PEER REVIEW DRAFT. DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Draft Risk Evaluation for
T richloroethylene
Systematic Review Supplemental File:
Data Quality Evaluation of Environmental Fate
and Transport Studies
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention
CASRN: 79-01-6
H
CI CI
February 2020
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Table of Contents
Barrows, ME; Petrocelli, SR; Macek, KJ; Carroll, JJ. (1980). Bioconcentration and elimination of
selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). In R Haque (Ed.), Dynamics,
exposure and hazard assessment of toxic chemicals (pp. 379- 392). Ann Arbor, Ml: Ann Arbor
Science. HERO ID: 18050 7
Umweltbundesamt. (1984). Assessments of the feasibility and evidence of test methods of levels I and
ii of the chemicals act on thiourea. (OTS: OTS0000551-0; 8EHQ Num: FYI-OTS-0787-0551; DCN:
NA; TSCATS RefID: 304314; CIS: NA). HERO ID: 4215574 10
Fogel, MM; Taddeo, AR; Fogel, S. (1986). Biodegradation of chlorinated ethenes by a methane-utilizing
mixed culture. Appl Environ Microbiol 51: 720-724. HERO ID: 1739397 13
Cheng, D; Chow, WL; He, J. (2010). A Dehalococcoides-containing co-culture that dechlorinates
tetrachloroethene to trans-1,2-dichloroethene. ISME J 4: 88-97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2009.90. HERO ID: 379893 15
Parsons, F; Wood, PR; Demarco, J. (1984). Transformations of tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene
in microcosms and groundwater. J Am Water Works Assoc 762: 56-59. HERO ID: 75110 17
van Eekert, MHA; Schroder, TJ; van Rhee, A; Stams, AJM; Schraa, G; Field, JA. (2001). Constitutive
dechlorination of chlorinated ethenes by a methanol degrading methanogenic consortium.
BioresourTechnol 77:163-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00149-8. HERO ID:
1166576 20
Bjerg, PL; Rugge, K; Cortsen, J; Nielsen, PH; Christensen, TH. (1999). Degradation of aromatic and
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the anaerobic part of the Grindsted Landfill leachate plume:
In situ microcosm and laboratory batch experiments. Ground Water 37:113-121.
http://dx.doi.org/10.llll/jM745- 6584.1999.tb00964.x. HERO ID: 1486371 23
Bjerg, PL; Rugge, K; Cortsen, J; Nielsen, PH; Christensen, TH. (1999). Degradation of aromatic and
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the anaerobic part of the Grindsted Landfill leachate plume:
In situ microcosm and laboratory batch experiments. Ground Water 37:113-121.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.llll/j. 1745- 6584.1999.tb00964.x. HERO ID: 1486371 26
Nielsen, PH; Bjerg, PL; Nielsen, P; Smith, P; Christensen, TH. (1996). In situ and laboratory determined
first-order degradation rate constants of specific organic compounds in an aerobic aquifer. Environ
SciTechnol 30: 31-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es940722o. HERO ID: 1486742 29
Nielsen, PH; Bjerg, PL; Nielsen, P; Smith, P; Christensen, TH. (1996). In situ and laboratory determined
first-order degradation rate constants of specific organic compounds in an aerobic aquifer. Environ
SciTechnol 30: 31-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es940722o. HERO ID: 1486742 31
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of
chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372( 1993)119:2(300). HERO ID: 1717600 34
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of
chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372( 1993)119:2(300). HERO ID: 1717600 36
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of
chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372( 1993)119:2(300). HERO ID: 1717600 38
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of
chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372( 1993)119:2(300). HERO ID: 1717600 40
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and aerobic treatment of
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372( 1993)119:2(300). HERO ID: 1717600 42
Vogel, TM; McCarty, PL. (1985). Biotransformation of tetrachloroethylene to trichloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and carbon dioxide under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ
Microbiol 49: 1080-1083. HERO ID: 1744339 44
Vogel, TM; McCarty, PL. (1985). Biotransformation of tetrachloroethylene to trichloroethylene,
dichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and carbon dioxide under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ
Microbiol 49: 1080-1083. HERO ID: 1744339 46
Kim, Y; Arp, DJ; Semprini, L. (2000). Chlorinated solvent cometabolism by butane- grown mixed
