Peer Review Draft Risk Evaluation for Trichloroethylene Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation for Data Sources on Consumer and Environmental Exposure CASRN: 79-01-6 February 2020


PEER REVIEW DRAFT. DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-S-EPA
United States	Office of Chemical Safety and
Environmental Protection Agency	Pollution Prevention
Risk Evaluation for
T richloroethylene
Systematic Review Supplemental File:
Data Quality Evaluation for Data Sources on Consumer and
Environmental Exposure
CASRN: 79-01-6
CI H
CI CI
February 2020

-------
Table of Contents
HERO
ID
Monitoring
5405
14003
21469
22045
22186
23081
27974
28993
29192
29263
Data Type
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Reference
Pellizzari, E. D.,Wallace, L. A.,Gordon, S. M.. 1992. Elimination kinetics of
volatile organics in humans using breath measurements. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 2
Clayton, C. A.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Whitmore, R. W.,Perritt, R. L.,Quackenboss, J.
J.. 1999. National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS): Distribu-
tions and associations of lead, arsenic, and volatile organic compounds in EPA
Region 5. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9
Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Hartwell, T. D.,Sparacino, C. M.,Sheldon, L.
S.,Zelon, H.. 1985. Results from the first three seasons of the TEAM study:
personal exposures, indoor-outdoor relationships, and breath levels of toxic air
pollutants measured for 355 persons in New Jersey.
Heavner, D. L.,Morgan, W. T.,Ogden, M. W.. 1995. Determination of volatile
organic compounds and ETS apportionment in 49 homes. Environment Inter-
national 21
Lebret, E.,van de Wiel, H. J.,Bos, H. P.,Noij, D.,Boleij, J. S. M.. 1986. Volatile
organic compounds in Dutch homes. Environment International 12
Wallace, L. A.. 1986. Personal exposures, indoor and outdoor air concentra-
tions, and exhaled breath concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds
measured for 600 residents of New Jersey, North Dakota, North Carolina, and
California. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 12
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
U.S, E. P. A.. 1977. Environmental monitoring near industrial sites methylchlo-
roform.
2
2
10
11
12

-------
56224
75108
76241
104106
632310
632484
632758
645789
658643
659075
660096
730121
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Serrano-Trespalacios, P. I.,Ryan, L.,Spengler, J. D.. 2004. Ambient, indoor and
personal exposure relationships of volatile organic compounds in Mexico City
metropolitan area. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemi-
ology 1
Murray, A. J.,Riley, J. P.. 1973. Occurrence of some chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons in the environment. Nature 242
Kostiainen, R.. 1995. Volatile organic compounds in the indoor air of normal
and sick houses. Atmospheric Environment 29
Weissflog, L.,Elansky, N.,Putz, E.,Krueger, G.,Lange, C. A.,Lisitzina,
L.,Pfennigsdorff, A.. 2004. Trichloroacetic acid in the vegetation of polluted
and remote areas of both hemispheres - Part II: Salt lakes as novel sources of
natural chlorohydrocarbons. Atmospheric Environment 38
Adgate, J. L.,Church, T. R.,Ryan, A. D.,Ramachandran, G.,Eredrickson, 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
Ohura, T.,Amagai, T.,Senga, Y.,Fusaya, M.. 2006. Organic air pollutants inside
and outside residences in Shimizu, Japan: Levels, sources and risks. Science of
the Total Environment 366
Zuraimi, M. S.,Tham, K. W.. 2008. Eifects of child care center ventilation
strategies on volatile organic compounds of indoor and outdoor origins. Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology 42
Yamamoto, K.,Fukushima, M.,Kakutani, N.,Kuroda, K.. 1997. Volatile organic
compounds in urban rivers and their estuaries in Osaka, Japan. Environmental
Pollution 95
Amaral, O. C.,Otero, R.,Grimalt, J. 0.,Albaiges, J.. 1996. Volatile and semi-
volatile organochlorine compounds in tap and riverine waters in the area of
influence of a chlorinated organic solvent factory. Water Research 30
Martinez, E.,Llobet, I.,Lacorte, S.,Viana, P.,Barcelo, D.. 2002. Patterns and
levels of halogenated volatile compounds in Portuguese surface waters. Journal
of Environmental Monitoring 4
Huybrechts, T.,Dewulf, J.,Van Langenhove, H.. 2005. Priority volatile organic
compounds in surface waters of the southern North Sea. Environmental Pollu-
tion 133
Sexton, K.,Mongin, S. J.,Adgate, J. L.,Pratt, G. C.,Ramachandran, G.,Stock,
T. H.,Morandi, M. T.. 2007. Estimating volatile organic compound concentra-
tions in selected microenvironments using time-activity and personal exposure
data. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues
70
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
26

-------
733119
824555
1024859
1062239
1066049
1391354
1441544
1488206
1940132
1940784
1946098
2095308
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Billionnet, C.,Gay, E.,Kirchner, S.,Leynaert, B.,Annesi-Maesano, I.. 2011.
Quantitative assessments of indoor air pollution and respiratory health in a
population-based sample of French dwellings. Environmental Research 111
Chao, C. Y.,Chan, G. Y.. 2001. Quantification of indoor VOCs in twenty
mechanically ventilated buildings in Hong Kong. Atmospheric Environment 35
Kostopoulou, M. N.,Golfinopoulos, S. K.,Nikolaou, A. D.,Xilourgidis, N.
K.,Lekkas, T. D.. 2000. Volatile organic compounds in the surface waters
of northern Greece. Chemosphere 40
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
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
Robinson, K. W.,Flanagan, S. M.,Ayotte, J. D.,Campo, K. W.,Chalmers, A..
2004. Water Quality in the New England Coastal Basins, Maine, New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 1999-2001.
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
Jia, C.,Batterman, S.,Godwin, C.. 2008. VOCs in industrial, urban and subur-
ban neighborhoods, Part 1: Indoor and outdoor concentrations, variation, and
risk drivers. Atmospheric Environment 42
He, Z.,Yang, G. P.,Lu, X. L.. 2013. Distributions and sea-to-air fluxes of volatile
halocarbons in the East China Sea in early winter. Chemosphere 90
Kuster, M.,Diaz-Cruz, S.,Rosell, M.,Lopez de Alda, M.,Barcelo, D.. 2010. Fate
of selected pesticides, estrogens, progestogens and volatile organic compounds
during artificial aquifer recharge using surface waters. Chemosphere 79
McDonald, T. J.,Kennicutt M C, I. I.,Brooks, J. M.. 1988. VOLATILE OR-
GANIC COMPOUNDS AT A COASTAL GULF OF MEXICO SITE. Chemo-
sphere 17
Gokhale, S.,Kohajda, T.,Schlink, U. we. 2008. Source apportionment of human
personal exposure to volatile organic compounds in homes, offices and outdoors
by chemical mass balance and genetic algorithm receptor models. Science of
the Total Environment 407
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

-------
2128010
2128575
2189687
2214330
2277377
2310570
2331366
<
2442846
2443355
2532227
2799613
2800175
2801663
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
He, Z.,Yang, G.,Lu, X.,Zhang, H.. 2013. Distributions and sea-to-air fluxes of
chloroform, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, chlorodibromomethane and
bromoform in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea during spring. Environ-
mental Pollution 177
Su, F. C.,Mukherjee, B.,Batterman, S.. 2013. Determinants of personal, indoor
and outdoor VOC concentrations: An analysis of the RIOPA data. Environ-
mental Research 126
Zoccolillo, L.,Abete, C.,Amendola, L.,Ruocco, R.,Sbrilli, A.,Termine, M.. 2004.
Halocarbons in aqueous matrices from the Rennick Glacier and the Ross Sea
(Antarctica). International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 84
Jia, C.,Batterman, S.,Godwin, C.,Charles, S.,Chin, J. Y.. 2010. Sources and
migration of volatile organic compounds in mixed-use buildings. Indoor Air 20
Bravo-Linares, C. M.,Mudge, S. M.,Loyola-Sepulveda, R. H.. 2007. Occurrence
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Liverpool Bay, Irish Sea. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 54
Yamamoto, K.,Fukushima, M.,Kakutani, N.,Tsuruho, K.. 2001. Contamination
of vinyl chloride in shallow urban rivers in Osaka, Japan. Water Research 35
D'Souza, J. C.,Jia, C.,Mukherjee, B.,Batterman, S.. 2009. Ethnicity, housing
and personal factors as determinants of VOC exposures. Atmospheric Environ-
ment 43
Loh, M. M.,Houseman, E. A.,Gray, G. M.,Levy, J. I.,Spengler, J. D.,Bennett,
D. H.. 2006. Measured concentrations of VOCs in several non-residential mi-
croenvironments in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology
40
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
He, Z.,Yang, G. uiP,Lu, X. L. an,Ding, Q. Y. ao,Zhang, H. H. ai. 2013. Halo-
carbons in the marine atmosphere and surface seawater of the south Yellow Sea
during spring. Atmospheric Environment 80
Yang, G. uiP,Yang, B. in,Lu, X. L. an,Ding, H. aiB,He, Z.. 2014. Spatio-
temporal variations of sea surface halocarbon concentrations and fluxes from
southern Yellow Sea. Biogeochemistry 121
Insogna, S.,Prison, S.,Marconi, E.,Bacaloni, A.. 2014. Trends of volatile chlori-
nated hydrocarbons and trihalomethanes in Antarctica. International Journal
of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 94
Ofstad, E. B.,Drangsholt, H.,Carlberg, G. E.. 1981. Analysis of volatile halo-
genated organic compounds in fish. Science of the Total Environment 20
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

