Draft Risk Evaluation for N-Methylpyrrolidone Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation of Environmental Fate and Transport Studies CASRN: 872-50-4


PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Draft Risk Evaluation for
N-Methylpyrrolidone
Systematic Review Supplemental File:
Data Quality Evaluation of Environmental Fate
and Transport Studies
\vEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
CASRN: 872-50-4
ch3
October 2019
1

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Table of Contents
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in soil: l-methyl-2-
pyrrolidone. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-
dossier/-/registered-dossier/15493/5/3/4# HERO ID: 3970767	4
Matsui, S; Murakami, T; Sasaki, T; Hirose, Y; Iguma, Y. (1975). Activated sludge
degradability of organic substances in the wastewater of the Kashima petroleum and
petrochemical industrial complex in Japan. Prog Water Technol 7: 645-659. HERO
ID: 18852	7
Cai, S, hu; Cai, T; Liu, S; Yang, Q; He, J; Chen, L: I In. J. (2014). Biodegradation of N-
methylpyrrolidone by Paracoccus sp. NMD-4 and its degradation pathway. Int
Biodeterior Biodegradation 93: 70-77. http://dx.doi.Org/IO.l016/j.ibiod.2014.04.022
HERO ID: 3576998	9
Chow, ST; Ng, TL. (1983). The biodegradation of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone in water by
sewage bacteria. Water Res 17: 117-118. http://dx.doi.org/IO.IOI6/0043-
1354(83)90292-0 HERO ID: 3577230	 12
Chow, ST; Ng, TL. (1983). The biodegradation of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone in water by
sewage bacteria. Water Res 17: 117-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043-
1354(83)90292-0 HERO ID: 3577230	 15
Gomolka, B; Gomolka, E. (1981). The effect of n-mclhylpyrrolidone (nmp) on the action of
activated-sludge. Acta Hydrochim llydrohiol 9: 555-572.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1002/aheh.198l0090509 HERO ID: 3577684 	 18
Toxicology and Regulatory Affairs. (2003). 2-Pyrrolidone. (201-14664B). Freeburg, IL.
https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_searcli/ HERO ID: 3970220	21
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). liiodegradation in water: screening tests: 1-
methyl-2-pyrrolidone. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from
https://ccha.europa.cu/rcgislralion-dossici7-/registered-dossier/15493/5/3/2# HERO
TD: 3970767	!	23
BASI-". Vmethyl pyrrolidone biodegradability. HERO ID: 4140473	25
BASI-". Vmethyl pyrrolidone biodegradability. HERO ID: 4140473	28
BASF. Vmethyl pyrrolidone biodegradability. HERO ID: 4140473	31
BASF. Vinclhyl pyrrolidone biodegradability. HERO ID: 4140473	33
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability. HERO ID: 4140473	36
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability. HERO ID: 4140473	39
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability. HERO ID: 4140473	42
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Estimation Programs Interface
Suite™ for Microsoft^ Windows, v 4.11 [Computer Program]. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-
program- interface HERO ID: 2347246	45
Aschmann, SM; Atkinson, R. (1999). Atmospheric chemistry of l-methyl-2- pyrrolidinone.
Atmos Environ 33: 591-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1352- HERO ID: 1721939.... 48
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Phototransformation in air: l-Methyl-2-
pyrrolidone. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-
dossier/-/registered-dossier/15493/5/2/2# HERO ID: 3970781	50
2

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Aliabadi, M; Ghahremani, H; Izadkhah, F; Sagharigar, T. (2012). PHOTOCATALYTIC
DEGRADATION OF N-METHYL-2-PYRROLIDONE IN AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS
USING LIGHT SOURCES OF UVA, UVC AND UVLED. Fresen Environ Bull 21:
2120-2125. HERO ID: 1583365	53
3

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in soil: l-methyl-2-
pyrrolidone. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration- dossier/-
/registered-dossier/15493/5/3/4#
HERO ID: 3970767
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified b>
chemical name
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test subsiauce
mm live and purity
were not reported in
llns secondary source,
llie I'l lm;iry source
nia> lia\ e more detail
0
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Controls were nol
reported in I Ins
secondare source.
liowc\cr. ilie Primal}
source mn\ contain
more detail
3
-)
6