culture. J Environ Eng 126: 934-942. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9372(2000)126:10(934). HERO ID: 1747865 48
Bouwer, EJ; McCarty, PL. (1983). Transformations of 1- and 2-carbon halogenated aliphatic organic
compounds under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 45:1286-1294. HERO ID:
18060 50
Schmidt, KR; Tiehm, A. (2008). Natural attenuation of chloroethenes: identification of sequential
reductive/oxidative biodegradation by microcosm studies. Water SciTechnol 58:1137-1145.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.729. HERO ID: 1941207 53
Haas, JR; Shock, EL. (1999). Halocarbons in the environment: Estimates of thermodynamic properties
for aqueous chloroethylene species and their stabilities in natural settings. Geochim Cosmo Act
63: 3429-3441. HERO ID: 1960428 55
Bielefeldt, AR; Stensel, HD; Strand, SE. (1995). Cometabolic degradation of TCE and DCE without
intermediate toxicity. J Environ Eng 121: 791-797. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9372(1995)121:11(791). HERO ID: 2303792 57
Kastner, M. (1991). Reductive dechlorination of tri- and tetrachloroethylenes depends on transition
from aerobic to anaerobic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 57: 2039-2046. HERO ID: 2310605.59
Powell, CL; Goltz, MN; Agrawal, A. (2014). Degradation kinetics of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
by methane oxidizers naturally-associated with wetland plant roots. J Contam Hydrol 170: 68-75.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2014.10.001. HERO ID: 2533464 62
Qin, K; Struckhoff, GC; Agrawal, A; Shelley, ML; Dong, H. (2014). Natural attenuation potential of
tricholoroethene in wetland plant roots: Role of native ammonium- oxidizing microorganisms.
Chemosphere 119C: 971-977. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.09.040. HERO ID:
2534473 64
Haston, ZC; McCarty, PL. (1999). Chlorinated ethene half-velocity coefficients (KS) for reductive
dehalogenation. Environ SciTechnol 33: 223-226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es9805876. HERO ID:
2777471 67
Freedman, DL; Gossett, JM. (1989). Biological reductive dechlorination of tetrachloroethylene and
trichloroethylene to ethylene under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 55: 2144-
2151. HERO ID: 2802294 69
Henry, SM; Grbic-Galic, D. (1991). Influence of endogenous and exogenous electron donors and
trichloroethylene oxidation toxicity on trichloroethylene oxidation by methanotrophic cultures
from a groundwater aquifer. Appl Environ Microbiol 57: 236-244. HERO ID: 2802580 72
Kim, JY; Park, JK; Emmons, B; Armstrong, DE. (1995). Survey of volatile organic compounds at a
municipal solid waste cocomposting facility. Water Environ Res 67:1044-1051.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/106143095X133284. HERO ID: 2802998 75
Tobajas, M; Verdugo, V; Polo, AM; Rodriguez, JJ; Mohedano, AF. (2016). Assessment of toxicity and
biodegradability on activated sludge of priority and emerging pollutants. Environ Technol 37: 713-
721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2015.1079264. HERO ID: 3070754 78
Phelps, TJ; Niedzielski, JJ; Malachowsky, KJ; Schram, RM; Herbes, SE; White, DC. (1991).
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Biodegradation of mixed-organic wastes by microbial consortia in continuous-recycle expanded-
bed bioreactors. Environ SciTechnol 25:1461-1465. HERO ID: 3543307 80
Lee, W; Park, SH; Kim, J; Jung, JY. (2015). Occurrence and removal of hazardous chemicals and toxic
metals in 27 industrial wastewater treatment plants in Korea. Desalination Water Treat 54:1141-
1149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.935810. HERO ID: 3580141 83
Parsons, F; Lage, GB; Rice, R. (1985). Biotransformation of chlorinated organic solvents in static
microcosms. Environ Toxicol Chem 4: 739-742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620040604. HERO
ID: 3797820 86
Wakeham, SG; Davis, AC; Karas, JA. (1983). Mesocosm experiments to determine the fate and
persistence of volatile organic compounds in coastal seawater. Environ Sci Technol 17: 611-617.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00116a009. HERO ID: 3797829 88
Wakeham, SG; Davis, AC; Karas, JA. (1983). Mesocosm experiments to determine the fate and
persistence of volatile organic compounds in coastal seawater. Environ SciTechnol 17: 611-617.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00116a009. HERO ID: 3797829 91
Gossett, JM. (1985). Anaerobic degradation of CI and C2 chlorinated hydrocarbons. (ESL-TR-85-38).