-------
2802879
2803418
3004792
3052892
3242836
3488897
3501965
3503486
3543217
3545469
3570809
3572385
3580141
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Rogers, H. R.,Crathorne, B.,Watts, C. D.. 1992. Sources and fate of organic
contaminants in the Mersey estuary: Volatile organohalogen compounds. Ma-
rine Pollution Bulletin 24
Dawes, V. J.,Waldock, M. J.. 1994. Measurement of Volatile Organic Com-
pounds at UK National Monitoring Plan Stations. Marine Pollution Bulletin
28
Wallace, L. A.. 1987. The total exposure assessment methodology (TEAM)
study: Summary and analysis: Volume I. 1
Yang, B.,Yang, G. P.,Lu, X. L.,Li, L.,He, Z.. 2015. Distributions and sources
of volatile chlorocarbons and bromocarbons in the Yellow Sea and East China
Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 95
Christof, 0.,Seifert, R.,Michaelis, W.. 2002. Volatile halogenated organic com-
pounds in European estuaries. Biogeochemistry 59
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
Blanco, S.,Becares, E.. 2010. Are biotic indices sensitive to river toxicants? A
comparison of metrics based on diatoms and macro-invertebrates. Chemosphere
79
Manamsa, K.,Lapworth, D. J.,Stuart, M. E.. 2016. Temporal variability of
micro-organic contaminants in lowland chalk catchments: New insights into
contaminant sources and hydrological processes. Science of the Total Environ-
ment 568
Sidonia, V.,Haydee, K. M.,Ristoiu, D.,Luminita, S. D.. 2009. Chlorinated
solvents detection in soil and river water in the area along the paper factory
from Dej Town, Romania. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai. Chemia 54
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
Fielding, M.,Gibson, T. M.,James, H. A.. 1981. Levels of trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene and para-dichlorobenzene in groundwaters. Environmental
Technology Letters 2
Chapman, S. W.,Parker, B. L.,Cherry, J. A.,Aravena, R.,Hunkeler, D.. 2007.
Groundwater-surface water interaction and its role on TCE groundwater plume
attenuation. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 91
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
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66

-------
3827236
3970464
3975036
4140523
4152375
4440449
4442460
Experimental
23126
28339
1512515
1752751
2443539
2534318
4442460
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Cdc,. 2017. National report on human exposure to environmental chemicals.
67
Atsdr,. 2007. Public health assessment: Peninsula Boulevard groundwa-
ter plume town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York: EPA facility ID:
NYN000204407.
Usgs,. 1994. Organic compounds downstream from a treated-wastewater dis-
charge near Dalls, Texas, March 1987.
Helz, G. R.,Hsu, R. Y.. 1978. Volatile chloro- and bromocarbons in coastal
waters. Limnology and Oceanography 23
Sauer, T. C.. 1981. Volatile organic compounds in open ocean and coastal
surface waters. Organic Geochemistry 3
Ec,. 2014. SINPHONIE: Schools Indoor Pollution and Health Observatory
Network in Europe.
Wetzel, T. A.. 2014. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Indoor Air:
Emission From Consumer Products and the Use of Plants for Air Sampling.
Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E.,Leaderer, B.,Zelon, H.,Sheldon, L.. 1987. Emissions
of volatile organic compounds from building materials and consumer products.
Atmospheric Environment 21
Sack, T. M.,Steele, D. H.,Hammerstrom, K.,Remmers, J.. 1992. A survey of
household products for volatile organic compounds. Atmospheric Environment
26
S. Kim, J. A. Kim, J. Y. An, H. J. Kim, S. D. Kim, J. C. Park. 2007.
TVOC and formaldehyde emission behaviors from flooring materials bonded
with environmental-friendly MF/PVAc hybrid resins. Indoor Air 17
Kwon, K. iD,Jo, W.,Lim, H.,Jeong, W.. 2008. Volatile pollutants emitted
from selected liquid household products. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research 15
Odabasi, M.,Elbir, T.,Dumanoglu, Y.,Sofuoglu, S. C.. 2014. Halogenated
volatile organic compounds in chlorine-bleach-containing household products
and implications for their use. Atmospheric Environment 92
Kowalska, J.,Szewczyriska, M.,Posniak, M.. 2014. Measurements of chlorinated
volatile organic compounds emitted from office printers and photocopiers. En-
vironmental Science and Pollution Research 22
Wetzel, T. A.. 2014. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Indoor Air:
Emission From Consumer Products and the Use of Plants for Air Sampling.
68
69
70
72
73
74
75
75
76
77
78
79
80
81

-------
4663242
Experimental
4683353
Experimental
Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
484177
729385
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
1359400
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
3970237
3970269
3981164
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
Completed Exposure Assessments
18169	Completed Exposure Assessment
23126	Completed Exposure Assessment
35002	Completed Exposure Assessment
95570	Completed Exposure Assessment
Won, D. Yang W.. 2012. Material emission information from: 105 building
materials and consumer products.
82
C Solal, C. Rousselle, C. Mandin, J. Manel, F. Maupetit. 2008. VOCs and
formaldehyde emissions from cleaning products and air fresheners. International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate (Indoor Air 2008)
Jia, C. R.,D'Souza, J.,Batterman, S.. 2008. Distributions of personal VOC
exposures: A population-based analysis. Environment International 34
Arif, A. A.,Shah, S. M.. 2007. Association between personal exposure to volatile
organic compounds and asthma among US adult population. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 80
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
Oppt Monitoring Database. 2017. Trichloroethylene.
Household Products, Database. 2017. Household products database: Chemical
information: Trichloroethylene.
Consumer Product Information, Database. 2017. What's in it? trichloroethy-
lene.
Bartzis, J.. 2018. Prioritization of building materials as indoor pollution sources
(BUMA).
Page, G. W.. 1981. Comparison of groundwater and surface water for patterns
and levels of contamination by toxic substances. Environmental Science and
Technology 15
Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E.,Leaderer, B.,Zelon, H.,Sheldon, L.. 1987. Emissions
of volatile organic compounds from building materials and consumer products.
Atmospheric Environment 21
U.S, E. P. A.. 2001. Sources, emission and exposure for trichloroethylene (TCE)
and related chemicals.
83
84
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
91
92
93
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
94

-------
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
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
Duboudin, C.. 2010. Pollution inside the home: descriptive analyses Part II:
Identification of groups of homogenous homes in terms of pollution. Environ-
nement, Risques & Sante 9
C. J. Weschler. 2009. Changes in indoor pollutants since the 1950s. Atmo-
spheric Environment 43
Wu, C.,Schaum, J.. 2000. Exposure assessment of trichloroethylene. Environ-
mental Health Perspectives 108
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
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
. 1988. Toxic Air Pollutant Emission Factors Compilation For Selected Air
Toxic Compounds and Sources.
de Bias, M.,Navazo, M.,Alonso, L.,Durana, N.,Gomez, M. C.,Iza, J.. 2012.
Simultaneous indoor and outdoor on-line hourly monitoring of atmospheric
volatile organic compounds in an urban building. The role of inside and outside
sources. Science of the Total Environment 426
Zaatari, M.,Nirlo, E.,Jareemit, D.,Crain, N.,Srebric, J.,Siegel, J.. 2014. Ven-
tilation and indoor air quality in retail stores: A critical review (RP-1596).
HVACandR Research 20
Batterman, S.,Su, F. C.,Li, S.,Mukherjee, B.,Jia, C.,H. E. I. Health Review
Committee. 2014. Personal exposure to mixtures of volatile organic compounds:
modeling and further analysis of the RIOPA data. Research report (Health
Effects Institute)
Du, Z.,Mo, J.,Zhang, Y.. 2014. Risk assessment of population inhalation expo-
sure to volatile organic compounds and carbonyls in urban China. Environment
International 73
McDonald, G. J.,Wertz, W. E.. 2007. PCE, TCE, and TCA vapors in subslab
soil gas and indoor air: A case study in upstate New York. Ground Water
Monitoring and Remediation 27
Boutonnet, J. C.,De Rooij, C.,Garny, V.,Lecloux, A.,Papp, R.,Thompson, R.
S.,Van Wijk, D.. 1998. Euro Chlor risk assessment for the marine environment
OSPARCOM region: North sea - Trichloroethylene. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment 53
Ec,. 2004. European Union risk assessment report: Trichloroethylene. Cas No:
79-01-6. EINECS No: 201-167-4. 1st Priority List, Vol. 31. 31

-------
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
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
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
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.
U.S, E. P. A.. 2014. TSCA Work plan chemical risk assessment: Trichloroethy-
lene: Degreasing, spot cleaning and arts & crafts use.
ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: Trichloroethylene.
Chimcomplex, S. A. Borzesti. 2014. Chemical safety report: Industrial use of
trichloroethylene (TCE) as a solvent as a degreasing agent in closed systems.
Geiss, Richard. 2014. Chemical safety report: Use of trichloroethylene in for-
mulation.
Geiss, Richard. 2014. Chemical safety report: Use of trichloroethylene in pack-
aging.
Spolana, a s. 2014. Chemical safety report: Trichloroethylene.
Domo Caproleuna GmbH. 2014. Chemical safety report: Industrial use as an
extractive solvent for the purification of caprolactam from caprolactam oil.
D. O. W. Deutschland. 2014. Chemical safety report: Uses of trichloroethylene
in formulation.
D. O. W. Deutschland. 2014. Chemical safety report: Industrial use as process
chemical (enclosed systems) in Alcantara material production.
D. O. W. Deutschland. 2014. Chemical safety report: Use of trichloroethylene
in industrial parts cleaning by vapour degreasing in closed systems where specific
requirements (system of use-parameters) exist.
Vlisco Netherlands, B. V.. 2014. Chemical safety report Part A: Use of
trichloroethylene as a solvent for the removal and recovery of resin from dyed
cloth.
. 2014. Exposure assessment: Trichloroethylene.
Parker Hannifin, Manufacturing. 2014. Chemical safety report: Use of
trichloroethylene as a process solvent for the manufacturing of hollow fibre gas
separation membranes out of polyphenylene oxide (PPO).
R. A. G. Aktiengesellschaft. 2014. Chemical safety report: Trichloroethylene.
. 2014. Exposure assessment: Trichloroethylene, Part 3.

