PEER REVIEW DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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.

-------