Tyndal AFB, FL: Air Force Engineering & Services Center. HERO ID: 4140341 94
Alvarez-Cohen, L; McCarty, PL. (1991). Effects of toxicity, aeration and reductant supply on
trichloroethylene transformation by a mixed methanotrophic culture. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:
228-235. HERO ID: 4140406 97
Dow Chem Co. (1977). The Inhibition Of Anaerobic Sludge Gas Production By 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
Methylene Chloride, Trichloroethylene and Perchloroethylene, Part 2. (OTS: OTS0517178; 8EHQ
Num: NA; DCN: 86- 870002089; TSCATS RefID: 309930; CIS: NA). HERO ID: 4213887 100
Kao, CM; Prosser, J. (1999). Intrinsic bioremediation of trichloroethylene and chlorobenzene: field and
laboratory studies. J Hazard Mater 69: 67-79. HERO ID: 660136 102
Kao, CM; Prosser, J. (1999). Intrinsic bioremediation of trichloroethylene and chlorobenzene: field and
laboratory studies. J Hazard Mater 69: 67-79. HERO ID: 660136 105
Freitag, D; Ballhorn, L; Geyer, H; Korte, F. (1985). Environmental hazard profile of organic chemicals:
an experimental method for the assessment of the behaviour of organic chemicals in the
ecosphere by means of simple laboratory tests with 14C labelled chemicals. Chemosphere 14:
1589-1616. HERO ID: 85251 108
Bouwer, EJ; Rittmann, BE; McCarty, PL. (1981). Anaerobic degradation of halogenated 1- and 2-carbon
organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 15: 596-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00087a012.
HERO ID: 9818 Ill
Bouwer, EJ; Rittmann, BE; McCarty, PL. (1981). Anaerobic degradation of halogenated 1- and 2-carbon
organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 15: 596-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00087a012.
HERO ID: 9818 113
Jensen, S; Rosenberg, R. (1975). Degradability of some chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in sea water
and sterilized water. Water Res 9: 659-661. HERO ID: 9841 115
Tabak, HH; Quave, SA; Mashni, CI; Barth, EF. (1981). Biodegradability studies with organic priority
pollutant compounds. J Water Pollut Control Fed 53:1503-1518. HERO ID: 9861 118
Wood, PR; Parsons, FZ; DeMarco, J; Harween, HJ; Lang, RF; Payan, IL; Ruiz, MC. (1981). Introductory
study of the biodegradation of the chlorinated methane, ethane and ethene compounds. Paper
presented at American Water Works Association Annual Conference and Exposition, June 7-11,
1981, St. Louis, MO. HERO ID: 9881 120
Dilling, WL; Tefertiller, NB; Kallos, GJ. (1975). Evaporation rates and reactivities of methylene chloride,
chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated
compounds in dilute aqueous solutions. Environ Sci Technol 9:833-838.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60107a008. HERO ID: 58054 122
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Jeffers, PM; Ward, LM; Woytowitch, LM; Wolfe, NL. (1989). Homogeneous Hydrolysis Rate Constants
for Selected Chlorinated Methanes Ethanes Ethenes and Propanes. Environ Sci Technol 23: 965-
969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00066a006. HERO ID: 661098 124
Rodriguez, C; Linge, K; Blair, P; Busetti, F; Devine, B; Van Buynder, P; Weinstein, P; Cook, A. (2012).
Recycled water: potential health risks from volatile organic compounds and use of 1,4-
dichlorobenzene as treatment performance indicator. Water Res 46: 93-106.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.032. HERO ID: 1008978 127
Tancrede, M; Yanagisawa, Y; Wilson, R. (1992). Volatilization of volatile organic compounds from
showers: I. Analytical method and quantitative assessment (pp. 1103-1111). (BIOSIS/92/15798).