-------
3970844
Completed Exposure Assessment
3980992
3981036
3981155
3982332
3982339
3982475
4152270
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
4152304
Completed Exposure Assessment
4152318	Completed Exposure Assessment
4663189	Completed Exposure Assessment
Survey
1005969	Survey
2443306	Survey
Modeling
30661	Modeling
Iarc,. 2014. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to	124
humans: Trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and some other chlorinated
agents. 106
National Toxicology, Program. 2015. Monograph on trichloroethylene.	125
U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. Trichloroethylene market and use report.	126
Environment Canada, Health Canada. 1993. Canadian Environmental protec-	127
tion act priority substances list assessment report trichloroethylene.
Nih,. 2016. Report on carcinogens: Trichloroethylene.	128
Atsdr,. 2014. Draft toxicological profile for trichloroethylene.	129
Ecsa,. 2015. Product safety summary on trichloroethylene.	130
Wu,,et al.,. 2001. Sources, emissions and exposures for trichloroethylene (TCE)	131
and related chemicals.
Herbert, P.,Charbonnier, P.,Rivolta, L.,Servais, M.,Van Mensch, F.,Campbell,	132
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
Department of National, Health,Welfare,. 1993. Trichloroethylene. Supporting	133
documentation, health related sections for the Canadian Environmental Pro-
tection Act (CEPA) Priority Substances List assessment report.
Delmaar, J. E.. Emission of chemical substances from solid matrices: a method	134
for consumer exposure assessment.
135
U.S, E. P. A.. 1987. Household solvent products: A national usage survey.	135
Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study.	136
2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related to total volatile organic com-
pounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health 58
140
S. L. Miller, M. J. Anderson, E. P. Daly, J. B. Milford. 2002. Source appor-
tionment of exposures to volatile organic compounds I Evaluation of receptor
models using simulated exposure data. Atmospheric Environment 36
140

-------
56224	Modeling
2128201	Modeling
2800950	Modeling
3393249	Modeling
Serrano-Trespalacios, P. I.,Ryan, L.,Spengler, J. D.. 2004. Ambient, indoor and	141
personal exposure relationships of volatile organic compounds in Mexico City
metropolitan area. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemi-
ology 1
McKnight, U. S.,Funder, S. G.,Rasmussen, J.,Finkel, M.,Binning, P. J.,Bjerg,	142
P. L.. 2010. An integrated model for assessing the risk of TCE groundwater
contamination to human receptors and surface water ecosystems. Ecological
Engineering 36
Rippen, G.,Klopffer, W.,Frische, R.,Gunther, K. O.. 1984. The Environmental	143
Model Segment Approach For Estimating Potential Environmental Concentra-
tions. II. Application Of The Model To p-Dichlorobenzene And Trichloroethane.
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 8
Coulibaly, L.,Labib, M. E.,Hazen, R.. 2004. A GIS-based multimedia watershed
model: development and application. Chemosphere 55
144

-------
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: Pellizzari, E. D.,Wallace, L. A.,Gordon, S. M.. 1992. Elimination kinetics of volatile organics in humans using breath
measurements. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 5405
Domain Metric Ratingt Score ('< niirncril s:
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
Sampling methodology detailed in separate reference which we
don't have. Upgradable upon examination of reference.
1
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability Low 3
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
>20 years old
Only 4 subjects
Provided consumer products used, but not names or active
ingredients.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
High
1
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2 limited discussion
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
Extracted
Yes

-------
Study Citation: Clayton, C. A.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Whitmore, R. W.,Perritt, R. L.,Quackenboss, J. J.. 1999. National Human Exposure Assess-
ment Survey (NHEXAS): Distributions and associations of lead, arsenic, and volatile organic compounds in EPA Region 5.
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 14003
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
Sampling methodologies explained in detail in other papers
Analytical methodologies explained in detail in other papers,
air samples
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
>15 years ago
Large sample size
Indoor air, but not directly related to consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
No raw, no minimum.
Supplemental articles on QA/QC activities of project..
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1

Overall Quality Determination

High
1.4

Extracted

Yes

-------
Study Citation: Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Hartwell, T. D.,Sparacino, C. M.,Sheldon, L. S.,Zelon, H.. 1985. Results from the first
three seasons of the TEAM study: personal exposures, indoor-outdoor relationships, and breath levels of toxic air pollutants
measured for 355 persons in New Jersey.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 21469
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
N/A
N/A
Standard sampling method not mentioned. Air - Tenax, pump
flow rates, 12 hr period; Breath - spirometer; No info on sample
storage, duration prior to analysis. Field blanks conducted.
GC/MS/COMP. Only very limited detailes provided. Recov-
eries provided, but no other discussion on calibration.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
30 yrs old
Large sample size, duplicates
Indoor air, but not specific to a product
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
Only GM, mean, and max provided. No raw data.
Dups, field blanks, lab blanks, controls
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1

Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6

Extracted
No

-------
Study Citation: Heavner, D. L.,Morgan, W. T.,Ogden, M. W.. 1995. Determination of volatile organic compounds and ETS apportionment
in 49 homes. Environment International.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 22045
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Low
N/A
2
3
N/A
Flow rate provided. No calibration mentioned. Field blanks
used.
No LOD/LOQ.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
Samples collected in 1991
Indoor air in residence, but not directly tied to a consumer
product, but list of potential products listed.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
No raw data. No percent detected,
field blanks, no recoveries
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
SD. compared results between smokers and non smokers.
Overall Quality Determination

Medium
1.9

Extracted

Yes

-------
Study Citation: Lebret, E.,van de Wiel, H. J.,Bos, H. P.,Noij, D.,Boleij, J. S. M.. 1986. Volatile organic compounds in Dutch homes.
Environment International.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 22186
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
sampling method is well explained, but no discussion of storage

conditions and calibration.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
calibration, DT, recovery samples are not mentioned.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
>15 yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1

Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air study, but not consumer products specific.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
range, mean, deta frequency are provided, but no raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
no QA/QC is discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
discussion of variability/uncertainty is quite limited.
Overall Quality Determination

Medium
2.2

Extracted

Yes

-------
Study Citation: Wallace, L. A.. 1986. Personal exposures, indoor and outdoor air concentrations, and exhaled breath concentrations of
selected volatile organic compounds measured for 600 residents of New Jersey, North Dakota, North Carolina, and California.
Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry.
Data Type	Monitoring
Hero ID	23081
Domain	Metric	Rating^ Score	Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High	1
High	1
High	1 breath
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
>15 yrs old
indoor air study, but not analysis for consumer products.
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
1.4

Extracted
No



f High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
t The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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. 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^
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
Currency 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

-------
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
Currency 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

-------
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:
Currency
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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.. 1977. Environmental monitoring near industrial sites methylchloroform.
Monitoring
29263
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
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Medium
High
1
3
2
1
> 15yrs old
sample size is below 10(2 -6 samples per site), no replicates.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
High
1
1

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No discussion of variability/uncertainty.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Serrano-Trespalacios, P. I.,Ryan, L.,Spengler, J. D.. 2004. Ambient, indoor and personal exposure relationships of volatile
organic compounds in Mexico City metropolitan area. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 56224
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
Detailed sampling methodology, except no storage duration or
calibration procedures reported.
1
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
Over 15 years old
Over 90 individuals
Indoor air samples not linked to specific consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
No raw, missing minimum
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Comparison to other studies.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6

Extracted
Yes

-------
Study Citation: Murray, A. J.,Riley, J. P.. 1973. Occurrence of some chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the environment. Nature.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 75108
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Unacceptable
4
sampling methods, equipments, and any other information are

missed.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
GC-ECD is used, calibration, LOD, recovery samples are not

described.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
> 15 yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
sample size is moderate(6 sample), no replicate samples.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
samples are collected from the North East Atlantic.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
No raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No description of QA/QC.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
no discussion of variability/Uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination

Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.7.
Extracted

-------
Study Citation: Kostiainen, R.. 1995. Volatile organic compounds in the indoor air of normal and sick houses. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type	Monitoring
Hero ID	76241
Domain	Metric	Rating^ Score	Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
1
N/A
The method of sampling is well discribed. But its duration is
not discribed.
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Geographic Area	High	1
Currency	Low	3
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium 2
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
>15 yrs old
Enough number of samples(50 normal houses and 38 "sick"
houses), but no mention of replicates.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results	Medium 2 Data mostly presented as summary statistics. But just part of
raw data is shown.
Metric 9: Quality Assurance	Low	3 Quality assurance is not directly discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty	High	1
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.8
Extracted
Yes

^ High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Weissflog, L.,Elansky, N.,Putz, E.,Krueger, G.,Lange, C. A.,Lisitzina, L.,Pfennigsdorff, A.. 2004. Trichloroacetic acid in the
vegetation of polluted and remote areas of both hemispheres - Part II: Salt lakes as novel sources of natural chlorohydrocarbons.
Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 104106
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
Sampling methodology is described and discussed, besides,
some infomation of equipments or sampling strage conditions
are missed.
Analytical methodology is described and discussed, besides,
some information of instruments or recovery samples are
missed.
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
>15yrs
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
less discuss an use of replicate samples.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
The information of surface water is discribed.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
raw data, less information of summary of data
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
no discussion
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
uncertainty is discussed.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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.,Eredrickson, 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:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Low
N/A
N/A
storage conditions and durations not provided
Did not actually provide the detection limit, although the did
discuss how they handled LOD values.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
High
1
3 >15 years old
1
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
Medium
1
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Ohura, T.,Amagai, T.,Senga, Y.,Fusaya, M.. 2006. Organic air pollutants inside and outside residences in Shimizu, Japan:
Levels, sources and risks. Science of the Total Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 632484
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
no storage duration, passive samplers
passive sampling were linearly correlated with the concentra-
tions measured by active sampling, calibration not discussed.
Good recoveries.
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Exposure Scenario High 1
japan
>15 yrs
24 hr samples, large sample size
Questionairre on Selected sociodemographic characteristics
and exposure- related attributes
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
No individual samples.
lab and field blanks, recoveries
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Assessed factors influences exposures
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6

Extracted
Yes

-------
Study Citation: Zuraimi, M. S.,Tham, K. W.. 2008. Effects of child care center ventilation strategies on volatile organic compounds of indoor
and outdoor origins. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 632758
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
High 1 Sampling methodology discussed. For each CCC, an indoor
(main classroom) and an outdoor sampling point were ran-
domly selected for simultaneous air sampling. Indoor sam-
plings were performed in the middle of the classroom near
the breathing zone of children (approximately 0.5"0.7 m). De-
signed to evaluate the "typical" levels of VOCs to which the
preschool children in each CCC are exposed, samplings were
conducted in the middle of the week and during the day from 8
am to 5 pm (sampling interval of 9 h). For noncarbonyls, VOCs
were actively sampled using a sampling pump (AP Buck Inc.)
onto preconditioned Tenax TA sorbent tubes. Duplicate flow
rates were set at 5 and 10 mLmin-1. For carbonyls, duplicate
air samples were pumped through DNPH cartridges (Supelco)
using another sampling pump at flow rates of 0.5 and 1 L min-
1. Flow rates were measured before and after sampling using
the mini Buck airflow calibrator (AP Buck Inc.). Details of
the sample collection, analysis and QA/QC can be found in
the Supporting Information.
Medium 2 Analytical methodology discussed. The sampled VOCs on
Tenax tubes were desorbed using an automated thermal des-
orber (Perkin-Elmer), separated using a gas chromatograph
(Agilent) and analyzed using a mass selective detector (Agi-
lent). For carbonyls, the analytes were eluted using acetoni-
trile and analyzed using a high performance liquid chromatog-
raphy equipped with a diode array detector (Agilent). For
every CCC, a field and laboratory blank is employed. VOCs
with measured values lower than their method detection limit
(MDL) were assigned to a value half of the MDL. Details of
the sample collection, analysis and QA/QC can be found in
the Supporting Information.
N/A N/A Biomarker is not used.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Singapore
Metric 5: Currency Medium 2 >5 to 15 years (2007 pub date)
Continued on next page

-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Zuraimi, M. S.,Tham, K. W.. 2008. Effects of chiid care center ventiiation strategies on voiatife organic compounds of indoor
and outdoor origins. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type	Monitoring
Hero ID	632758
Domain	Metric	Rating^ Score	Comments^
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario	Medium
1	High number of samples, duplicates. Sampling numbers pro-
vided for each ventilation strategy. In this study, ACMV CCCs
(N=5) are defined as those with a dedicated or shared air han-
dling unit, filtration and fresh air provision (typically about
10 percent of total air change), HB CCCs (N=21), those that
incorporate air conditioning for a portion of the day (typically
2 h) and relying on natural ventilation at other times, NV
CCCs (N=59), those that rely on open windows only for ven-
tilation and AC CCCs (N=19), those that incorporate split
unit air-conditioners without any provision of fresh air. Dur-
ing inspections, it was found that there were rooms in some NV
CCCs which were air conditioned. For these CCCs (N=19), an
indoor air location in the NV room and another in the AC
room were measured simultaneously making it a total of 123
samples. Supporting Information (SI) Table SI provides a de-
scriptive summary of the CCCs characteristics.
2	Singapore is a tropical city, where the ventilation strategies
adopted by the child care centers (CCCs) can be classified as
naturally ventilated (NV), hybrid (combination of natural ven-
tilation and air conditioning) ventilated (HB), air-conditioned
and mechanically ventilated (ACMV), and air-conditioned but
without ventilation (AC). In this article, we present the expo-
sures and risk of indoor VOCs, their sources, and the impact
of ventilation strategies in a nationwide study involving 104
representative CCCs in Singapore.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
Supplementary Info available but not provided; requested for
extraction. Table 1 reports indoor air concentrations of TCE
and PERC in CCCs with different ventilation strategies.
For every CCC, a field and laboratory blank is employed.
VOCs with measured values lower than their method detec-
tion limit (MDL) were assigned to a value half of the MDL.
Details of the sample collection, analysis and QA/QC can be
found in the Supporting Information.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Continued on next page

-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Zuraimi, M. S.,Tham, K. W.. 2008. Effects of chiid care center ventiiation strategies on voiatife organic compounds of indoor
and outdoor origins. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 632758
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Because regulatory decisions are based on risk evaluations,
it is important to know how CCC ventilation strategies give
rise to differing risks estimates of VOC exposures. However,
given the large uncertainties in risk calculations, it is difficult
to ascertain significant differences between estimated cancer
risks. Assumptions used by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment such as standard body weight and average breath-
ing rate may not reflect the variability of the population at
large and specific differences between adults and children and
between Caucasians and Asians. Also, toxicity information ob-
tained from studies using animals have uncertainty related to
extrapolations from high doses for animals to low human ex-
posures. Indeed, information providing confidence intervals for
cancer potency estimates are still not available. Despite these
assumptions which may bias the estimates, the median values
provide a good indication of the relative risk levels among at-
tending children in CCCs with different ventilation strategies.
Also, analyses of risk assessment used in this study can provide
insight not only about the high-risk VOCs, but also about the
dominant sources of their exposures, which can allow proper
mitigation strategies for more effective means of exposure re-
duction.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7

Extracted
Yes

-------
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:
Currency
N/A
N/A
>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

High
1.6

Extracted

Yes

-------
Study Citation: Amaral, O. C.,Otero, R.,Grimalt, J. 0.,Albaiges, J.. 1996. Volatile and semi-volatile organochlorine compounds in tap and
riverine waters in the area of influence of a chlorinated organic solvent factory. Water Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 658643
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
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Unacceptable
Medium
1
3
4
2
>15tys
sample size of SW is not discribed.
The scenario of surface water is discribed.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
not raw data, and some detailed information of statistics are
missed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
uncertainty and variability are not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination

Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.0.
Extracted

-------
Study Citation: Martinez, E.,Llobet, I.,Lacorte, S.,Viana, P.,Barcelo, D.. 2002. Patterns and levels of halogenated volatile compounds in
Portuguese surface waters. Journal of Environmental Monitoring.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 659075
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
glass vials, portable freezer, analyzed within 15 days of col-

lection. Used analytical method EPA Method 502 so assumed

used a preservative.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
EPA Method 502
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1999-2000
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
644 samples, but not mention of replicate/duplicate samples.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
surface water in scope - sea, estuarine, river water and indus-

trial effluents - however not in US and older.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no standard deviation . Mean in figure only. No raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Recovery of 93-95 percent, R2 = 0.99.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No SD, did not discus any uncertainities.
Overall Quality Determination

Medium
1.8

Extracted

Yes

-------
Study Citation: Huybrechts, T.,Dewulf, J.,Van Langenhove, H.. 2005. Priority volatile organic compounds in surface waters of the southern
North Sea. Environmental Pollution.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 660096
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology High 1
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Medium 2
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
1998-2000
47 samples. Replicate samples used,
appropriate medium, but older data and not US
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
no raw data or supplemental data, but they provided robust
statistics
Followed QUASI-MEME guidelines. detailed measures de-
scribed elsewhere. This is a European standard, so the as-
sumption is that if appropriate measures were adopted in all
steps of the process, then the QA should be at a high level.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
discussed possible reasons for variation. No standard deviation
provided.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7

