. C. Ortiz. 2010. Identifying sources of volatile organic compounds and alde- hydes in a high performance building. Staples, C. A.,Werner, A. F.,Hoogheem, T. J.. 1985. Assessment of priority pollutant concentrations in the United States using STORET database. Envi- ronmental Toxicology and Chemistry 4 U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. STORET: Methylene chloride. Oppt Monitoring Database. 2017. Methylene Chloride. Household Products, Database. 2017. Household products database: Chemical information: Methylene chloride. Oecd Exisiting Chemical Database. 2011. SIDS initial assessment profile: Dichloromethane. Consumer Product Information, Database. 2017. What's in it? methylene chloride. Bartzis, J.. 2018. Prioritization of building materials as indoor pollution sources (BUMA). U.S, E. P. A.. 1985. Health assessment document for dichloromethane (methy- lene chloride): Final report. Page, G. W.. 1981. Comparison of groundwater and surface water for patterns and levels of contamination by toxic substances. Environmental Science and Technology 15 Shah, J. J.,Singh, H. B.. 1988. Distribution of volatile organic chemicals in outdoor and indoor air: a national VOCs data base. Environmental Science and Technology 22 43 44 45 46 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 53 54 55 ------- 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Destaillats, H.,Maddalena, R. L.,Singer, B. C.,Hodgson, A. T.,McKone, T. E.. 2008. Indoor pollutants emitted by office equipment: A review of reported data and information needs. Atmospheric Environment 42 C. J. Weschler. 2009. Changes in indoor pollutants since the 1950s. Atmo- spheric Environment 43 Dawson, H. E.,McAlary, T.. 2009. A compilation of statistics for VOCs from post-1990 indoor air concentration studies in North American residences unaf- fected by subsurface vapor intrusion. Ground Water Monitoring and Remedia- tion 29 U.S, E. P. A.. 2011. Toxicological review of dichloromethane (methylene chlo- ride) (CASRN 75-09-2): In support of summary information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). J. M. Logue, T. E. McKone, M. H. Sherman, B. C. Singer. 2011. Hazard assessment of chemical air contaminants measured in residences. Indoor Air 21 Health, Canada. 1993. Canadian Environmental Protection Act priority sub- stances list assessment report: Dichloromethane. Long, G.,Meek, M. E.,Caldwell, I.,Bartlett, S.,Savard, S.. 1994. Dichloromethane - evaluation of risks to health from environmental exposure in Canada. Journal of environmental Science and Health, Part C: Environmen- tal Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews 12 De Rooij, C.,Thompson, R. S.,Garny, V.,Lecloux, A.,van Wijk, D.. 2004. Dichloromethane marine risk assessment with special reference to the OSPAR- COM region: North Sea. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 97 Usepa, O. O. W.. 2009. Contaminant occurrence support document for category 1 contaminants for the second six-year review of national primary drinking water regulations. U.S, E. P. A.. 2011. Background indoor air concentrations of volatile organic compounds in North American residences (1990-2005): A compilation of statis- tics for assessment vapor intrusion. Iarc,. 2016. Dichloromethane. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Car- cinogenic Risks to Humans 110 Iarc,. 2016. ARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to hu- mans: Dichloromethane. 110 European Chlorinated Solvents, Association. 1999. Euro chlor risk assessment for the marine environment, OSPARCOM region - Norht sea: Dichloromethane. Oehha,. 2000. Public health goals for chemicals in drinking water dichloromethane (methylene chloride, DCM). ------- 3982330 3982337 4152304 Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment Completed Exposure Assessment 4663189 Survey 1005969 1065590 Completed Exposure Assessment Survey Survey Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Dichloromethane. 70 Atsdr,. 2000. Toxicological profile for methylene chloride. 71 Herbert, P.,Charbonnier, P.,Rivolta, L.,Servais, M.,Van Mensch, F.,Campbell, 72 I.. 1986. The occurrence of chlorinated solvents in the environment. Prepared by a workshop of the European Chemical Industry Federation (CEFIC). Chem- istry and Industry 24 Delmaar, J. E.. 2010. Emission of chemical substances from solid matrices: a 73 method for consumer exposure assessment. 74 U.S, E. P. A.. 1987. Household solvent products: A national usage survey. 74 Abt. 1992. Methylene chloride consumer use study survey findings. 75 ------- Refer to Appendix E of ' Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations' at https://www.epa.gov for more information of evaluation procedures and parameters. ------- Study Citation: Chan, C. C.,Vainer, L.,Martin, J. W.,Williams, D. T.. 1990. Determination of organic contaminants in residential indoor air using an adsorption-thermal desorption technique. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 27974 Domain Metric Ratingt Score ('< niirncril s: Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology Medium Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Metric 3: Biomarker Selection Medium N/A N/A Sampling methodology discussed. At each of 12 homes the fol- lowing samples were collected in November or December 1986: four indoor air samples, of varying volumes, using single sor- bent tube and one indoor air sample using two sorbent tubes connected in series. Repeat samplings were carried out at six of these homes in February or March, 1987. The indoor air samples were collected on the main floor of the home, usually in the living or family room, where no obvious sources of con- tamination were present. Indoor air samples were collected at the same time, usually in the evening or late afternoon where a uniform 90-minute sampling time was used and pump flow rates were adjusted to sample the required volume of air. Air volumes sampled varied from 5 to 50 L. After sample collec- tion the sorbent tubes were sealed in individual screw cap glass tubes and then stored in a tightly sealed container until ana- lyzed. Analytical methodology discussed. Samples were analyzed us- ing adsorption/Thermal Desorption coupled with Gas Chro- matography/Mass Spectrometry (ATD/GS/MS). Method De- tection Limit (ng/tube) provided in Table I; 6.0 ng/tube for DCM, TCE and PERC. Analysis was carried out within two days of sampling. Biomarker is not used. Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Geographic Area High Temporality Low Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 1 Canada 3 >15 years (1986,, 1987) 2 large sample (60 indoor air samples collected 1986: 4 samples using single sorbent tube and 1 sample using two sorbent tubes connected in a series and 12 homes, so 5x12=60 and 30 indoor air samples collected 1987 at 6 homes: 5x6=30). 2 Some discussion of exposure scenario, samples collected on main floor of the home usually in living room or family room where no source of contamination was present. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Continued on next page ------- continued from previous page Study Citation: Chan, C. C.,Vainer, L.,Martin, J. W.,Williams, D. T.. 1990. Determination of organic contaminants in residential indoor air using an adsorption-thermal desorption technique. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 27974 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium Medium 2 2 No supplemental or raw data. Tables II and III report indoor air concentrations (range and mean) for 12 homes during 1986 and 6 homes during 1987, respectively. A blank sorbent tube was carried to and from each home and handled and analyzed as a sample, except that no air was sam- pled through the tube. Each week, three tubes fortified at a low level (approx 70-80 ng) and three tubes fortified at a medium level (approx 700- 800 ng) with a standard mixture of target compounds, together with a blank tube, were transported to and from one sampling site and analyzed by ATD/GC/MS. To assess the stability of the organic target compounds dur- ing storage of the sampling tube, triplicate sorbent tubes for- tified with the target compounds at low and medium levels (approx 70-80 and 700-800 ng, respectively), together with a blank tube, were stored for 0,1,3 and 7 days under normal stor- age conditions and then analyzed by ATD/GC/MS. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Since concentrations of contaminants can vary greatly, effec- tive use of the technique requires that several air samples of different volumes be collected at each location. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Ferrario, J. B.,Lawler, G. C.,Deleon, I. R.,Laseter, J. L.. 1985. Volatile organic pollutants in biota and sediments of Lake Pontchartrain. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 28993 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology Medium 2 Detailed methods. Samples packed on ice and then frozen until analysis. No length of storage provided. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Medium 2 Analysis using National Bureau of Standards procedure, but modified. Older method (1976). Three recovery internal stan- dards added. GC/MS. Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Metric 5: Metric 6: Metric 7: Geographic Area High 1 Temporality Low 3 Spatial and Temporal Variability Low 3 Exposure Scenario Medium 2 1980 Either 5 individual or 1 composite sample per biota type Media and chemical of interest, and in US, however, it is an older study so may not reflect current conditions, Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium 2 No raw data. Only mean provided if 5 samples collected. Medium 2 Blanks and calibration standards used, in addition internal standards, however results not reported. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Not dicsussed Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.2 Extracted No ^ High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Singh, H. B.,Salas, L. J.,Stiles, R. E.. 1983. Selected man-made halogenated chemicals in the air and oceanic environment. Journal of Geophysical Research. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 29192 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology High 1 Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Low 3 sampling method, equipments are discribed. But there is time lag(3 - 6weeks) between sampling and analysis, experimental protocol is provided in another reference(singh 1982). Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5: Temporality Low 3 >15 yrs old Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium 2 Sufficient sample size(About 40). These samples are collected in various dates, sites, and depth. But no replicate samples. Metric 7: Exposure Scenario High 1 Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Medium 2 Dataset is well summarized. But no raw data is showed(just average value). The meaning of hyphen is not explained. Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium 2 QA is described a bit like calibration, standards though, dis- cussion is quite limited. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Comparison of measured values and predicted values is de- scribed though, limited discussion. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Ryan, T. J.,Hart, E. M.,Kappler, L. L.. 2002. VOC exposures in a mixed-use university art building. AIHA Journal. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 49414 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Metric 3: Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A Gave sampling details. Samples refrigerated and analyzed within 2 weeks. Methods well described, but info such as calibration, blanks, and recoveries were not provided. N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Metric 7 Geographic Area High 1 Temporality Low 3 Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1 Exposure Scenario High 1 >15 yrs 18 to 90 samples personal monitoring in printing studio at university (relevant to high-end hobbyist) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium 2 No raw data. Missing the range, but has average, median and AD. Low 3 Used the Qedit function for accuracy and precision, but was not described. Blanks not discussed. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Discussion different locations of building, compared to other studies, provided SD. Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.7 Extracted Yes r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Otson, R.,Doyle, E. E.,Williams, D. T.,Bothwell, P. D.. 1983. Survey of selected organics in office air. Bulletin of Environ- mental Contamination and Toxicology. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 75004 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Metric 3: Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection Medium 2 Adequately discussed sampling methodology; date and dura- tion of sampling given; more description of offices needed Medium 2 Adequately discussed analytical methodology; gas chromatog- raphy N/A N/A Biomarker is not used Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Geographic Area High Temporality Low Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 1 Canada, Ottawa offices 3 >15 years (1982) 2 The air quality in Ottawa offices was monitored over a 6 to 8 h period during business hours in February, 1982. A variety of businesses and buildings were selected and described. One area and two personal exposure measurements were made by means of dosimeters in each of 30 offices. Also, Pro-Tek badge measurements were obtained side-by-side with the dosimeters in 7 offices. Blank measurements (unexposed element) were obtained for dosimeters at 7 offices and for badges at one office. 2 Scenario of interest - indoor air Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium 2 Mean concentrations from three determinations (devices) re- ported in Table II. Supplemental or raw data not reported. Low 3 Minimal discussion; Blank measurements (unexposed element) were obtained for dosimeters at 7 offices and for badges at one office. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Since the sparse data (TABLE III) generally included values near the detection limits, statistical comparison (HICKEY & BISHOP 1981) of the survey results was not considered mean- ingful. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.2 Continued on next page ------- continued from previous page Study Citation: Otson, R.,Doyle, E. E.,Williams, D. T.,Bothwell, P. D.. 1983. Survey of selected organics in office air. Bulletin of Environ- mental Contamination and Toxicology. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 75004 Domain Metric Rating"!" Score Comments^ Extracted Yes r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. oo ------- Study Citation: Lindstrom, A. B.,Proffitt, D.,Fortune, C. R.. 1995. Effects of modified residential construction on indoor air quality. Indoor Air. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 78782 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology Medium 2 tenax, stated followed epa guidelines. Described sampled homes. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Low 3 HPLC and provided MDLs, but did not describe the HPLC. Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5: Temporality Low 3 >15 yrs Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium 2 10 homes Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 testing conditions well described (housing characteristics). Only one geographic location. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Low 3 only geometric means provided. No SD, range. Metric 9: Quality Assurance Low 3 QA/QC can be implied. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 No SD or CV. described differences between conventional and experimental homes, no discussion of uncertainty. Overall Quality Determination Low 2.3 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Adgate, J. L.,Church, T. R.,Ryan, A. D.,Ramachandran, G.,Predrickson, A. L.,Stock, T. H.,Morandi, M. T.,Sexton, K.. 2004. Outdoor, indoor, and personal exposure to VOCs in children. Environmental Health Perspectives. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 632310 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology Medium 2 storage conditions and durations not provided Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Low 3 Did not actually provide the detection limit, although the did discuss how they handled LOD values. Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5: Temporality Low 3 > 15 years old Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1 Metric 7: Exposure Scenario High 1 Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results High 1 Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium 2 no recoveries Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 No CV Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.8 Extracted Yes r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Yamamoto, K.,Fukushima, M.,Kakutani, N.,Kuroda, K.. 1997. Volatile organic compounds in urban rivers and their estuaries in Osaka, Japan. Environmental Pollution. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 645789 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology Medium 2 Sampling method discussed, but does not indicate if it is a standard method. Samples stored refrigerated until analysis. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology High 1 GC/MS. EPA Method 524.2 Mean accuracy, the precision & method detection limits Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5: Temporality Low 3 >20 years (1993-1995) Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1 Large sample size; 30 water samples collected from 30 sites; sampled different months & years Metric 7: Exposure Scenario High 1 Site description and sampling sites provided Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Low 3 No supplemental or raw data reported; levels are reported in Figure 1 Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium 2 Mean accuracy, precision and method detection limits cited. No control samples? Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Discussion on reasons for distribution patterns of DCM. TCE and PERC have similar distribution patterns. Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.8 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Guo, H.,Lee, S. C.,Chan, L. Y.,Li, W. M.. 2004. Risk assessment of exposure to volatile organic compounds in different indoor environments. Environmental Research. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 758690 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain f: Reliability Metric f: Sampling Methodology Low 3 provided only minimal information on sampling methodology, with no reference to further supplemental information Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Unacceptable 4 The analytical method used was not mentioned (neither equip- ment or method number). Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High f Metric 5: Temporality Low 3 Prior to 2002. Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability Low 3 4 samples Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 Indoor air in a residence, but not scenario specific Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results High f Metric 9: Quality Assurance Low 3 quality control not discussed. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric f 0: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 The uncertainty section discusses definitions of uncertainty and generic examples of variation and uncertainty in risk assess- ment. Only the final paragraph mentions the study itself, and then without any statistical analysis of the study data. Overall Quality Determination Unacceptable 4.0 Metric mean score**: 2.6. Extracted No ^ Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk 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 were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency, t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Chao, C. Y.,Chan, G. Y.. 2001. Quantification of indoor VOCs in twenty mechanically ventilated buildings in Hong Kong. Atmospheric Environment. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 824555 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A 1 2 N/A no recoveries, EPA method Domain 2: Representativen Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Metric 7 ess Geographic Area Temporality Spatial and Temporal Variability Exposure Scenario High Low Medium Medium 1 3 2 2 >15 yrs 10 samples, 4 hr samples foreign country, not directly linked to consumer products Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium Low 2 3 No raw data Didn't discuss QC, but used standard methods Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 SD provided, compared results between locations Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: X. M. Wu, M. G. Apte, R. Maddalena, D. H. Bennett. 2011. Volatile organic compounds in small- and medium-sized commercial buildings in California. Environmental Science and Technology. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 1062239 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology High 1 Metric 2: Analytical Methodology High 1 EPA method TO-17; GC-MSConcentrations below MDL were replaced with 1/2 MDL, while for samples between the MDL and the analytical limit of quantification (LOQ), determined as 10 times the standard deviation of low-level spikes, were reported as the value determined in the laboratory. Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Biomarker is not used. Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5: Temporality Medium 2 >5yrs old (2011 pub) Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1 Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 indoor air study, but not cosumer products. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Medium 2 the result of concentration for each chemicals is summarized. But no raw data. Metric 9: Quality Assurance High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 discussion of variability is limited. Overall Quality Determination High 1.4 Extracted Yes ^ High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Dodson, R. E.,Levy, J. I.,Spengler, J. D.,Shine, J. P.,Bennett, D. H.. 2008. Influence of basements, garages, and common hallways on indoor residential volatile organic compound concentrations. Atmospheric Environment. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 1065844 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Metric 3: Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection Medium High N/A Storage conditions and calibration not discussed, but did use a published method. BEAM study. Standard TO 17 method was used. N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5: Temporality Medium 2 summer 2004 and winter2005 Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1 Large sample size. Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 Indoor air, but not tied to a specific consumer product. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Medium 2 No raw data. Mean and SD in the main report. Other stats may be in supplemental. Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium 2 Average recovery of 65 percent. Additional info in supp mate- Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Overall Quality Determination High 1.6 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: S. N. Sax, D. H. Bennett, S. N. Chillrud, P. L. Kinney, J. D. Spengler. 2004. Differences in source emission rates of vofatife organic compounds in inner-city residences of New York City and Los Angeles. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 1066049 Domain Metric Rating"!" Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 3: Sampling Methodology Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High High N/A N/A The sampling and analytical methods are described in US EPA"s Compendium Method TO-17. Sampling methodology discussed. See Study Design. The sampling and analytical methods are described in US EPA"s Compendium Method TO-17. GC-MSD. LODs re- ported. Biomarker is not used. Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area Metric 5: Temporality High Low Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 1 NYC , NY (Harlem) and Los Angeles, CA (South Central, LA) 3 >15 years ( NYC: winterand summer 1999 and Los Angeles: fall and winter 2000) 1 large sample size (36 samples); duplicate samples 2 Measurements were conducted in about 40 homes in each of the two cities across two seasons. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium 2 No supplemental or raw data. Summary stats for indoor air provided in Table 3. Medium 2 Field and laboratory blanks were collected, with each totaling at least 10 percent of the number of samples. Field blanks were transported and handled like regular samples, but were not attached to pumps . Field blanks were used to determine background contamination and for calculation of method limits of detection (LODs). Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Continued on next page ------- continued from previous page Study Citation: S. N. Sax, D. H. Bennett, S. N. Chillrud, P. L. Kinney, J. D. Spengler. 2004. Differences in source emission rates of vofatife organic compounds in inner-city residences of New York City and Los Angeles. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 1066049 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Indoor" outdoor relationships as well as SERs were calculated for each home and sources of variability in the data were ex- amined. Between homes, variability may be due to differences in housing characteristics, building materials, use and storage of household products, and AERs. Between cities, variability can be associated with differences in ambient emission sources and meteorological patterns. Also, seasonal variability within each city can be due to different meteorological patterns in dif- ferent seasons, which in turn affect AER, environmental chem- istry, emission rates, and environmental dispersion rates. By determining the variability in both indoor"outdoor relation- ships and SERs, we can gain a better understanding of indoor contributions to human exposures. The degree of uncertainty associated with measurement error was also calculated for the estimated emission rates and this uncertainty was compared to the inherent variability. We discuss the implication of this uncertainty on predicting emission rates of VOCs in homes. Overall Quality Determination High 1.6 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: van de Meent, D.,Den Hollander, H. A.,Pool, W. G.,Vredenbregt, M. J.,van Oers, H. A. M.,de Greef, E.,Luijten, J. a. 1986. Organic micropollutants in Dutch coastal waters. Water Science and Technology. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 1441544 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection Medium Unacceptable N/A 2 4 N/A calibration, storage conditions are missed. The analytical method for PERC and TCE is not provided. Domain 2: Representativen Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Metric 7 ess Geographic Area Temporality Spatial and Temporal Variability Exposure Scenario High Low High Medium 1 3 1 2 1986, >15 yrs old study of Dutch coastal water, not US. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium Low 2 3 no raw data, detection frequency not reported. QA/QC is not discussed. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 uncertainty is few discussed. Overall Quality Determination Unacceptable 4.0 Metric mean score**: 2.2. Extracted No ^ Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk 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 were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency, t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Lee, S. C.,Li, W. M.,Chan, L. Y.. 2001. Indoor air quality at restaurants with different styles of cooking in metropolitan Hong Kong. Science of the Total Environment. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 1642248 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A 1 2 N/A GC/MS; MDL; no recovery samples indoor air samples Domain 2: Representativen Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Metric 7 ess Geographic Area Temporality Spatial and Temporal Variability Exposure Scenario High Low Low Medium 1 3 3 2 Hong Kong location, may not be as relevant Received 2000 (>15 yrs) total of 16 samples at 4 restaurants; duplicate samples Doesn't tie back to any identified use, but implies act of cook- ing is releasing chemical. Not clear where the DCM is coming from. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium Low 2 3 No raw data reported. QA/QC methods are not described, but implied Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Uncertainties not identified. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.2 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. £ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Chan, C.,Lee, S. C.,Chan, W.,Ho, K.,Tian, L.,Lai, S.,Li, Y.,Huang, Y. u. 2011. Characterisation of Volatile Organic Com- pounds at Hotels in Southern China. Indoor and Built Environment. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 1978790 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A 1 2 N/A Analytical methodology is described and discussed, indoor air samples Domain 2: Representativen Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Metric 7 ess Geographic Area Temporality Spatial and Temporal Variability Exposure Scenario High Medium High Medium 1 2 1 2 >10 yrs indoor air samples Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium High 2 1 Results reported in summary/chart form, not raw data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 No variability or discussion on uncertainties. Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.7 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Chin, J. Y.,Godwin, C.,Parker, E.,Robins, T.,Lewis, T.,Harbin, P.,Batterman, S.. 2014. Levels and sources of volatile organic compounds in homes of children with asthma. Indoor Air. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 2443355 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High High N/A 1 1 N/A Domain 2: Representativen Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Metric 7 ess Geographic Area Temporality Spatial and Temporal Variability Exposure Scenario High Medium High High 1 2 1 1 2010 7 day samples, large sample size Source identification using factor analysis Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium High 2 1 No raw data Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Overall Quality Determination High 1.2 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Abtahi, M.,Naddafi, K.,Mesdaghinia, A.,Yaghmaeian, K.,Nabizadeh, R.,Jaafarzadeh, N.,Rastkari, N.,Saeedi, R.,Nazmara, S.. 2013. Dichloromethane emissions from automotive manufacturing industry in Iran: Case study of the SAIPA automotive manufacturing company. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 2667557 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology Low 3 Brief discussion. No performance/calibration or study site characteristics described. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Low 3 GC/FID; LOD not reported but can be derived from the graph?; no details on calibration or recovery samples Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A wastewater effluent samples Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area Metric 5: Temporality Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability Metric 7: Exposure Scenario High Medium Medium Medium 1 2 2 2 >5 years 15 samples; no replicates mentioned no mention of controls Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Low Low 3 3 wastewater effluent was reported as ND QA/QC methods are not described, but implied Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Variability is n/a; Uncertainties not identified. Overall Quality Determination Low 2.4 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Christof, 0.,Seifert, R.,Michaelis, W.. 2002. Volatile halogenated organic compounds in European estuaries. Biogeochemistry. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3242836 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology High 1 niskan sampler, glass bottles, stored cool and dark, until purg- ing, purged with 12 hours. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Medium 2 purge and trap with gc-ms. Detailed operating conditions pro- vided.. No authoritative method used. Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5: Temporality Low 3 1997-1999 Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1 14-15 samples per data set Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 surface water, but not US. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Medium 2 Only range. No mean, median, sd. Metric 9: Quality Assurance High 1 Duplicate sample analysis in general. Purge efficiency = 90-93 percent Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Mentioned that other studies said water traps can cause GC problems, but they said that diverse tests showed that their water traps worked. Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.7 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Duan, H.,Liu, X.,Yan, M.,Wu, Y.,Liu, Z.. 2016. Characteristics of carbonyls and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in residences in Beijing, China. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3449449 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Metric 3: Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A Detailed sampling info provided including storage duration, Detailed info provided. Only range of LOD for all VOCs pro- vided. Internal standards used. N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Metric 5: Metric 6: Metric 7: Geographic Area High 1 Temporality Medium 2 Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1 Exposure Scenario Medium 2 China 6 yrs 100 samples. 24 hr sample. sources of exposure not defined. For DCM, do provide some possible sources including painting and aerosol propellant. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium 2 Medium 2 No range or Frequency of detection. Provides average and median for VOCs. /- SD Calibration discussed, tioned. No field recoveries or controls men- Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Minimal discussion of DCM variability, some discussion of con- ditions of highest concentrations and some uncertainty sur- round interaction between influence of outdoor concentrations on indoor air concentrations. Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.7 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: T. Hoang, R. Castorina, F. Caspar, R. Maddalena, P. L. Jenkins, Q. Zhang, T. E. Mckone, E. Benfenati, A. Y. Shi, A. Bradman. 2016. VOC exposures in California early childhood education environments. Indoor Air. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3453092 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology Medium 2 Sampling methodology discussed though, calibration of sam- pler for indoor air is not described. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology High 1 Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Biomarker is not used. Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5: Temporality Medium 2 >5 to 15 yrs old Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1 Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 lack of the information of emission source Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Medium 2 the summary of results are well described. But no raw data. Metric 9: Quality Assurance High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 uncertainty for sampling is discussed simply. Overall Quality Determination High 1.6 Extracted Yes f High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ŠI" The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Dai, H.,Jing, S.,Wang, H.,Ma, Y.,Li, L.,Song, W.,Kan, H.. 2017. VOC characteristics and inhalation health risks in newly renovated residences in Shanghai, China. Science of the Total Environment. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3453725 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Metric 3: Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A Analytical methodology is described and discussed; MDL for DCM not listed. N/A indoor air samples Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Metric 5: Metric 6: Geographic Area High 1 Temporality High 1 Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium 2 Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 8 residences; three sampling sites at each residence: living room, bedoom, and study. No mention of replicate sampling. Indoor air samples; not specifically associated with a consumer product Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium Low Results reported in summary/chart form, not raw data. How- ever, raw data may be provided in Supplementary Info. QA is implied. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.7 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Ma, H.,Zhang, H.,Wang, L.,Wang, J.,Chen, J.. 2014. Comprehensive screening and priority ranking of volatile organic compounds in Daliao River, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3488897 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology High 1 Sampling methods and storage are described. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Medium 2 Analytical methods and instrumentation are given. Detection limits mentioned, but calibration not described. Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A No biomarker Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area Metric 5: Temporality Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability Metric 7: Exposure Scenario High Medium High High 1 2 1 1 Map with sampling locations along Daliao River (China) Samples collected in 2011 (5-15 years ago) Duplicate and triplicate samples taken from 20 locations. Surface water concentration for VOCs including PERC Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium High 2 1 Summary results only. Quality assurance described in sampling/analytical procedures Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Variability assessed with replicate samples Overall Quality Determination High 1.4 Extracted Yes r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Bianchi, E.,Lessing, G.,Brina, K. R.,Angeli, L.,Andriguetti, N. B.,Peruzzo, J. R.,Do Nascimento, C. A.,Spilki, F. R.,Ziulkoski, A. L.,da Silva, L. B.. 2017. Monitoring the Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Potential and the Presence of Pesticides and Hydrocarbons in Water of the Sinos River Basin, Southern Brazil. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3489827 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High High N/A 1 1 N/A sw samples Domain 2: Representativen Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Metric 7 ess Geographic Area Temporality Spatial and Temporal Variability Exposure Scenario High Medium Medium Medium 1 2 2 2 >5 yrs. " 60 samples during 9 collections" no mention of replicate sam- pling. sw samples, not in the US. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium Low 2 3 Raw data not provided; summary of PERC and DCM concen- tration data on page 325 (Table 1). QA is implied. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Study provided some discussion on uncertainties; no variabil- ity. Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.8 Extracted Yes r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Tobiszewski, M.,Namiesnik, J.. 2013. Distribution of volatile organohalogen compounds in petrochemical plant water streams. Chemistry and Ecology. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3490937 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A 1 2 N/A GC/ECD; LOD/LOQs?; no recovery samples Domain 2: Representativen Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Metric 7 ess Geographic Area Temporality Spatial and Temporal Variability Exposure Scenario Unacceptable Medium High High 4 2 1 1 petrochemical plant 2010 (>5 years) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Low Low 3 3 Missing many parameters. QA/QC methods are not described, but implied Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 No discussion on variability or limitations. Overall Quality Determination Unacceptable 4.0 Metric mean score**: 2.2. Extracted No ^ Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk 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 were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency, t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Amagai, T.,01ansandan,,Matsushita, H.,Ono, M.,Nakai, S.,Tamura, K.,Maeda, K.. 1999. A survey of indoor pollution by volatile organohalogen compounds in Katsushika, Tokyo, Japan. Indoor and Built Environment. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3545469 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Low N/A 1 3 N/A calibration, flow rates LOQ not reported. No biomonitoring. Domain 2: Representativen Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Metric 7 ess Geographic Area Temporality Spatial and Temporal Variability Exposure Scenario High Low High Medium 1 3 1 2 > 15 yrs ago >50 samples Indoor air, but no direct link to consumer product. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium Medium 2 2 No raw data. Used field blanks. Recoveries not mentioned. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.8 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Lee, W.,Park, S. H.,Kim, J.,Jung, J. Y.. 2015. Occurrence and removal of hazardous chemicals and toxic metals in 27 industrial wastewater treatment plants in Korea. Desalination and Water Treatment. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3580141 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology Low 3 No discussion , but assumed to be in the standard analytical method used. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology High 1 Purge and trap with GC. Standard Korean method. Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5: Temporality High 1 Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1 27 facilities Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 waste water effluent, but not in the US Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Low 3 No raw data, no SD. No detection frequency. Metric 9: Quality Assurance Low 3 No discussion, but assumed because used standard Korean method. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 No SD Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Duclos, Y.,Blanchard, M.,Chesterikoff, A.,Chevreuil, M.. 2000. Impact of paris waste upon the chlorinated solvent concentra- tions of the river Seine (France). Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 3587944 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Sampling Methodology Medium 2 Sampling methodology is described and discussed. Metric 2 Analytical Methodology Medium 2 Analytical methodology is described and discussed. Metric 3 Biomarker Selection N/A N/A sw samples Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4 Geographic Area High 1 Metric 5 Temporality Low 3 >15 yrs Metric 6 Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium 2 3 sampling sessions; 14 stations Metric 7 Exposure Scenario Medium 2 sw samples collected, but not in the US. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Medium 2 Data seems to be raw data. Metric 9 Quality Assurance Low 3 QA is implied. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Limited discussion on uncertainty; no variability. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.1 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Helz, G. R.,Hsu, R. Y.. 1978. Volatile chloro- and bromocarbons in coastal waters. Limnology and Oceanography. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 4140523 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology co co Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Metric 3: Biomarker Selection Medium Medium N/A N/A Sampling methodology discussed. To obtain data on the char- acter of volatile halocarbons in waste discharges, we collected a series of samples from Back River, Maryland (Fig. IB). This is a shallow, 12 km long tributary estuary to the Chesapeake Bay, with a salinity range of about 04 g* kg-1. Its mean depth is about 1 m and it is well mixed vertically. Near its upper end, Back River receives 1.5- 1.9 x lo8 liter, d-r of wastewa- ter from Baltimore"s main sewage treatment plant; the waste discharges often exceed the freshwater flow from the water- shed by a factor of two (Helz et al. 1975). The plant provides 100 percent secondary treatment, mostly by the trickling fil- ter process, to wastes of both domestic and commercial origin. The effluent is chlorinated before discharge. The first series of samples from Back River (No. 8-12) was collected in early February 1977, after northern Chesapeake Bay had been cov- ered with ice for more than a month. The only uncovered area was a 0.2-km-diameter patch of water immediately above the underwater diffusers at the discharge point in midriver. The second set of samples (No. 13-23) was collected in early May 1977, well after the spring thaw. Analytical methodology discussed. GC equipped with a Hall electrolytic conductivity detector (TRACOR). In early stages of the work, some identifications were checked by mass spec- trometry, but the high selectivity of the method for only volatile chloro- and bromocarbons minimizes the danger of misidentification when only GC retention time is used. Limit of detection not specified. Biomarker not used. Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Maryland (Back River estuary) Metric 5: Temporality Low 3 >15 years (February and May 1977) Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability Low 3 The first series of samples from Back River (No. 8-12; 5 samples) was collected in early February 1977, after northern Chesapeake Bay had been covered with ice for more than a month. The second set of samples (No. 13-23; 11 samples) was collected in early May 1977, well after the spring thaw (open water). Continued on next page ------- continued from previous page Study Citation: Helz, G. R.,Hsu, R. Y.. 1978. Volatile chloro- Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 4140523 and bromocarbons in coastal waters. Limnology and Oceanography. Domain Metric Ratingt Score Comments^ Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 Back River: This is a shallow, 12 km long tributary estuary to the Chesapeake Bay, with a salinity range of about 04 g* kg-1. Its mean depth is aboutl m and it is well mixed verti- cally Near its upper end, Back River receives 1.5-1.9 x lo8 liter, d-r of wastewater from Baltimore"s main sewage treat- ment plant; the waste discharges often exceed the freshwater flow from the watershed by a factor of two (Helz et al. 1975). The plant provides 100 percent secondary treatment, mostly by the trickling filter process, to wastes of both domestic and commercial origin. The effluent is chlorinated before discharge. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium Low 2 3 No supplemental or raw data. Table 3 lists DCM, TCE, and PERC concentrations in NM for Back River samples collected in February 1977 (ice cover) and May 1977 (open water). Some values are ND, but LOD is not reported. QA/QC procedures not directly discussed. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Some discussion of variability due to sampling times, February (ice cover) and May (open water), and concentration decrease seaward due to tidal mixing of the effluent. Some uncertainty regarding the factors causing volatization and its influence on May samples. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.2 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Turoski, V. E.,Woltman, D. L.,Vincent, B. E.. 1983. Determination of organic priority pollutants in the paper industry by GC/MS. Tappi Journal. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 4152056 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: co Cn Metric 3: Sampling Methodology Medium 2 Analytical Methodology Medium 2 Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Sampling methodology discussed. The program, involving 5 different facilities throughout the United States and Canada, examined both influent and effluent streams. Both 24-hr com- posite and 40-ml grab samples were obtained in glass containers at the mill sites, packed in ice, and shipped by air to our Re- search Center in Wisconsin. After unpacking, each container was refrigerated at 4"C until analysis. Preservatives were not added to the sample at any time. Analytical methodology discussed. Two different I -liter aliquots of the 24-hr composite samples were extracted with methylene chloride. One aliquot was used to monitor for base/ neutral compounds and the other to monitor for acid/PCB/ pesticide compounds. The aliquots were adjusted either to pH 12 with 5 percent NaOH for base/neutral extractions or to pH 3 with 5 percent HC1 for acid/PCB/pesticide extractions. They were quantitatively transferred to a 2-liter separatory funnel and extracted three times (250, 100, 100 ml) with methylene chloride. The combined extracts were concentrated to 1 ml in Kuderna-Danish evaporators prior to analysis. Limit of detec- tion for most chemicals was 10 ppb. Biomarker is not used. Domain 2: Representativeness Metric 4: Geographic Area High Metric 5: Temporality Low 3 Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability Low 3 Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium United States and Canada, but exact locations are not pro- vided. >15 years (1982 pub date) Both 24-hr composite and 40-ml grab samples were obtained in glass containers at the mill sites. The program, involving 5 dif- ferent facilities throughout the United States and Canada, ex- amined both influent and effluent streams. The facilities stud- ied included paper mills, lignin chemical plants, and drinking facilities. The program, involving 5 different facilities throughout the United States and Canada, examined both influent and efflu- ent streams. The facilities studied included paper mills, lignin chemical plants, and drinking facilities. Continued on next page ------- continued from previous page Study Citation: Turoski, V. E.,Woltman, D. L.,Vincent, B. E.. 1983. Determination of organic priority pollutants in the paper industry by GC/MS. Tappi Journal. Data Type Monitoring Hero ID 4152056 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 8: Reporting of Results Metric 9: Quality Assurance Medium Medium 2 2 No supplemental or raw data. Compounds identified in influent and effluent of each mill is listed in Table I. in ppb. The efficiency of each extraction was monitored by adding a recovery indicator compound at 100 ppb to each I-liter aliquot. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Methylene chloride was found in both influent and effluent purgeable volatile organic samples at low ppb levels. They are not solely assignable to the pulping and papermaking pro- cess since the same levels were present in the influent as well as the effluent. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.1 Extracted No r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ŠI" The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Sack, T. M.,Steele, D. H.,Hammerstrom, K.,Remmers, J.. 1992. A survey of household products for volatile organic com- pounds. Atmospheric Environment. Data Type Experimental Hero ID 28339 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions High 1 Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Low 3 detection limits, recovery samples are not discribed. Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representative Metric 4: Testing Scenario Medium 2 exposure control is not discussed. Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability Medium 2 number of products per category varied. Replicates tests for some products, but not all. Metric 6: Temporality Low 3 >15 yrs old Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 7: Reporting of Results Metric 8: Quality Assurance Medium N/A 2 no raw data. Only average is reported. N/A Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 uncertainties, limitations are not discussed. Overall Quality Determination Low 2.3 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Steinemann, A.. 2015. Volatile emissions from common consumer products. Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health. Data Type Experimental Hero ID 3023273 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments' Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Metric 3: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A 1 2 N/A Products were selected that are commonly used in the USA. Analyzed headspace using standard EPA method. Analyzed using headspace GC/MS, following US EPA Com- pendium Method TO-15. Did not provide details, such as cal- ibration, lab recoveries, blanks, etc. Domain 2: Representative Metric 4: Metric 5: Metric 6: Testing Scenario Sample Size and Variability Temporality Medium Medium High 2 2 1 Products are generally representative. Multiple conditions not applicable to headspace. 37 products, representing four types and four categories. No replicate analysis of each product. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 7: Reporting of Results Metric 8: Quality Assurance Medium N/A 2 N/A No raw data. Concentrations in each product in the supple- mentary material. No summary of concentrations across prod- uct types. Followed standard analytical method, so assumed QA con- ducted, but no details provided. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 Discussed differences between products. Small limitation sec- tion. Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.7 Extracted No 1 High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Cheng, W.,Lai, C. H.,Tzeng, W.,Her, C.,Hsu, Y.. 2015. Gaseous Products of Incense Coil Combustion Extracted by Passive Solid Phase Microextraction Samplers. Atmosphere. Data Type Experimental Hero ID 3032678 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology and Conditions Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection Medium Medium N/A 2 2 N/A Sampling methodology is described and discussed. Analytical methodology is described and discussed. Domain 2: Representative Metric 4 Testing Scenario Low 3 Done within a testing chamber. Metric 5 Sample Size and Variability Low 3 Sampling size is unclear; could be 4 and 5 separate sets Metric 6 Temporality High 1 Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 7: Reporting of Results Metric 8: Quality Assurance Low N/A 3 N/A Summary statistics provided. Precision measurements. No specific discussion of quality as- surance/ control Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 No specific discussions of variability/uncertainty Overall Quality Determination Low 2.4 Extracted No f High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. t The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Ursin, C.,Hansen, C. M.,Van Dyk, J. W.,Jensen, P. 0.,Christensen, I. J.,Ebbehoej, J.. 1995. Permeability of commercial solvents through living human skin. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal. Data Type Experimental Hero ID 3540771 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology and Conditions Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Low N/A 1 3 N/A No standard method mentioned, but sampling well described. GC method; no details provided. Domain 2: Representative Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Testing Scenario Sample Size and Variability Temporality Medium Low High 2 3 1 permeability of the solvent, not a consumer product, appears to be <5 samples 1995 study, but temporality is not key to a lab study. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 7: Reporting of Results Metric 8: Quality Assurance Medium N/A 2 N/A No raw data limited discussion Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 The study has limited discussion of key uncertainties and lim- itations. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted No r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Cheng, W. enHsi,Tsai, D. Y. ,Lu, J. iaYu,Lee, J. en Wei. 2016. Extracting Emissions from Air Fresheners Using Solid Phase Microextraction Devices. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. Data Type Experimental Hero ID 3587655 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Medium 2 new sampling method; qualification tests conducted on the samplers used. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Medium 2 Missing some details, method SOP not reported. Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A Domain 2: Representative Metric 4: Testing Scenario Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability Metric 6: Temporality Low Low High 3 3 1 One test condition. No detailed description of product. No replicate. Single samples of three products, current (2016; publication date) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 7: Reporting of Results Metric 8: Quality Assurance Medium Low 2 3 No raw data. No summary across fresheners, although not as applicable. Minimal QC. RSD (flow rates) in supp files. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 some discussion of variability between emissions. Overall Quality Determination Low 2.3 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: C. B. Keil, M. Nicas. 2003. Predicting room vapor concentrations due to spills of organic solvents. AIHA Journal. Data Type Experimental Hero ID 4532343 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments' Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Metric 3: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A 1 2 N/A Sampling method well described. chemical not analyzed, evaporation determined by mass, as logged by a computer. No calibration was discussed. Domain 2: Representative Metric 4: Metric 5: Metric 6: Testing Scenario Sample Size and Variability Temporality Low Low Low 3 3 3 Spill of chemical, not of formulated product. One set of con- ditions however the article states that other studies show that evap rates don't vary much with different conditions, range and avg provided, but could not find the number of sam- ples. 2003, > 15 yrs old, but tested using a chemical so not as rele- vant. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 7: Reporting of Results Metric 8: Quality Assurance Low N/A 3 N/A no raw data and no number of samples. Did not discuss QC measures. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Conducted a study in a test house with one chemical (not DCM) to compare lab results. Overall Quality Determination Low 2.6 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Won, D. Yang W.. 2012. Material emission information from: 105 building materials and consumer products. Data Type Experimental Hero ID 4663242 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments' Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Metric 3: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Analytical Methodology Biomarker Selection High Medium N/A 1 2 N/A analytical method is well described, but no recovery samples. Domain 2: Representative Metric 4: Metric 5: Metric 6: Testing Scenario Sample Size and Variability Temporality Low Low Medium 3 3 2 Consumer uses(subcategory in table 2) don't match for use of interest of EPA very much. only one sample collected per test 2010 and 2011(>5 yrs old) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 7: Reporting of Results Metric 8: Quality Assurance High N/A 1 N/A calibration, comparison to past data are described, but recov- eries is not discussed. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.9 Extracted Yes ( High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: A. T. Hodgson. 2001. Predicted concentrations in new relocatable classrooms of volatile organic compounds emitted from standard and alternate interior finish materials. Data Type Experimental Hero ID 4683360 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1 Metric 2 Metric 3 Sampling Methodology and Conditions High Analytical Methodology High Biomarker Selection N/A 1 1 N/A no biomarkers Domain 2: Representative Metric 4: Metric 5: Metric 6: Testing Scenario Sample Size and Variability Temporality Medium Low Low kind of products, test substance, testing methods are de- scribed. But exposure control is not discussed, and temper- ature/pressure are assumed value for estimation of concentra- tion. 2-4 products samples per product type. >15 yrs old Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 7: Reporting of Results Metric 8: Quality Assurance Medium 2 Each results are summarized in each tables. The value in each tables are not raw data though, raw values of concentration are possibly calculated by equation(l). Statistical discussion is missed. N/A N/A QC discussion is quite limited. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Variability/Uncertainty discussion is quite limited. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.1 Extracted Yes 1 High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: A. C. Ortiz. 2010. Identifying sources of volatile organic compounds and aldehydes in a high performance building. Data Type Experimental Hero ID 4683366 Domain Metric Rating"!" Score Comments' Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions High Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Metric 3: Biomarker Selection Medium N/A 1 testing generally followed California Specification 01350 [15] and ASTM Standard Guide D-6007-02 [16] using small emis- sion chambers. 2 USEPA Method TO-17. standard method and LOQ provided, but not details on recovery or calibration. N/A no biomarker Domain 2: Representative Metric 4 Metric 5 Metric 6 Testing Scenario Sample Size and Variability Temporality Medium 2 only one testing condition, did not vary temp, airflow, etc. Low 3 one test per product. Medium 2 8 years old Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 7: Reporting of Results Metric 8: Quality Assurance Medium Low 2 3 Summary statistics are reported but are missing measures of variation and central tendency. quality assurance implied but not discussed. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 no discussion of limitations Overall Quality Determination Low 2.3 Extracted Yes "!" High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Staples, C. A.,Werner, A. F.,Hoogheem, T. J.. 1985. Assessment of priority pollutant concentrations in the United States using STORET database. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical Hero ID 1359400 Domain Metric Ratingt Score Comments-I- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology Metric 2: Analytical Methodology High High STORET refers overall to "STORage and RETrieval", an electronic data system for water quality monitoring data developed by EPA STORET refers overall to "STORage and RETrieval", an electronic data system for water quality monitoring data developed by EPA Domain 2: Representative Metric 3 Metric 4 Metric 5 Geographic Area Temporal Exposure Scenario High Low High > 15 yrs STORET refers overall to "STORage and RETrieval", an electronic data system for water quality monitoring data developed by EPA Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents Metric 7: Reporting Results High Medium 1 2 only median and number of samples Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A Overall Quality Determination High 1.4 Extracted No r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. STORET: Methylene chloride. Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical Hero ID 3970047 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology High High 1 1 Domain 2: Representative Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Area Temporal Exposure Scenario High High Medium 1 1 2 STORET does not separate TSCA uses, Superfund sites, groundwater intrusion or legacy contamination which is im- portant when assessing TSCA uses for work plan chemicals. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents Metric 7: Reporting Results High Medium 1 2 Different Limits of Quantification and different reporting char- acteristics between states and federal agencies Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A Overall Quality Determination High 1.3 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. $ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Oppt Monitoring Database. 2017. Methylene Chloride. Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical Hero ID 3970233 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1; Sampling Methodology Medium 2 Methods are considered reasonable and consistent with sound scientific theory by this trusted source. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Medium 2 Methods are considered reasonable and consistent with sound scientific theory by this trusted source. Domain 2: Representative Metric 3: Geographic Area Metric 4: Temporal Metric 5: Exposure Scenario High Medium Low 1 2 3 Sample year provided. The data lack key pieces of information (scenario/population). Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents Metric 7: Reporting Results Medium Medium 2 2 Database provides references accessible online. Summary statistics are missing one or more parameters; no raw data. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A Variability information is not consistently reported in the database. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Household Products, Database. 2017. Household products database: Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical Hero ID 3970265 Chemical information: Methylene chloride. Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Low N/A 3 N/A Webpage provides very limited information on how they found products. Info provided from a variety of publicly available sources. The database is a list of " products that contain this ingredient" and no analytical methodology is applicable. Domain 2: Representative Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Area Temporal Exposure Scenario High Low High 1 3 1 USA Range of dates, with one <10 years old. Weight fractions of consumer products. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents Metric 7: Reporting Results Low High 3 1 No info on how data was compiled or level of QC provided. Data is organized. No summary provided, so summary stats n/a. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A Not discussed, but nature of database and discussion is not applicable. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted No r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Oecd Exisiting Chemical Database. 2011. SIDS initial assessment profile: Dichloromethane. Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical Hero ID 3970848 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology High 1 Metric 2: Analytical Methodology N/A N/A No samples were analyzed. Domain 2: Representative Metric 3: Geographic Area Metric 4: Temporal Metric 5: Exposure Scenario High Unacceptable High 1 4 1 Sampling of inhalation concentration not discussed. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents Metric 7: Reporting Results Low Low 3 3 No info on how data was compiled or level of QC provided. Range of mean concentration provided only. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A Not discussed. Overall Quality Determination Unacceptable 4.0 Metric mean score**: 2.2. Extracted No ^ Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk 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 were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency, t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Consumer Product Information, Database. 2017. What's in Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical Hero ID 3981160 it? methylene chloride. Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Sampling Methodology Analytical Methodology Low N/A 3 N/A Sampling information not reported in data source Domain 2: Representative Metric 3: Metric 4: Metric 5: Geographic Area Temporal Exposure Scenario High Medium High 1 2 1 US and Canada Various dates, some recent, some old, range of dates MSDS for each product Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents Metric 7: Reporting Results Low High 3 1 Lacks information to characterize exposure scenario Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.8 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Data Type Hero ID Bartzis, J.. 2018. Prioritization of building materials as indoor pollution sources (BUMA). Databases Not Unique to a Chemical 4663145 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Sampling Methodology N/A N/A Sampling method not discussed - secondary source of info. Metric 2: Analytical Methodology N/A N/A Analytical method not discussed - secondary source of info. Domain 2: Representative Metric 3: Geographic Area Metric 4: Temporal Metric 5: Exposure Scenario High Medium Medium 1 2 2 Data of various ages. Not an exact match except for NMP Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents Metric 7: Reporting Results High High 1 1 References listed. Emission rates were from fits to concentra- tion data. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A Overall Quality Determination High 1.4 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 1985. Health assessment document for dichloromethane (methylene chloride): Final report. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 17595 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 sampling and analytical method are described, concentration of some rivers are shown. Risk characterization is not de- scribed. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 media interest and US study, but it's old (> 15yrs old). Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 no discussion Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Page, G. W.. 1981. Comparison of groundwater and surface water for patterns and levels of contamination by toxic substances. Environmental Science and Technology. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 18169 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 measurements, approaches are described briefly. But not in detail. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 surface water study, geography of area is described, but it's quite old study.(data collected in 1979) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 variability/uncertainty is not discussed. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Shah, J. J.,Singh, H. B.. 1988. Distribution of volatile organic chemicals in outdoor and indoor air: a national VOCs data base. Environmental Science and Technology. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 95570 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 data source and collection method is briefly described, but details are not served(just quote from references). Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Low 3 Indoor and outdoor air study, but it's quite old (1988) and indoor/outdoor is not identified because graphs and table are not visible. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References Low 3 References provided, but not sure if they are for the data pre- sented or not. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 No discussion Overall Quality Determination Low 2.8 Extracted No I High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Destaillats, H.,Maddalena, R. L.,Singer, B. C.,Hodgson, A. T.,McKone, T. E.. 2008. Indoor pollutants emitted by office equipment: A review of reported data and information needs. Atmospheric Environment. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 694628 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Unacceptable 4 just Literature review. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 The release of PERC from office equipments is described. US study. HBCD is not mentioned in document, published In 2008. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A no discussion - all secondary data. Overall Quality Determination Unacceptable 4.0 Metric mean score**: 2.3. Extracted No ^ Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk 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 were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Data Type Hero ID C. J. Weschler. 2009. Changes in indoor pollutants since the 1950s. Atmospheric Environment. Completed Exposure Assessment 695495 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low 3 Little discussion on methodology.Table 1 provides a sense of how and why an indoor environment in 2008 is so different from its counterpart in the early 1950s. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 Article discusses trends in indoor pollutants. Table 2 reports selected pollutants (includes DCM, Carbon Tet, TCE, and PERC) and trends in their indoor concentrations since the 1950s. There are no concentration measurement; trends are broadly summarized by up and down arrows. Figure 4(a) re- ports median indoor concentrations of Carbon Tet, PERC, and TCE, but these data are derived from 1981-1984 TEAM Study and the 1999-2001 RIOPA study (secondary studies will not be extracted) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References Medium 2 References are listed Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 The study has limited discussion of key uncertainties and lim- itations. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.2 Extracted No f High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Dawson, H. E.,McAlary, T.. 2009. A compilation of statistics for VOCs from post-1990 indoor air concentration studies in North American residences unaffected by subsurface vapor intrusion. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 735303 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High 1 Detailed description of literature evaluated and statistical anal- ysis. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Low 3 Most studies are >15 yrs old, and not directly tied to consumer products. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 robust discussion, discussed variability Overall Quality Determination High 1.5 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2011. Toxicological review of dichloromethane (methylene chloride) (CASRN 75-09-2): In support of summary information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 808655 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 assessment methodology or model of toxicity is well described, but no description of exposure. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario N/A N/A Tox focus, not exposure. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Overall Quality Determination High 1.3 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: J. M. Logue, T. E. McKone, M. H. Sherman, B. C. Singer. 2011. Hazard assessment of chemical air contaminants measured in residences. Indoor Air. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 864159 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High 1 Described lit search method. Compared concentrations to haz- ard levels. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 Indoor air, but not consumer specific. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Provided mid range and upper range stats. Overall Quality Determination High 1.2 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Data Type Hero ID Health, Canada. 