Tancrede, M; Yanagisawa, Y; Wilson, R. HERO ID: 1023248 130
Chiou, CT; Freed, VH; Peters, U; Kohnert, RL. (1980). Evaporation of solutes from water. Environ Int 3:
231-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(80)90123-3. HERO ID: 18077 132
Dilling, WL. (1977). Interphase transfer processes. II. Evaporation rates of chloro methanes, ethanes,
ethylenes, propanes, and propylenes from dilute aqueous solutions. Comparisons with theoretical
predictions. Environ Sci Technol 11: 405-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60127a009. HERO ID:
18370 134
Dunovant, VS; Clark, CS; Que Hee, SS; Hertzberg, VS; Trapp, JH. (1986). Volatile Organics in the
Wastewater and Airspaces of Three Wastewater Treatment Plants (pp. 886-895).
(NIOSH/00165921). Dunovant, VS; Clark, CS; Que Hee, SS; Hertzberg, VS; Trapp, JH. HERO ID:
1993670 136
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 Pollut 177: 28-37.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.008. HERO ID: 2128010 138
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Estimation Programs Interface Suite™ for
Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11 [Computer Program]. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-program- interface. HERO ID:
2347246 140
Soltanali, S; Hagani, ZS. (2008). Modeling of air stripping from volatile organic compounds in biological
treatment processes. Int J Environ Sci Tech 5: 353-360. HERO ID: 2529433 143
Chen, WH; Yang, WB; Yuan, CS; Yang, JC; Zhao, QL. (2014). Fates of chlorinated volatile organic
compounds in aerobic biological treatment processes: the effects of aeration and sludge addition.
Chemosphere 103: 92-98. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.ll.039. HERO ID:
2799543 145
Parker, WJ; Thompson, DJ; Bell, JP; Melcer, H. (1993). Fate of volatile organic compounds in municipal
activated sludge plants. Water Environ Res 65: 58-65. HERO ID: 2803053 148
Pant, P; Allen, M; Cai, Y; Jayachandran, K; Chen, Y, in. (2007). Influence of physical factors on
trichloroethylene evaporation from surface water. Water Air Soil Pollut 183:153-163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll270-007-9365-5. HERO ID: 3543365 151
Keefe, SH; Barber, LB; Runkel, RL; Ryan, JN. (2004). Fate of volatile organic compounds in constructed
wastewater treatment wetlands. Environ Sci Technol 38: 2209-2216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034661i. HERO ID: 3566693 153
Bruggemann, R; Trapp, S. (1988). Release and fate modelling of highly volatile solvents in the river
Main. 17: 2029-2041. HERO ID: 3629597 155
Culver, TB; Shoemaker, CA; Lion, LW. (1991). Impact of vapor sorption on the subsurface transport of
volatile organic compounds: A numerical model and analysis. Water Resour Res 27: 2259-2270.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/91WR00223. HERO ID: 3809323 157
Matienzo, LV. (1989). Staff report on development of treatment standards for non-RCRA solvent
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
waste. Sacramento, CA: Toxic Substances Control Program.
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/17/16884.pdf. HERO ID: 3982116 159
Matienzo, LV. (1989). Staff report on development of treatment standards for non-RCRA solvent
waste. Sacramento, CA: Toxic Substances Control Program.
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/17/16884.pdf. HERO ID: 3982116 161
Blaney, BL. (1989). Applicability of steam stripping to organics removal from wastewater streams.
(EPA/600/9-89/072). Cincinnati, OH: Blaney, BL. http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/23/22522.pdf.