Extracted
Yes

-------
Study Citation: Sexton, K.,Mongin, S. J.,Adgate, J. L.,Pratt, G. C.,Ramachandran, G.,Stock, T. H.,Morandi, M. T.. 2007. Estimating volatile
organic compound concentrations in selected microenvironments using time-activity and personal exposure data. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 730121
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
3M model 3500 organic vapor monitors (3500 OVMs), which

are charcoal-based passive air samplers.A more detailed de-

scription of the study design and results was published previ-

ously (Sexton et al., 2004a, 2004b; Pratt et al., 2004, 2005).
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
GC with an HP 5972 MS detector, Analytical and internal

standards were prepared, and VOC concentrations were calcu-

lated as described previously
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1999
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
333 samples, some dups
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Inddor air, but not consumer specific
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
Good summary statistics; however, no raw/supplementary
data available.
Duplicate O, I, and P badges were collected periodically during
the study (total n = 80), and correlation coefficients were >.94
for all individual VOC.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Not random sample, one area, are has known low VOC out-
doors
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7

Extracted
Yes

Continued on next page

-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Sexton, K.,Mongin, S. J.,Adgate, J. L.,Pratt, G. C.,Ramachandran, G.,Stock, T. H.,Morandi, M. T.. 2007. Estimating volatile
organic compound concentrations in selected microenvironments using time-activity and personal exposure data. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 730121
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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.
to
-
-------
Study Citation: Billionnet, C.,Gay, E.,Kirchner, S.,Leynaert, B.,Annesi-Maesano, I.. 2011. Quantitative assessments of indoor air pollution
and respiratory health in a population-based sample of French dwellings. Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 733119
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology Medium 2 Passive samplers. Only limited details provided, but more info
in companion doc (Ramalho etal.,2006).
Analytical Methodology Medium 2 GC with FID/MS.. Few details provided, but more info in
companion doc (Ramalho etal.,2006). LOD is provided.
Biomarker Selection N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
2003-2005
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
490 samples
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air of households, not specific to a consumer product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no raw data, no SD/CV.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
Implied, no details provided.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Limitations reported, characteristics of population reported.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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
Currency
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

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
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
Samples collected >15 years ago
Water samples were collected from four rivers and five lakes in
the region of Northern Greece, seasonally, four times per year.
Closely represents relevant exposure scenario, except it's not
the US population.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
Summary data reported with statistics; raw data not reported
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Limited discussion of uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination

High
1.6

Extracted

Yes

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:
Currency
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

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
£ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Sampling Methodology
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: 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:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
NYC , NY (Harlem) and Los Angeles, CA (South Central, LA)
>15 years ( NYC: winterand summer 1999 and Los Angeles:
fall and winter 2000)
large sample size (36 samples); duplicate samples
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

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
NAWQA protocols for fixed-site sampling are designed to as-

sess the spatial and temporal distribution of water quality in

relation to various streamflow conditions and consist of water-

quality sample collection at each fixed site monthly or more

frequently (Gilliom and others, 1995).
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
USGS lab, but no details in this report on the insstruments.

"All other water-quality samples were shipped to the USGS

National Water-Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Denver, Colo.,

for analysis."
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Samples collected >15 years ago
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1

Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
TCE and PERC measured and median concentrations pre-

sented in graphs (Fig 14, 19); so, difficult to extract. Raw

data may be available in referenced reports, or appendix 3.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Limited discussion of uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination

Medium
1.8

Extracted

Yes

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
Currency
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

** 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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Jia, C.,Batterman, S.,Godwin, C.. 2008. VOCs in industrial, urban and suburban neighborhoods, Part 1: Indoor and outdoor
concentrations, variation, and risk drivers. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1488206
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium 2 sampling sites and methods are well described,
calibration is not described.
Medium 2 instrument calibration is not described.
N/A N/A not biomarker study
but sampler
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
Samples were collected in 2004 and 2005(>5yrs old)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1

Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
indoor air study, but no description of consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no raw data for TCE or perc.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
QA/QC is not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1

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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: He, Z.,Yang, G. P.,Lu, X. L.. 2013. Distributions and sea-to-air fluxes of volatile halocarbons in the East China Sea in early
winter. Chemosphere.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1940132
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Sample collection method, bottle type, storage conditions, and

storage duration provided.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
GC-ECD. retention times, detection limits provided, calibra-

tion standards discussed.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
Cruise was in 2010.
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
About 40 sampling stations.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
China, not US. Location on map provided. Other parameters

collected such as surface seawater temperature and salinity,

were obtained
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no raw data, range and mean reported, but no SD.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Medium
2
Storage stability assessed. Use of blanks for LOQ determina-

tion. No recovery results provided.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Described reasons for variability, but no SD provided,
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Kuster, M.,Diaz-Cruz, S.,Rosell, M.,Lopez de Alda, M.,Barcelo, D.. 2010. Fate of selected pesticides, estrogens, progestogens
and volatile organic compounds during artificial aquifer recharge using surface waters. Chemosphere.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1940784
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
2
1
N/A
no calubration is described.
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
Unacceptable
Medium
1
2
4
2
> 5yrs old
just one sample is shown for lake,
intake from lake or river water, not US.
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
Low
3
discussion of variability/uncertainty is quite limited.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.0.
Extracted

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Low
3
sampling equipment is described(Glass containers), descrip-

tion of storage duration, sampling method, and calibration is

limited.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
analytical conditions are described. No information of recovery

or calibration is served.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
> 15yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
single sample
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
the meaning of dash in table 3 is unclear.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
QA/QC is not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Valuability/Uncertainty is not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination

Low
2.4

Extracted

Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.1.
Extracted
No

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
No standard method, but details provided. Samples analyzed

immediately after collection.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
samples analyzed on board ship- not at a standard laboratory.

no standard method, but details provided.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
2011
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
53 grid sampling stations
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
location characterized.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
No raw data. Range and mean provided in text. No SD.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Accuracy of 5 of 18 percent, blanks, calibration of equipment

discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
discussed correlations with ocean parameters. No SD provided.
Overall Quality Determination

High
1.6

Extracted

Yes

Extracted
Yes

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1

Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
New method that uses large volume of water. Analyzed under

"extreme" conditions in Antarctica.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1997-1998
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
multiple stations and samples from multiple depths, replicate

samples not collected. Samples were generally collected at mul-

tiple time periods.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Not US, not linked to a source.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
No summary provided, need to calculate the stats.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
TCE had low extraction recoveries (50-60 percent). Study did

not discuss if they corrected the concentrations for the low

recoveries. PERC recoveries were acceptable.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
variations due to microclimates.
Overall Quality Determination

Medium
2.0

Extracted

Yes

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
sampling method is simply described, but calibration, storage

condition are not provided, they might be in reference articles.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
analytical method is simply described. but calibra-

tion,detection limits, recovery are not provided, they might

be in reference articles..
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
indoor air study
Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
Samples collected in 2005-2006 and 2008 (>5yrs old)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1

Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
indoor air study, but not consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
data is summarized as a table, but no raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Medium
2
Some discussion of QA/QC measures and issues.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Bravo-Linares, C. M.,Mudge, S. M. ,Loyola-Sepulveda, R. H.. 2007. Occurrence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
Liverpool Bay, Irish Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2277377
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
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
High
Medium
1
2
1
2
2006 (>10 years)
Source of exposure was not discussed.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
Low
3
3
Range of data provided only, (no raw data)
Some QA discussion with regards to sampling.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
There are some discussion on uncertainties and variability.
Overall Quality Determination

Medium
1.8

Extracted

Yes

Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methodology is described and discussed simply.
Analytical methodology is described and discussed simply,
sw samples
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Medium
Medium
1
3
2
2
>15 years
Unknown if replicate sampling was done.
SW samples collected.
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 TCE concen-
tration data in samples given as charts (Fig 3)
Quality assurance implied through standard protocols
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No variability; some dicussion on uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination

Medium
2.2

Extracted

Yes

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
NHANES is well documented, passive exposure monitors
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
NHANES is well documented. Used a standard method.. GC/

MS and selected-ion-monitoring mode (CDC,2006b), a sec-

ond laboratory used GC/MS in scan mode (Weisel et al.,

2005 b). http://www. nber.org/nhanes/1999-2000/downloads/

lab21_doc.pdf
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1999-2000 data.
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
over 600 samples
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air in homes, but not directly related to a specific con-

sumer product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
range, percentiles, det freq. missing SD . no raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
NHANES.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
No SD provided
Overall Quality Determination

High
1.6

Extracted

Yes

Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
High
Medium
1
2
1
2
>5 yrs old
Indoor air study, but not for consumer exposure.
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 1.3
Extracted Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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
Currency
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: He, Z.,Yang, G. uiP,Lu, X. L. an,Ding, Q. Y. ao,Zhang, H. H. ai. 2013. Halocarbons in the marine atmosphere and surface
seawater of the south Yellow Sea during spring. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2532227
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score

Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Low
Low
N/A
3
3
N/A
no details, (they
no details, (they
are reported in another paper, Lu et al., 2010)
are reported in another paper, Lu et al., 2010)
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
Medium
High
1
2
2
1
samples are collected in 2012.
no replicate.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
no summary or statistical results,
limited discussion.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
limited discussion.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2

Extracted
Yes

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
sampling equipment, condition are described, but calibration

is not described.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
analytical method, condition are well described, calibration is

not refered.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
> 5yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1

Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
surface water study, but not in the US.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
No raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
variability is discussed, no discussion for uncertainty.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Insogna, S.,Prison, S.,Marconi, E.,Bacaloni, A.. 2014. Trends of volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons and trihalomethanes in
Antarctica. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2800175
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Clean glass bottles, no headspace, stored at 4C until analysis

within one year.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Purge and trap with GC-MS. operating conditions provided,

standards provided, calibration described.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
High
1
2011-2012
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
triplicate samples, at only nine sites.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
surface water on scope, but not US study
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no raw data
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
analysis performed in triplicate. R2 >0.998. Recoveries from

75 to 95 percent. Samples stored for up to a year and no

mention of storage stability.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
compared results to past cruises, No discussion of uncertainty.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Ofstad, E. B.,Drangsholt, H.,Carlberg, G. E.. 1981. Analysis of volatile halogenated organic compounds in fish. Science of
the Total Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2801663
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Low
High
N/A
3
1
N/A
no details for sampling methods.
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Medium
Medium
1
3
2
2
>15 yrs old
Pooled samples of 3-5 fish.
media and organisms interest, but not US.
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
Medium
2
No range of data is shown.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9

Extracted

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Samples collected without headspace. Stored cool until analy-

sis within 24 hours. Extracted and analyzed within 24 hrs.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
GC-ECD. HMSO 1995 (british standard method), however

lacked many details actually used, internal standards,
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1987-89
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
Single samples on 4 sampling dates for each of 4 waterbodies.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
surface water on topic, but not in US
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
missing range., SD no raw darta.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
used a standard analytical method, but no discussion of meth-

ods used or recoveries.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2

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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Dawes, V. J.,Waldock, M. J.. 1994. Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds at UK National Monitoring Plan Stations.
Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2803418
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
UK National monitoring program
purge and trap with gc-MS.
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
1992
about 70 samples overall
surface water, but not in US
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
Medium
3
2
individual values, but no overall stats
Precision assessed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
variation reflects amounts of industrial activity.
Overall Quality Determination

Medium
1.9

Extracted

Yes

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
A lot of detail is given, refer to companion source for full de-

tails.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
A lot of detail is given, refer to companion source for full de-

tails.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1984
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
use of replicate samples, large sample size.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Summary statistics of phases of the study are presented. No/

limited supplemental data available.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Recoveries and control samples are discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Limited characterization of variability.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Yang, B.,Yang, G. P.,Lu, X. L.,Li, L.,He, Z.. 2015. Distributions and sources of volatile chlorocarbons and bromocarbons in
the Yellow Sea and East China Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3052892
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
N/A
Sampling is described in detail; however, not all details are
included.
Details on methods used for VHOC analyses were described by
Yang et al. (2014).
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Medium 2
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium 2
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
26 April - 21 May 2009
No discussion of replicate samples.
Surface water that is shown to be similar to other parts of the
world (see Table 2); however, it's not near the US.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8; Reporting of Results Medium 2 Mean and range reported (Table 2); however, no other sum-
mary statistics and no raw/supplemental data were provided.
Metric 9; Quality Assurance Medium 2 Some QA/QC control measures are discussed; however, some
of the QA/QC pieces of information are missing from the text.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2 The study discussed uncertainty and variability. Uncertainties
are notes, but not necessarily minimal.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.9
Extracted
Yes

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:
Currency
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

Extracted
Yes

vided to verify method properly executed.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
2007
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
only 11 samples
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
surface water, but river in spain.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
No raw data, no min or SD.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
QC assumed because used standard method.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2

Overall Quality Determination Medium 2.2
Extracted Yes
f High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Manamsa, K.,Lapworth, D. J.,Stuart, M. E.. 2016. Temporal variability of micro-organic contaminants in lowland chalk
catchments: New insights into contaminant sources and hydrological processes. Science of the Total Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3503486
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
sampling method is described well, no calibration, strage con-
ditions.
1
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency High 1
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium 2
Exposure Scenario Unacceptable 4
sample size may be large, but not described clearly.
study does not separate out surface water from ground water
samples
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
data summary, detection frequency are described, but no raw
data.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
discussion of variability/uncertainty is quite limited.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable 4.0 Metric mean score**: 1.9.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Sidonia, V.,Haydee, K. M.,Ristoiu, D.,Luminita, S. D.. 2009. Chlorinated solvents detection in soil and river water in the
area along the paper factory from Dej Town, Romania. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai. Chemia.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3543217
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
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
High
Medium
1
2
1
2
Samples collected <15 years ago
Only one sample point; location
specified; sampled when the plant
relative to paper plant not
was on- and off-line
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
Medium
1
2
Lab quality assumed from detail in
trol for water samples
process description; no con-
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1

Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3

Extracted

Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8

Extracted

Yes

Metric 5: Currency
Low
3
1980s (>15yrs old)
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
sample size is too small (duplicate sample at one site)
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
1

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Medium
2
No raw data for each sample.
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
3
QA/QC is not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
uncertainty is not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted
No

Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Study did not include biomarkers.
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
1
2
2
2
Samples collected > 15 years ago
The study did not include replicates.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
Some values are given in text; the report indicates good vari-
ability if all data could be obtained.
The authors did not include field control sites.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1

Overall Quality Determination

High
1.6

Extracted

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:
Currency
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

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;
infor-

mation on sampling methodology readily available.

Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;
infor-

mation on analytical methodology readily available.

Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
Blood concentrations for the period 2001-2008

Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1

Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Blood concentrations for general population

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Raw data, measures of variation not reported.

Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;
infor-

mation on QA/QC methodology readily available.

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;
infor-

mation on variability/uncertainty readily available.

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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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,. 2007. Public health assessment: Peninsula Boulevard groundwater plume town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New
York: EPA facility ID: NYN000204407.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3970464
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
Government paper so assumed use of appropriate methods.
No method described,
sw samples
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Unacceptable
Medium
1
3
4
2
2007 (>10 years), data collocted >15 years ago
Sample size is not reported and assumptions cannot be made.
SW samples collected.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
Low
3
3
Maximum value provided only.
No discussion on QA.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No variability or discussion on uncertainties.
Overall Quality Determination

Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.8.
Extracted

** 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, two 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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Usgs,. 1994. Organic compounds downstream from a treated-wastewater discharge near Dalls, Texas, March 1987.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3975036
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology High 1
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Medium 2
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Low
High
1
3
3
1
March 9 and 10, 1987
4 sites, but appears to be one sample per site.
Media of interest. Location well described.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
Low
3
3
No summary stats or raw data.
one upstream control site. QA assumed, but not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Discussed uncertainty of analysis methods
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted
No

f High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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.
Water samples for nutrient, organic, and inorganic determina-
tions were collected and preserved according to standard USGS
procedures (Wells and others, 1990).
Methods described and cited, but no indication of recoveries.
Tentative compound identification from GC/MS analyses was
based on computer matching of samplemass spectra with the
National Bureau of Standards library. Identification of all com-
pounds extracted by PT and other selected methods, and indi-
cated with a (b) in the data tables, was confirmed by matching
the mass spectrum and retention time of the sample with those
of authentic standards.(1987).
-------
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
Medium
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Medium
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
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
Metric 5:
Currency

Low
3
Metric 6:
Spatial and
Temporal Variability
Low
3
Maryland (Back River estuary)
>15 years (February and May 1977)
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- and bromocarbons in coastal waters. Limnology and Oceanography.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 4140523
Domain Metric Rating^ 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 Medium 2 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.
Metric 9: Quality Assurance Low 3 QA/QC procedures not directly discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty Medium 2
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Sauer, T. C.
1981. Volatile organic compounds in open ocean and coastal surface waters. Organic Geochemistry.
Data Type Monitoring

Hero ID 4152375

Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
sampling equipments, storage conditions are described, but no

information of calibration, storage duration.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1

Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
> 15yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
<10 samples for open ocean. <5 samples for coast.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
no raw data, no mean or SD. no discussion of blanks.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Medium
2
discussed extraction efficiency.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
discussion of variability/uncertainty is limited.
Overall Quality Determination

Medium
2.1

Extracted

Yes

Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7

Extracted

Yes

Plants for Air Sampling.