4. Tesi
Substance
Stabil n>
Midi
Limited details were
reported mi this
secoudai} source;
liowe\er. ilie Primary
source nia> contain
nioiv detail
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test Method
Siutabilit\
Midi
The test method was
suitable for the test
substance.
1
1
1

6 Tesiiim
Conditions
Medium
Limited details were
reported in this
secondary source;
however, Primary
source may contain
more detail.
Omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
No inconsistencies
were reported or
identified.
1
1
1
4

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

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Limited system
design details were
reported.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Low
Not reported. This
was a secondary
source; the Primary
source may contain
more detail.
3
2
6

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study t\ pe
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The oulcome
assessment was
appropriate fur I Ins
studs
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
Tlv sampling was
reported and suitable
lor the siudy.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Limned details were
reported mi I lie
secondare source. the
hiniaiy source nia>
contain more detail.
Transformation
products were not
measured, and
e\ aporalion was nol
specified, however,
these omissions were
nol hkel> lo have had
an impact on the
results
2
1
2

14. Outcomes
I melaled In
F\posUIC
Nol I'aled
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15 l);il;i
Reporting
Medium
There were omissions
in the results details;
however, these were
not likely to have had
a substantial impact
on the study results.
This is a secondary
source; the Primary
source may contain
more detail.
2
2
4
5

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

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
Not reported. This
was a secondary
source; the Primary
source may have
more detail.
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Not applicable for
this secondary source;
the Primary source
may have more detail.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
22
18
33
1 hull
Medium
1 A»\X
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores Sum of Metric
\\ei}ililin« Factors:
1 SI
Overall
Score
(Kounded):
1.8
1 ;nid 1 "
1 " ;md : ^
2 'and '


Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
6

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Matsui, S; Murakami, T; Sasaki, T; Hirose, Y; Iguma, Y. (1975). Activated sludge
degradability of organic substances in the wastewater of the Kashima petroleum and
petrochemical industrial complex in Japan. Prog Water Technol 7: 645-659.
HERO ID: 18852
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test suhsiauce
was idem ificd h\
chemical name
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The snuive and purm
of (lie lesi substance
were nm reported;
liii\\e\ei'. ilie test
siihsiauee u as
idem i lied hy
aual> lical means
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
I'lie use i»f aiuii\ils
was mil repuried hui
likels did ik
Medium
l esi suhsiauce
siahilils was uoi
included bul does> nol
limil ilie interpretation
nf llie results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5 Tom
Method
Smlahllltj
1 huh
The method is
suitable for test
material.
l
1
1

(> Tesiing
Conditions
Midi
Conditions were
adequately monitored
and reported.
l
2
2

7. Testing
Consisieuc>
High
Every substrate was
tested under the same
conditions.
l
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
Testing conditions
were monitored,
reported, and
appropriate for the
method.
l
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
The inoculum source
was reported.
l
2
2
7

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

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The method reported
is suitable for
biodegradation
assessment.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
The timing and
frequency of the
sampling methods
were cleark reported
and adequate fur I lie
outcomes of interest.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Absorption and
volatili/alion were
discussed
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
1 lie metric is not
applicable to this
stud> i\ pe
NR
\k
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
1 huh
I'liis metric mcl llic
criteria for lnuli
confidence as
expected l or I Ins i\ pe
of studs
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
\o iiiformalioii
reuai'diuu sialisiics
and kinetics were
pro\ ided. however,
results from multiple
times points was
reported.
2
1
2
Other
r
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
1 huh
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

18. QS \k
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
19
20
25
Mid.
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
1 and 1
1 "and 2 ^
2 ' and '