HERO ID: 3986884 163
Smith, JH; Bomberger, DC, Jr; Haynes, DL. (1980). Prediction of the volatilization rates of high-volatility
chemicals from natural water bodies. Environ Sci Technol 14:1332-1337.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60171a004. HERO ID: 58132 166
Bell, J; Melcer, H; Monteith, H; Osinga, I; Steel, P. (1993). Stripping of volatile organic compounds at
full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Environ Res 65: 708-716.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.2175/WER.65.6.2. HERO ID: 658661 168
Stubin, Al; Brosnan, TM; Porter, KD; Jimenez, L; Lochan, H. (1996). Organic priority pollutants in New
York City municipal wastewaters: 1989-1993. Water Environ Res 68:1037-1044.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/106143096X128108. HERO ID: 658797 170
Gay, BW, Jr; Hanst, PL; Bufalini, JJ; Noonan, RC. (1976). Atmospheric oxidation of chlorinated
ethylenes. Environ Sci Technol 10: 58-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60112a005. HERO ID: 59310
172
Park, J; Choi, E; Cho, IH; Kim, YG. (2003). Solar light induced degradation of trichloroethylene (TCE)
using Ti02: effects of solar light intensity and seasonal variations. J Environ Sci Health A Tox
Hazard Subst Environ Eng 38:1915-1926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ESE-120022889. HERO ID:
1497906 174
Park, J; Choi, E; Cho, IH; Kim, YG. (2003). Solar light induced degradation of trichloroethylene (TCE)
using Ti02: effects of solar light intensity and seasonal variations. J Environ Sci Health A Tox
Hazard Subst Environ Eng 38:1915-1926. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ESE-120022889. HERO ID:
1497906 176
Dobaradaran, S; Nabizadeh, R; Mahvi, AH; Noroozi, A; Yunesian, M; Rastkari, N; Nazmara, S; Zarei, S.
(2012). Kinetic and degradation efficiency of trichloroethylene (TCE) via photochemical process
from contaminated water. Afr J Biotechnol 11: 2006- 2012. HERO ID: 2128765 178
Shirayama, H; Tohezo, Y; Taguchi, S. (2001). Photodegradation of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the
presence and absence of dissolved oxygen in water. Water Res 35:1941-1950.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00480-2. HERO ID: 3544747 181
Dilling, WL; Tefertiller, NB; Kallos, GJ. (1975). Evaporation rates and reactivities of methylene chloride,
chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated
compounds in dilute aqueous solutions. Environ Sci Technol 9:833-838.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60107a008. HERO ID: 58054 183
Freitag, D; Ballhorn, L; Geyer, H; Korte, F. (1985). Environmental hazard profile of organic chemicals:
an experimental method for the assessment of the behaviour of organic chemicals in the
ecosphere by means of simple laboratory tests with 14C labelled chemicals. Chemosphere 14:
1589-1616. HERO ID: 85251 185
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Barrows, ME; Petrocelli, SR; Macek, KJ; Carroll, JJ. (1980). Bioconcentration and
Reference:
elimination of selected water pollutants by bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). In
R Haque (Ed.), Dynamics, exposure and hazard assessment of toxic chemicals (pp.
379- 392). Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science.
HERO ID: 18050
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The source of the
1
1
1
Substance
test substance was
Purity
reported; the purity
was omitted;
however, this
omission was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Negative controls
were employed in
the study. Some
control group
details were not
included; however,
the lack of data was
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Medium
Details regarding
2
1
2
Substance
this metric were not
Stability
discussed; however,
the omissions were
not likely to have
hindered the
interpretation of the
results.
Test
5. Test
High
The test method
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
was suitable for the
test substance.
6. Testing
High
Test conditions
1
2
2
Conditions
were monitored
and documented,
including dissolved
oxygen, water
temperature, and
pH.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
7. Testing
High
Test conditions
1
1
1
Consistency
were consistent
across study groups
and aquaria, and
exposure conditions
were monitored.
8. System
Type and
Design
High
The test system
(modified
continual- flow,
proportional
dilution closed
system) was
appropriate for the
test substance and
was capable of
maintaining the
appropriate
exposure
concentration.
1
1
1
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Organism
High
Routine organism
used, details
1
2
2
Partitioning
provided, including
source, wet weight
and standard
length, acclimation
details, and physical
condition.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Methods
High
The study used
widely accepted
methods for the
chemical and
medium being
analyzed; no
notable limitations
were expected to
have influenced
study results.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
The study reported
the mean chemical
concentration and
the calculated BCF.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Actual
concentrations
measured
throughout the
study were not
reported; however,
these details were
not likely to have
been severe or have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
17
19
23
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.21
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
_j1 mul • 1.7
-j 1.7 mill '2.:-!
mul ¦-.$
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Umweltbundesamt. (1984). Assessments of the feasibility and evidence of test
Reference:
methods of levels I and II of the chemicals act on thiourea. (OTS: OTS0000551-0;
8EHQ Num: FYI-OTS-0787-0551; DCN: NA; TSCATS RefID: 304314; CIS: NA).