Data Type
Monitoring

Hero ID
4442460

Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
Low
3
There are just name of equipment.
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
Standard EPA method, but no LOQ.
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5
Currency
Medium
2
some of them are a bit old (>5yrs)
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
few samples(4 houses)
Metric 7
Exposure Scenario
Low
3
use pattern, use of exposure controls are less described
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results Low 3 Only one sample per location. Frequency of detections, statis-
tical methods are not described.
Metric 9: Quality Assurance Low 3 Quality assurance only briefly discussed, but a standard
method was used.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3 Uncertainty, variation across houses are not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.7
Extracted
No

Extracted
Yes

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

r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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. Kim, J. A. Kim, J. Y. An, H. J. Kim, S. D. Kim, J. C. Park. 2007. TVOC and formaldehyde emission behaviors from
flooring materials bonded with environmental-friendly MF/PVAc hybrid resins. Indoor Air.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 1512515
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
flooring prep discussed, chamber set up discussed
GC/MS. conditions in table 5. no info on calibration or recov-
eries.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Low
Medium
2
3
2
one set of sampling conditions, table 2. Not sure if resin is con-
sidered an adhesive. Korean study, exact product not known.
number of tests is uncertain.
10 yrs old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
no raw data. Uncertain if the EF is a mean or s
QC not explicitly discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No SD
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Kwon, K. iD,Jo, W.,Lim, H.,Jeong, W.. 2008. Volatile pollutants emitted from selected liquid household products. Environ-
mental Science and Pollution Research.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 1752751
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
2
1
N/A
Experimental protocol and equipment are described thor-
oughly.
Analytical procedures given in detail, including mention of de-
tection limits and recovery
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low
Medium
Medium
3
2
2
Household products tested, but under laboratory conditions.
Goal was to determine composition of products
42 household products tested
Tests conducted prior to article publication in 2008 (5-15 years
ago)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Summary data only, data is product compositions and not air
concentration or consumer dose
No specific discussion of quality assurance/control
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Some discussion of limitations in section 6
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1

Extracted

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Odabasi, M.,Elbir, T.,Dumanoglu, Y.,Sofuoglu, S. C.. 2014. Halogenated volatile organic compounds in chlorine-bleach-
containing household products and implications for their use. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 2443539
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions High 1
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology High 1
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
High
High
High
1
1
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2 no raw data.
N/A calibration, correction for blanks are described, but no recov-
eries reported.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.1
Extracted
No

f High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
t The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Kowalska, J.,Szewczyriska, M.,Posniak, M.. 2014. Measurements of chlorinated volatile organic compounds emitted from office
printers and photocopiers. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 2534318
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
No standard method method mentioned, but chamber size,
temp, RH, air volume, duration reported.
Discussed method, calibration curve. For substance identifica-
tion, the mass spectrum library NIST 05 was available.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Medium
Low
2
2
3
Office printers is on PECO for PERC.
7 different office equipment devices. Appears that replicates
were conducted since mean and SD provided for each device.
Test date not specified, although assumed to be recent based
on pub date.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
No raw data, mean and SD provided for each device,
calibration provided, no discussion of controls.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Discussed different equipment types.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Wetzel, T. A.. 2014. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Indoor Air: Emission From Consumer Products and the Use of
Plants for Air Sampling.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4442460
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Low
Medium
N/A
3
2
N/A
Some info is described in another report. But missing key
pieces of information such as the exact times samples were
collected from the chamber.
Analytical method described, but no limits reported.
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 4:
Testing Scenario
Low
3
Chemical content or weight fraction of product not reported.
Metric 5:
Sample Size and Variability
Low
3
<5 samples
Metric 6:
Temporality
High
1
current
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
The report lacked a lot of information and organization,
raw data, no results per sampling interval.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Discussed calibration. Assessed reproducibility and accuracy
of the emission rates generated from the chamber. No recover-
ies mentioned.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.4

Extracted
Yes

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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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 Solal, C. Rousselle, C. Mandin, J. Manel, F. Maupetit. 2008. VOCs and formaldehyde emissions from cleaning products
and air fresheners. International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate (Indoor Air 2008).
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4683353
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions Medium
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Medium
N/A
N/A
Sampling method is based on widely accepted standard. But
the calibration of sample storages/sampler is not described.
The emission test chamber method is described in ISO 16000-9.
VOCs were sampled based on ISO 16000-6.
Analytical method is based on widely accepted standard. But
the instrument calibration, recovery samples are not described
Samples were analysed using TD/GC/MSD/FID according to
ISO 16000-6.
no biomarkers
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
High
Low
Medium
Only two samples per product type.
10 years(>5yrs)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 Raw data is showed. But only the maximum concentration is
provided.
N/A N/A Widely accepted standards are described however, exact de-
scription of QA is missed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty Low 3 discussion of uncertainty/variability is quite limited.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.1
Extracted
Yes

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1 NHANES

Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1 NHANES

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Geographic Area
Metric 4: Temporal
Metric 5: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Medium
1
3
2
Over 15 years old
Indoor air, but not specifically linked to a consumer use.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
High
Medium
1
2
No raw data, but complete summary stats
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Discussed exposure factors.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Arif, A. A.,Shah, S. M.. 2007. Association between personal exposure to volatile organic compounds and asthma among US
adult population. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 729385
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
High
High
1
1
NHANES. Also contains VOC personal monitoring data.
NHANES. Detailed description of laboratory protocols is avail-
able from the NCHS web site.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Low
1
3
3
US
>15 yrs
Sample collected for 24-48 hrs. Not specific to indoors or to a
consumer product. Personal activities were investigated.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
High
Medium
1
2
NHANES
no min or max (but 95th CI provided)
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A

Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7

Extracted

Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1 STORET

Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1 STORET

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Geographic Area
Metric 4: Temporal
Metric 5: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
1
3
1
>15 yrs
STORET
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

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
Low
1
2
3

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
Medium
Medium
2
2

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A

Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2

Extracted

r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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 it? trichloroethylene.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 3981164
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Webpage provides only very limited info. Brands selected
based on market share.
Shelf survey. Just data
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
High
High
1
1
1
USA and Canada database
"Date verified" provided, some <5 yrs old.
Weight fractions of consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
Low
Medium
3
2
No info how data collected or QC provided.
Data is organized. No summary provided, so summary stats
not applicable
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A

Overall Quality Determination Medium 1.8
Extracted No
f High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
t The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
variability/uncertainty is not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E.,Leaderer, B.,Zelon, H.,Sheldon, L.. 1987. Emissions of volatile organic compounds from building
materials and consumer products. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 23126
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
2
Did not describe why selected the one study to compare vs
others.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air concentrations, but not specific to a product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Medium
2
secondary data - only the average concentration was reported
for comparison.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
No SD provided for indoor concentrations. They did explain
why chamber vs indoor air concentrations may differ.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1

Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5

Extracted
No

f High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
t The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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

Extracted
Yes

Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2

Extracted
No

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
The data of ambient air, SW, GW, and DW are served, but
geography of SW is not clear, and data source is quite old
(1995).
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
1.5

Extracted
No

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
robust discussion, discussed variability
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5

Extracted
No

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

Extracted
Yes

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario High
1
The contractor comment downgraded the paper because it does
not link directly to a consumer product, but that is not the pur-
pose of the study. The indoor/outdoor mixing ration measure-
ments can help inform background indoor air concentrations
when considering risk due to use scenarios.
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
1.0

Extracted No
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Zaatari, M.,Nirlo, E.,Jareemit, D.,Crain, N.,Srebric, J.,Siegel, J.. 2014. Ventilation and indoor air quality in retail stores: A
critical review (RP-1596). HVACandR Research.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 2382442
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High 1
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
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.0
Extracted
No

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
variability is a little discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5

Extracted
No

r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Ec,. 2004. European Union risk assessment report: Trichloroethylene. Cas No: 79-01-6. EINECS No: 201-167-4. 1st Priority
List, Vol. 31.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3809353
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High 1
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3 about 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
1.5
Extracted
No

Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8

Extracted

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Some values are from quite old studies.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
no overall summarization or discussion of uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5

Extracted
No

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Unacceptable
4
Applicable data is limited to occupational exposure.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Low
3
not clear whether the references are peer-reviewed or not.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
no discussion.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.8.
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Geiss, Richard. 2014. Chemical safety report: Use of trichloroethylene in formulation.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970804
Domain Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Unacceptable
4
assumptions for the surface water modeling not provided.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Mostly about workers. But estimated concentration for surface
water provided.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Unacceptable
4
PEC ( modeled estimates) from EUSES are provided for sur-
face water, but no inputs provided. No references, however
,this appears to be only part of a report.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
no discussion for variability or uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 3.2.
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, two 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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Geiss, Richard. 2014. Chemical safety report: Use of trichloroethylene in packaging.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970805
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Unacceptable
4
They provided a PEC for surface water, but did not state the
model used.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Germany
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Unacceptable
4
no reference section
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
nodiscussion for variability an uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 3.2.
Extracted

Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
1

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
report of EU. quite new report.(<5 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 discussion of uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8

Extracted

Yes

Extracted
Yes

** 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, two 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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: D. O. W. Deutschland. 2014. Chemical safety report: Industrial use as process chemical (enclosed systems) in Alcantara
material production.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970811
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 EUSES is an accepted model, but part of information is black
painted.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 quite new report, but not US.
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
Yes

** 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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Vlisco Netherlands, B. V.. 2014. Chemical safety report Part A: Use of trichloroethylene as a solvent for the removal and
recovery of resin from dyed cloth.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970833
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High 1
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
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
Extracted
Yes

** 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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Parker Hannifin, Manufacturing. 2014. Chemicaf safety report: Use of trichloroethylene as a process solvent for the manufac-
turing of hollow fibre gas separation membranes out of polyphenylene oxide (PPO).
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970838
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High 1
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
not US(EU). quite
new report (< 5 yrs old).
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Medium
2
Some data are not
references or not.
clear whether it's based on peer reviewed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
risk evaluation is cc
is not discussed.
inducted for multiple scenarios, uncertainty
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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: R. A. G. Aktiengesellschaft. 2014. Chemical safety report:
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970841
Trichloroethylene.
Domain Metric Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology Unacceptable
4
No assumptions for the EUSES modeling for surface water
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Low
3
No consumer. Another country. Not many details provided on
assumptions.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References Unacceptable
4
No reference section.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low
3
no discussion for variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 3.5.
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, two 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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: . 2014. Exposure assessment: Trichloroethylene, Part 3.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970842
Domain Metric Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology Low
3
Used EUSES but didn't describe inputs
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario Medium
2
based on industrial releases but not in US (EU).
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References Low
3
no references are shown.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low
3
No discussion of variability/uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination Low
2.8