Overall
Quality
Level:
High
8

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Cai, S, hu; Cai, T; Liu, S; Yang, Q; He, J; Chen, L; Hu, J. (2014). Biodegradation of N-
methylpyrrolidone by Paracoccus sp. NMD-4 and its degradation pathway. Int Biodeterior
Biodesradation 93: 70-77. hUi):// he in
the Suppoi'iiuu
Information.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stahilitv
Medium
Limited details
reuai'diuu this metric.
howc\cr. this was not
likcl> to have
influenced the results.
:
1
2
Test
Conditions
5 Test
Method
Suii;ihilii\
1 liuli
fins met ric met the
criteria for high
coulide uce as
expected for this type
of study.
l
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Midi
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
l
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
l
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
l
1
1
9

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Well characterized
enrichment pure
culture from pesticide
factory activated
sludge. Relevant for
study of potential
degradation pathways;
however, not
representative of
natural environmental
conditions and rates
were not rele\ am
2
2
4

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is noi
applicable to this
study type.
\ R.
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
Appropriate for
identi fication of
potential degradation
pathu a> s. howc\ or.
there may be others
1 )egradation rates
were noi iele\aul in
ciin uoiinicuial rales
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Mmh
This nieiric niel llic
ci'ileria lor high
confidence as
e\pecled for this type
of sind\
1
1
1
Confniiiulini!
Variahle
Control
1 ^
Confounding
\ anahles
1 huh
\o confounding
\ anahles were noted.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
I uiclaiedto
1 \posure
\ol raled
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15 Dala
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly described.
1
1
1
10

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR



Sum of scores:
18
20
25
Midi
Medium
l.nw
Overall Scnre = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting l-'aclors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
1 and 1."
1 ~ ;nid : '
2 ' and '


Overall
Quality
level:
High
11

-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Chow, ST; Ng, TL. (1983). The biodegradation of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone in water by
sewage bacteria. Water Res 17: 117-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043- 1354(83)90292-0
HERO ID: 3577230
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not ratedl
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test subsiance
source was rcpniled.
however, company
and pui'ih details
were unmted.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Sumc deiails
regarding the resulis
of the coiiiruls were
omitted such as Hie
result of readil\ and
poorly biodegradable
reference substances.
Iriwcner. ilns was ik
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

6. Testing
Conditions
High
Details regarding this
metric were limited
but both tests were
standard
biodegradability tests.
This omission was not
likely to have
influenced the
interpretation of the
study results.
1
2
2
7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria fur lnuli
confidence as
expected fur I Ins i\ pe
of study
1
1
1
8. System
Type and
Design
High
This meinc met the
criteria fur high
confidence as
e\pecled for this type
of siudv.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met 1 lie
criteria fur lnuli
confidence as
expected fur I his i\ pe
of siudv.
1

2
10. Test
Organism
Partitkiimm
Not rated
I lie mcli'ic is not
applicable in llns
siiid\ i\pe
\k
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
1 huh
llns meinc met ilie
criteria fur high
cm Hide nee as
e\pecled lorthis type
of siikK
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Delai Is regarding this
metric were limited;
however, this was not
likely to have
influenced the
interpretation of the
study results.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Disappearance of the
test material was
examined, and further
assessment of loss
was employed.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
13
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
19
20
25
1 huh
Malmm
1 A»\X
()\ erall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
1 and 1."
1 ";iiid : '
2 ' ;ind '

Overall
Quality
Level:
High
14
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Chow, ST; Ng, TL. (1983). The biodegradation of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone in water by
sewage bacteria. Water Res 17: 117-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0043- 1354(83)90292-0
HERO ID: 3577230
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
source was reported;
however, company
and purity details
were omitted.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Some details
regarding the results
of the controls were
omitted such as the
result of readily and
poorly biodegradable
reference substances;
however, this was not
likely to have
influenced the
interpretation of the
study results.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were not
included; however,
this was not likely to
have influenced the
interpretation of the
study results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1
15
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
2
2

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were limited;
however, this was not
likely to have
influenced the
interpretation of the
study results.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
16
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
2
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
19
20
25
1 huh
Malmm
1 A»\X
()\ erall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
1 and 1."
1 ";iiid : '
2 ' ;ind '