1993. Canadian Environmental Protection Act priority substances list assessment report: Dichloromethane. Completed Exposure Assessment 2531129 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 Govt report. No discussion of lit search methods. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Low 3 Older data. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.2 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Long, G.,Meek, M. E.,Caldwell, I.,Bartlett, S.,Savard, S.. 1994. Dichloromethane - evaluation of risks to health from en- vironmental exposure in Canada. Journal of environmental Science and Health, Part C: Environmental Carcinogenesis & Ecotoxicology Reviews. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 3586663 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^- Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 Data reviewed by experts and approved by a committee. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Low 3 Canadian study with sources >15 years. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 757 homes; a statement on limitations Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: De Rooij, C.,Thompson, R. S.,Garny, V.,Lecloux, A.,van Wijk, D.. 2004. Dichloromethane marine risk assessment with special reference to the OSPARCOM region: North Sea. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 3587217 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 description of assessment method is too simple. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 Media of interest, but European study and old.(> 5yrs old) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Only mean values presented. no discussion of variability/ uncertainty. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Usepa, O. O. W.. 2009. Contaminant occurrence support document for category 1 contaminants for the second six-year review of national primary drinking water regulations. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 3827379 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High 1 Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 drinking water if focus of report, but some surface water data is available Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Overall Quality Determination High 1.2 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2011. Background indoor air concentrations of volatile organic compounds in North American residences (1990-2005): A compilation of statistics for assessment vapor intrusion. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 3827392 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 The assessment methods , assumptions are discribed simply for each studies which are collected by EPA. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 >10 yrs old Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References Medium 2 References are peer reviewed sources and compiled data are summarized. But no raw data. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.8 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Iarc,. 2016. Dichloromethane. IARC Monographs on Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 3827786 the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 use, scenarios, toxiciry are well described. But no discussion of lit search methods for concentration data. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Low 3 media, scenario interest, but not US and old study (>15 years old). Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 range of values is shown. No discussion of uncertainty. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Data Type Hero ID Iarc,. 2016. ARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: Dichloromethane. Completed Exposure Assessment 3970852 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low 3 No discussion on methodology. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 China and Canada studies >10 years. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 757 homes; no discussion on data gaps Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.2 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: European Chlorinated Solvents, Association. 1999. Euro chlor risk assessment for the marine environment, OSPARCOM region - Norht sea: Dichloromethane. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 3982130 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High 1 Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Low 3 scenario and chemical interest, but not US (EU) and quite old report (1999). Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 no discussion of uncertainty. Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.8 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Oehha,. 2000. Public health goals for chemicals in drinking water dichloromethane (methylene chloride, DCM). Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 3982295 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 exposure/hazard assessment is described. No description of lit search method. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 US study and media interest, but quite old study (>15 yrs old) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 no variability and uncertainty of surface water are discussed. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.0 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Dichloromethane. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 3982330 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 just data is shown. Lit search method not described. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario High 1 Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 No discussion of uncertainty, only few data sources summa- rized. Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.8 Extracted No r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Atsdr,. 2000. Toxicological profile for methylene chloride. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 3982337 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology High 1 Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium 2 US study, and media interest, but old study (> 15 yrs old). Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Overall Quality Determination High 1.2 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Herbert, P.,Charbonnier, P.,Rivolta, L.,Servais, M.,Van Mensch, F.,Campbell, I.. 1986. The occurrence of chlorinated solvents in the environment. Prepared by a workshop of the European Chemical Industry Federation (CEFIC). Chemistry and Industry. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 4152304 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low 3 There is no actual description of assessment. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Low 3 The data of surface water is shown, but not US (Europe), and quite old (> 15 yrs) Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References High 1 Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 several scenarios are shown, no discussion for uncertainty. Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.2 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Delmaar, J. E.. 2010. Emission of chemical substances from solid matrices: a method for consumer exposure assessment. Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment Hero ID 4663189 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Methodology Low 3 The report discusses the literature review, assumptions, and limitations of the model. The discussion on data and extrapo- lations from the model are limited due to data availability and lack of tested data. Domain 2: Representative Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Low 3 The study models volatile substances using summarized data and does not specifically model 1-BP. Sample and surrogate data used may be similar, but the emphasis on building mate- rials is not in alignment with IBP uses. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 3: Documentation of References Low 3 Numerous studies are referenced, but their use is not always clear or directly related to the text and/or data. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 Variabilities and uncertainties are addressed, but not as they apply to 1-BP or its specific exposure environments. Models are built on surrogate paramater values which introduces large degrees of uncertainty. Overall Quality Determination Low 3.0 Extracted No t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Data Type Hero ID U.S, E. P. A.. 1987. Household solvent products: A national usage survey. Survey 1005969 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Metric 2: Data Collection Methodology Data Analysis Methodology High High 1 1 Domain 2: Representative Metric 3: Metric 4: Geographic Area Sampling / Sampling Size High High 1 1 Nationwide (U.S.A.) survey with outreach via random dialing and willingness to provide address and respond to survey. Metric 5: Response Rate Medium 2 The survey response rate is documented and the response rate is >40-70 percent, indicating that the survey results will likely represent the target population. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Reporting of Results Metric 7: Quality Assurance High Medium 1 2 No quality control issues were identified that would impact the results. Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A Variability of population studies through survey questions, but limited discussion of survey uncertainities discussed. Overall Quality Determination High 1.3 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. * The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- Study Citation: Abt. 1992. Methylene chloride consumer use study survey findings. Data Type Survey Hero ID 1065590 Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^ Domain 1: Reliability Metric 1: Data Collection Methodology Medium 2 Data collection instrument was described. The protocols for field personnel was not. Metric 2: Data Analysis Methodology Medium 2 Weighted summary stats provided, and unweighted counts pro- vided in appendix. Could not find a discussion on sampling and non sampling errors. Domain 2: Representative Metric 3: Geographic Area Metric 4: Sampling / Sampling Size Metric 5: Response Rate High High Medium 1 1 2 for the questionaire, response rate was about 40 percent. Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity Metric 6: Reporting of Results Metric 7: Quality Assurance High Low 1 3 No discussion of QC Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty N/A N/A limited discussion Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.7 Extracted Yes t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. $ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. Metrics that are rated High met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study, and may not require additional comments. If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ------- |