Extracted Yes

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

Overall Quality Determination High
1.5

Extracted No

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
uncertainty is not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5

Extracted
No

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low
3
No discussion of uncertinty.
Overall Quality Determination Medium
2.0

Extracted No

Domain Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
3
No documentation of lit search methods.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Not much exposure info in source.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Low
3
No reference section,
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A

Overall Quality Determination
Low
3.0

Extracted
No

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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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.. 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

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Sampling / Sampling Size
Response Rate
High
High
Medium
1
1
2
Nationwide (U.S.A.) survey with outreach via random dialing
and willingness to provide address and respond to survey.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Reporting of Results
Metric 7: Quality Assurance
High
Medium
1
2

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. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study. 2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related
to total volatile organic compounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 2443306
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Data Collection Methodology Medium 2 Data collection methodology discussed. The Avon Longitudi-
nal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a population-
based study of children born to women who resided in Avon
(United Kingdom) during their pregnancy and who had an
expected delivery date between April 1, 1991, and December
31, 1992. There were 14,541 pregnant women enrolled in this
study, and a cohort of 13,971 of their children was still being
followed at age 12 mo. The goal of the ALSPAC is to evalu-
ate environmental, genetic, and social factors that can influ-
ence the health of infants and their mothers. Information was
collected from mothers through self-report questionnaires at
different times during their pregnancy, as well as after the in-
fant" s birth, to ascertain family and household characteristics,
parental occupations, and other socioeconomic factors. The
purpose of this study within the ALSPAC was (a) to determine
indoor levels of VOCs relative to the use of specific household
products and (b) to identify households in which total VOC
(TVOC) levels were high. Investigation of the entire cohort
of children and their parents further identified common health
effects at different points of data collection. We asked subjects
to complete a questionnaire that had questions about the fre-
quency of use of 9 common household products that contain
high proportions of VOCs. A total of 13,164 women completed
the 1st questionnaire when they were 8 wk pregnant. Of these
women, 10,976 completed a 2nd questionnaire 8 mo after birth,
and 10,119 completed a 3rd questionnaire when their child was
21 mo of age. We assumed that information about household
product use during early pregnancy reflected routine use of
these products" rather than later uses which might include
cleaning that occurred because the infant was now a mem-
ber of the household (e.g., use of products to ensure special
cleanliness in the infant"s environment). The types of house-
hold products examined were window cleaners, carpet cleaners,
dry-cleaning fluids, turpentine or white spirit, paint stripper,
house paints or varnishes, pesticides, other aerosols or sprays,
and air fresheners. The categories of use were (a) never or less
than once per week, (b) once per week, and (c) daily on most
days.
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study. 2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related
to total volatile organic compounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 2443306
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 2: Data Analysis Methodology Medium 2 Statistical analyses. Mean TVOC levels were calculated on
the basis of the monthly values from the living rooms and
main bedrooms of the homes monitored in the BRE indoor air
study (N = 170). Households with less than 5 TVOC readings
for the year were excluded from the analysis. TVOC levels
were dichotomized into 2 percentiles: < 75th percentile and
" 75th percentile. Use of each of the 9 household products
during early pregnancy was dichotomized to < 1/wk and "
1/wk. We used Pearson" s chi-square and Fisher" s Exact test
(crosstabs) to evaluate the relationships between VOC levels in
the homes and product use during early pregnancy. We then
used products that were statistically significantly associated
with higher TVOC levels in the analysis of the entire cohort to
determine if use of these products was associated with report-
ing of symptoms for infants or mothers. For the total cohort,
we applied logistic-regression analysis to obtain adjusted odds
ratios (ORs) for each symptom with use of a specific product
for different frequencies of use, to determine if the odds of expe-
riencing a symptom increased as use of the product increased.
Adjustments were made for education, mother"s age, housing
tenure, number of children in the home, number of smokers in
the home, paid job subsequent to birth of the child, dampness
or condensation in the home, mold in the home, type of winter
heating fuel, and month the questionnaire was completed. The
first 6 variables controlled for socioeconomic status; the latter
4 controlled for seasonal ventilation differences that might have
influenced the build-up of VOCs (from indoor sources).
Domain 2: Representative

Metric 3: Geographic Area
High 1 United Kingdom
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study. 2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related
to total volatile organic compounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 2443306
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 4: Sampling / Sampling Size Medium 2 The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children
(ALSPAC) is a population-based study of children born to
women who resided in Avon (United Kingdom) during their
pregnancy and who had an expected delivery date between
April 1, 1991, and December 31, 1992. There were 14,541
pregnant women enrolled in this study, and a cohort of 13,971
of their children was still being followed at age 12 mo. The
goal of the ALSPAC is to evaluate environmental, genetic,
and social factors that can influence the health of infants and
their mothers. Information was collected from mothers through
self-report questionnaires at different times during their preg-
nancy, as well as after the infant" s birth, to ascertain family
and household characteristics, parental occupations, and other
socioeconomic factors. We asked subjects to complete a ques-
tionnaire that had questions about the frequency of use of 9
common household products that contain high proportions of
VOCs.
Metric 5: Response Rate Medium 2 We asked subjects to complete a questionnaire that had ques-
tions about the frequency of use of 9 common household prod-
ucts that contain high proportions of VOCs. A total of 13,164
women completed the 1st questionnaire when they were 8 wk
pregnant. Of these women, 10,976 completed a 2nd question-
naire 8 mo after birth, and 10,119 completed a 3rd question-
naire when their child was 21 mo of age. Of the 170 total
homes included in this focused study, at least 10 samples were
returned from each of 109 households, and at least 5 samples
were returned from each of 148 households. The 3,339 total
samples represented 73 percent of the number of potential sam-
ples. The highest and lowest TVOC concentrations from indi-
vidual samples were 11.4 mg/m3 (in a living room) and 0.02
mg/m3 (in a main bedroom), respectively. The highest and
lowest geometric mean concentrations of TVOCs in the liv-
ing room and bedroom, from a total of 12 samples from any
house, were 1.559 mg/m3 and 0.063 mg/m3, respectively. The
percentiles of mean TVOC concentrations in the living rooms
and bedrooms are contained in the Notes in Table 1.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Reporting of Results Medium 2 No supporting information or raw data available. Table 1 re-
ports products used during pregnancy that were associated
significantly with greater than/equal to 75th percentile geo-
metric mean of measured Total Volatile Organic Compounds
(TVOCs). No data reported specifically for TCE.
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study. 2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related
to total volatile organic compounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 2443306
Domain Metric
Rating1
Score
Comments^
Metric 7: Quality Assurance
Medium
2
No quality control issues were identified
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
For example, in 33 homes all readings in both the living room
and the main bedroom were less than 0.4 mg/m3. In 5 homes,
the TVOC concentrations for both rooms always exceeded the
stated value. Caution is required when our data are compared
with results reported by others and with recommended guide-
lines, which may be based on a different definition of TVOC.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9

Extracted
Yes

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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. L. Miller, M. J. Anderson, E. P. Daly, J. B. Milford. 2002. Source apportionment of exposures to volatile organic compounds
I Evaluation of receptor models using simulated exposure data. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Modeling
Hero ID 30661
Domain
Metric
Ratingt
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Mathematicl Equations
Model Evaluation
Medium
Low
2
3
key equations or uptakes are not in the data source. But theory
is described in detail.
corroboration of model, QA are not described.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Exposure Scenario
Low
3
all data set are >15yrs old.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
Low
Low
3
3
insufficient documentation in the data source
inputs are described, but description is not detail.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
discussion of uncertainty is limited though, differences between
model results are described.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.7

Extracted

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: Serrano-Trespalacios, P. I.,Ryan, L.,Spengler, J. D.. 2004. Ambient, indoor and personal exposure relationships of volatile
organic compounds in Mexico City metropolitan area. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Modeling
Hero ID 56224
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Mathematicl Equations
Model Evaluation
Low
Low
3
3
Not provided in source. Provided in Hamlett, 2003.
Model described in supplemental source Hamlett, 2003. Mon-
itoring results also provided to compare.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
Low
Medium
3
2
Model described in supplemental source Hamlett, 2003.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Monitoring results also provided.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.5

Extracted

Yes

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
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: McKnight, U. S.,Funder, S. G.,Rasmussen, J.,Finkel, M.,Binning, P. J.,Bjerg, P. L.. 2010. An integrated model for assessing
the risk of TCE groundwater contamination to human receptors and surface water ecosystems. Ecological Engineering.
Data Type Modeling
Hero ID 2128201
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Mathematicl Equations
Model Evaluation
High
Medium
1
2
equations presented
We additionally propose that conducting subsequent supple-
mentary field studies is highly necessary to improve the eval-
uation of modeling results, when ecosystem modeling input
is restricted to only a few species which potentially are not
present at the site in question.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Surface water concentrations from contaminated groundwater.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
High
High
1
1

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1

Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5

Extracted

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
High
High
1
1

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1

Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3

Extracted

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
High
High
1
1

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2

Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5

Extracted

Yes