Overall
Quality
Level:
High
17
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Gomolka, B; Gomolka, E. (1981). The effect of n-methylpyrrolidone (nmp) on the action of
activated-sludge. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 9: 555-572.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aheh.19810090509

HERO ID: 3577684

Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Low
The test substance
source and purity
were not reported nor
verified by analytical
means.
3
1
3
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this was not
likely to have
influenced the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Some details
regarding this metric
were omitted;
however, this was not
likely to have
influenced the
interpretation of the
results.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1
18
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Some details
regarding this metric
were omitted,
analytical details were
not included; this
limited precise
interpretation of the
results presented.
Major focus was on
concentration that
would have affected
disturbance of
activated sludge
treatment. High
concentrations were
required by the
analytical method.
These results may not
be applicable to lower
concentrations likely
to be found in
activated sludge
treatment plants.
3
1
3

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Some details
regarding this metric
were omitted;
however, this was not
likely to have
influenced the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were noted.
NR
NR
NR

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
19
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some data were not
reported but were
unlikely to
substantially impact
the results.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Some details were
omitted; however,
these omissions were
not likely to have had
a substantial impact
on the study results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
The study results were
reasonable data;
however, due to
limited information
evaluation of the
reasonableness of the
study results was not
possible.
2
1
2

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
24
19
31
Mid.
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.63
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
1 and 1
1 "and : ^
2 ' and '

Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
'This study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Analytical methods were unclear which limits interpretation
of the study results.
20
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Toxicology and Regulatory Affairs. (2003). 2-Pyrrolidone. (201-14664B). Freeburg, IL.
https://java.epa.gov/oppt_chemical_search/

HERO ID: 3970220

Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not ratedl
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity

was identified by
chemical name and
CASRN.

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
purity was not
reported.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Control group details
were omitted.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability was not
reported.
2
1
2
Test
5. Test
High
The MITI test was
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
suitable for ready
biodegradation
determination. Zahn-
Wellens test simulated
activated sludge
treatment. BIOWIN
QSAR results were
suitable for amides.

6. Testing
Medium
There were omissions
2
2
4

Conditions

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

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
Multiple study groups
were not reported.
NR
NR
NR

8. System
Medium
Details regarding the
2
1
2

Type and
Design

system type and
design were not
reported; however, the
omission was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.

21
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Adaption was not
specified.
2
2
4
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The methods were
suitable for various
estimates of
biodegradability.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Not rated
Sampling methods
were not reported.
NR
NR
NR
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were noted.
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
The target chemical
and transformation
product(s)
concentrations,
extraction efficiency,
percent recovery, and
mass balance were not
reported.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Low
Statistical methods or
kinetic calculations
were not reported.
3
1
3
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

Sum of scores:
21
17
30
1 huh
Medium
1 A»\X
()\ erall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.76
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
1 ;iih.I 1
1." and 2 "!
2 ' and '

Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
22
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Biodegradation in water: screening tests: 1-
methyl-2-pyrrolidone. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-
dossier/-/registered-dossier/15493/5/3/2#
HERO ID: 3970766
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
source and purity
were not reported.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study Controls
Medium
Study control data
were omitted.
2
2
4

4. Test Substance
Stability
Medium
The test substance
stability was not
included but did not
limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test Method
Suitability
High
The test method was
suitable for the test
material.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Test conditions were
omitted such as pH
and temperature.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Test conditions were
omitted across
samples.
2
1
2

8. System Type
and Design
Medium
Details regarding the
system type and
design were limited;
however, the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test Organism
Degradation
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
2
2

10. Test Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
23
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
The outcome of
interest and its basis
were reported and
addressed the
outcome of interest.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling methods
were omitted.
Sampling timing was
suitable.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13. Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were noted.
NR
NR
NR

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data Reporting
Medium
The target chemical
and transformation
product(s)
concentrations,
extraction efficiency,
percent recovery, and
mass balance were
not reported.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic Calculations
Medium
Statistical Methods
and Kinetic
Calculations were not
reported.
2
1
2
Other
17. Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
23
19
31
Mid.
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.63
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
1 and 1."
1 "and
2." and '

Overall
Quality
Level:
High
24
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability.
HERO ID: 4140473
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not ratedl
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
source and purity
were not reported.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
The method is
suitable for test
material.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
2
4
25
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical and kinetic
details were omitted;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of the
study results was not
possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
25
19
34
1 liuli
Medium
1 ,o\\
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.79
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
26
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1 and 1
1 " and 2 '
2 'and "

Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
'The source is a summary document that references "A Correlation Study of Biodegradability Determinations
with Various Chemicals in Various Tests" P. Gerike and W.K. Fischer Ecotoxicity and Environmental Safety 3,
159 (1979).
27
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability.
HERO ID: 4140473
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2
28
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
2
4
29
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical and kinetic
details were omitted;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of the
study results was not
possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
25
19
34
1 liuli
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.79
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
1 ;nid 1
1 " ;ind : ^
2 ' ;md '

Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
Primary source cited: A Correlation Study of Biodegradability Determinations with Various Chemicals in
Various Tests" P. Gerike and W.K. Fischer Ecotoxicity and Environmental Safety 3, 159 (1979).
30
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability.
HERO ID: 4140473
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not ratedl
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
The test substance
source and purity
were not reported.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Study controls were
not reported but may
be retrievable from
the referenced article.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were not
reported but this does
not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Limited details
reported on the test
method; however, this
source is a summary
and a routine
guideline was cited.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Limited details
reported on the test
condition but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Limited details were
reported but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Limited details
regarding test system
type and design were
provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Test organism details
were not reported but
may be retrievable
from the referenced
primary source.
2
2
4

10. Test
Organism
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
NR
NR
NR
31
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Partitioning

study type.

Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling method
information was
provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2

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

Unrelated to
Exposure

applicable to this
study type.

Data
15. Data
Medium
Details regarding this
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting

metric were omitted;

and Analysis

however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.

16. Statistical
Medium
Statistical and kinetic
2
1
2

Methods and

details were omitted;

Kinetic

however, these

Calculations

omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.

Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of the
study results was not
possible.
NR
NR
NR

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

Models

applicable to this
study type.

Sum of scores:
26
19
35
1 huh
Medium
1 ,o\\
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.84
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
1 and 1."
1 " ;ind : ^
2 III id '

32
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability.
HERO ID: 4140473
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were omitted;
however, this source
is a summary and a
routine guideline was
cited.
2
1
2
33
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Sum of scores:
25
19
34
1 liuli
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.79
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
1 ;nid 1
1 " ;ind : ^
2 ' ;md '

Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
Primary source cited: A Correlation Study of Biodegradability Determinations with Various Chemicals in
Various Tests" P. Gerike and W.K. Fischer Ecotoxicity and Environmental Safety 3, 159 (1979).
35
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability.
HERO ID: 4140473
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were not
reported but this does
not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Limited details
reported on the test
method but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Limited details
reported on the test
condition but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Limited details were
reported but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Limited details
regarding test system
type and design were
provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.
2
1
2
36
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Test organism details
were not reported but
may be retrievable
from the referenced
primary source.
2
2
4

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical and kinetic
details were omitted;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.
2
1
2
37
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of the
study results was not
possible.
NR
NR
NR

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
26
19
35
1 liuli
Medium
1 A»\X
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.84
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
1 ;nid 1
1 " ;ind : ^
2 ' ;md '

Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
Primary source cited: A Correlation Study of Biodegradability Determinations with Various Chemicals in
Various Tests" P. Gerike and W.K. Fischer Ecotoxicity and Environmental Safety 3, 159 (1979).
38
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability.
HERO ID: 4140473
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not ratedl
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test material was
identified by name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
Test substance source
and purity were not
reported in this
secondary source.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Study controls were
not reported but may
be retrievable from
the referenced article.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were not
reported but this does
not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Limited details
reported on the test
method but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Limited details
reported on the test
condition but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Limited details were
reported but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Limited details
regarding test system
type and design were
provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.
2
1
2
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Reported as activated
sludge; limited details
were reported but
may be retrievable
from the referenced
article.
2
2
4
39
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.

Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling method
information was
provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
No information was
provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
1
2

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

Unrelated to

applicable to this

Exposure

study type.

Data
15. Data
Medium
Detailed data was not
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting

reported but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article. [R.
Zahn and H.Z.
Wellens Wasser
Abwasser Forschung
13, 1 (1980)1

16. Statistical
Medium
Statistical and kinetic
2
1
2

Methods and

details were omitted;

Kinetic

however, these

Calculations

omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.

Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of the
study results was not
possible.
NR
NR
NR

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

Models

applicable to this
study type.

Sum of scores:
26
19
35
Midi
Medium
l.ou
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.84
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
1 and 1."
1 " and : ^
2 'and '

Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
40
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
'Primary source cited: R. ZahnandH.Z. Wellens Wasser Abwasser Forschung 13, 1 (1980).
41
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
BASF. N-methyl pyrrolidone biodegradability.
HERO ID: 4140473
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not ratedl
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
Medium
Test substance source
and purity were not
reported in this
secondary source.
2
1
2
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Study controls were
not reported in this
secondary source, but
this does not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
Medium
Details regarding this
metric were not
reported but this does
not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Medium
Limited details
reported on the test
method but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.
2
1
2

6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Limited details
reported on the test
condition but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
2
4

7. Testing
Consistency
Medium
Limited details were
reported but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
1
2

8. System
Type and
Design
Medium
Limited details
regarding test system
type and design were
provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.
2
1
2
42
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Medium
Test organism details
were not reported but
may be retrievable
from the referenced
primary source.
2
2
4

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

Organism
Partitioning

applicable to this
study type.

Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Medium
Sampling method
2
1
2

Methods

information was
provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.

Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
No information was
provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced article.
2
1
2

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

Unrelated to

applicable to this

Exposure

study type.

Data
15. Data
Medium
No information was
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting

provided but may be
retrievable from the
referenced primary
source.

16. Statistical
Medium
Statistical and kinetic
2
1
2

Methods and

details were omitted;

Kinetic

however, these

Calculations

omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.

Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of the
study results was not
possible.
NR
NR
NR

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

Models

applicable to this
study type.

Sum of scores:
26
19
36
1 liuli
Medium
1 A»\X
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.84
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
43
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1 and 1 "
1 " and : ^
: ^ and ^

Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
Pninain souivc alcd "Lube Sol\ cnis \o Tlnval lo W aste Treatment" E.H. Rowe and L.F. Tullos, Jr.,
Hydrocarbon Processing, 59, p. 63-65 (October 1980)
44
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Estimation Programs Interface
Suite™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11 [Computer Program]. Washington, DC. Retrieved
from https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-program- interface
HERO ID: 2347246
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or Not
ratedl
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2
2. Test
Substance
Purity
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Substance
Stability
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
Test Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
6. Testing
Conditions
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
8. System
Type and
Design
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
12. Sampling
Methods
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
45
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
High
The models in EPI
Suite™ have defined
endpoints. Chemical
domain and
performance statistics
for each model are
known, and
unambiguous
algorithms are
available in the EPI
Suite™
Documentation and/or
cited references to
establish their
scientific validity.
Many EPI Suite™
models have
correlation
coefficients >0.7,
cross-validated
correlation
coefficients >0.5, and
standard error values
<0.3; however,
correlation
coefficients (r2, q2)
for the regressions of
some environmental
fate models (i.e.
BIOWIN) are lower,
as expected,
compared to
regressions which
have specific
experimental values
such as water
solubility or log Kow
(octanol-water
1
1
1
46
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

partition coefficient).

Sum of scores:
2
3
1
Midi
Medium
1 .(!«
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1
1 and 1 "
1 " and : ^
2 ' ;ind '

Overall
Quality
Level:
High
47
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Aschmann, SM; Atkinson, R. (1999). Atmospheric chemistry of l-methyl-2- pyrrolidinone.
Atmos Environ 33: 591-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00269-6
HERO ID: 1721939
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium, Low,
Unacceptable, or Not
ratedl
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
Test substance purity
and source were
reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Some reference
compound
information was
reported.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

8. System
Type and
Design
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
48
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
1
1
1

12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
1
1
1

14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
1
2
2

16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1

18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
15
18
20
Midi
Medium
1 ,o\\
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.11
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
1 and 1."
1." and : ^
2 'and '

Overall
Quality
Level:
High
49
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). (2017). Phototransformation in air: l-Methyl-2-
pyrrolidone. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from https://echa.europa.eu/registration-
dossier/-/registered-dossier/15493/5/2/2#
HERO ID: 3970781
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium,
Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test Substance
Identity
High
The test
substance was
identified by
chemical
name.
1
2
2

2. Test Substance
Purity
Not rated
The metric is
not applicable
to this study
type (QSAR).
NR
NR
NR
Test Design
3. Study Controls
Not rated
The metric is
not applicable
to this study
type (QSAR).
NR
NR
NR

4. Test Substance
Stability
Not rated
The metric is
not applicable
to this study
type (QSAR).
NR
NR
NR
Test
Conditions
5. Test Method
Suitability
Not rated
The metric is
not applicable
to this study
type (QSAR).
NR
NR
NR

6. Testing
Conditions
Not rated
The metric is
not applicable
to this study
type (QSAR).
NR
NR
NR

7. Testing
Consistency
Not rated
The metric is
not applicable
to this study
type (QSAR).
NR
NR
NR

8. System Type
and Design
Not rated
The metric is
not applicable
to this study
type (QSAR).
NR
NR
NR
50
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Test
Organisms
9. Test
Organism
Degradation
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(QSAR).
NR
NR
NR
12. Sampling
Methods
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(QSAR).
NR
NR
NR
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13. Confounding
Variables
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(QSAR).
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some information
was not reported;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had
a substantial
impact on the
study results.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(QSAR).
NR
NR
NR
Other
17. Verification
or Plausibility of
Results
Medium
The study results
were reasonable;
presented in a
secondary source.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
High
The QSAR model
(AOPWIN vl.92)
has a defined,
unambiguous
endpoint and the
model
performance was
known.
1
1
1

Sum of scores:
6
6
9
II ml.
Medium
Low
()\ erall Score =
Sinn of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.5
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.5
51
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1 ;nid 1."
i" ;iik.i : ^
: ' ;ind '

Overall
High

Quality

Level:

52
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study
Reference:
Aliabadi, M; Ghahremani, H; Izadkhah, F; Sagharigar, T. (2012). PHOTOCATALYTIC
DEGRADATION OF N-METHYL-2-PYRROLIDONE IN AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS
USING LIGHT SOURCES OF UVA, UVC AND UVLED. Fresen Environ Bull 21: 2120-
2125.

HERO ID: 1583365

Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination [i.e.,
High, Medium,
Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2

2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity was reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Controls were not
required to interpret
the study results.
Only one result was
reported without
catalyst but used 254
nm light, which is
not environmentally
relevant.
2
2
4

4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2

7. Testing
Consistency
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1

10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11.
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Unacceptable
Study was
performed in the
presence of catalyst
or at wavelengths
not relevant to
environmental
conditions.
4
1
4
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Multiple parameters
were discussed.
1
1
1
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Photocatalytic
decomposition;
appropriate
information was
identified.
1
2
2
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Equations and
results were
presented.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR

Sum of scores:
18
18
23
1 huh
Medium
1 A»\X
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.28
Overall Score
(Rounded):
4
1 and 1
1 "and 2 ^
: ^ and ^

Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
54
-------
PEER REVIEW DRAFT- DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
1 Study performed in the presence of catalyst or at wavelengths not relevant to environmental conditions.
Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data
source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case,
one of the metrics was rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is
presented solely to increase transparency.
55
-------