HERO ID: 4215574
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Low
Test substance
3
1
3
Substance
purity was not
Purity
reported or verified
by analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
The use of negative
controls was not
reported; however,
an OECD guideline
is cited, which
requires use of a
control group.
2
2
4
4. Test
Medium
Details on whether
2
1
2
Substance
test conditions were
Stability
appropriate for
maintaining stable
test substance were
not included;
however, this was
unlikely to have
influenced the
results
substantially.
Test
5. Test
High
The test method
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
employed was
suitable for the test
substance.
6. Testing
Medium
Generalized details
2
2
4
Conditions
for 10 discrete
chemicals tested;
some fluctuation in
water temperature
and pH may have
occurred.
7. Testing
Medium
Limited details were
2
1
2
Consistency
reported to evaluate
this metric.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
High
Routine organism
1
2
2
Organism
was used, and
Partitioning
source was
reported; guideline
cited for fish body
weight.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
The outcome
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
assessment
methodology
reported the
intended outcome
of interest.
12. Sampling
Low
Details were not
3
1
3
Methods
included on
sampling methods
or approaches.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Nominal
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
concentrations,
and Analysis
average
concentrations in
water, average
concentrations in
fish, and BCFs were
reported; lipid
content was not
reported.
16. Statistical
High
The analysis of data
1
1
1
Methods and
was clearly
Kinetic
described.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Low
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
25
19
33
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.74
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
-jl Iliul 1.;
^1..- niul Z.'A
niul ¦-.$
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Evaluation of the reasonableness of the
study results was not possible due to limited data reporting regarding sampling and controls.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Fogel, MM; Taddeo, AR; Fogel, S. (1986). Biodegradation of chlorinated ethenes by a
methane-utilizing mixed culture. Appl Environ Microbiol 51: 720-724.
HERO ID: 1739397
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
purity and source
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
A sterile control
group was included.
1
2
2
4. Test
Substance
High
Details regarding
this metric were not
1
1
1
Stability
reported but this
did not limit the
interpretation of
the results.
Test
5. Test
High
The test method
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
was suitable for the
test substance.
6. Testing
High
The conditions
1
2
2
Conditions
were suitable for
the test substance.
7. Testing
High
No inconsistencies
1
1
1
Consistency
were reported or
identified.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
Details regarding
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
this metric were
clearly reported.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
Details regarding
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
this metric were
clearly reported.
12. Sampling
Medium
Limited details
2
1
2
Methods
regarding this
metric were
reported.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(evaluating factors
that inhibited
biodegradation).
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
Results were
reported for
radiolabeled carbon
(14C).
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
14
18
19
II i(>h
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sinn of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.06
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_j1 mill * 1.7
_j1.7 mul
¦•2.:-:
_j2.:-> anil
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Cheng, D; Chow, WL; He, J. (2010). A Dehalococcoides-containing co-culture that
Reference:
dechlorinates tetrachloroethene to trans-l,2-dichloroethene. ISME J 4: 88-97.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2009.90.
HERO ID: 379893
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Factor
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
purity and source
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
The test method
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
was suitable for the
test substance.
6. Testing
High
The conditions
1
2
2
Conditions
were suitable for
the test substance.
7. Testing
High
No inconsistencies
1
1
1
Consistency
were reported or
identified.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
Limited details
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
were reported to
assess this metric.
12. Sampling
Medium
Limited details
2
1
2
Methods
were reported to
assess this metric.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
High
No confounding
variables were
1
1
1
Control
Variables
noted.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Some information
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
was not reported
and Analysis
(reports
dechlorination
rates, test
substance
concentration in
figures); however,
the omissions were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
16. Statistical
Medium
Limited calculation
2
1
2
Methods and
details were
Kinetic
reported; but this
Calculations
was not likely to
have impacted the
study results.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Low
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
22
20
28
II i(>h
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sinn of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
^1 niul 1.7
^1.7 niul
• 2.3
-2.3 ;ind iJ3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: This study focused
on dechlorination by a
specific species and due to limited information being reported in the study, evaluation of the
reasonableness of the study results was not possible.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Parsons, F; Wood, PR; Demarco, J. (1984). Transformations of tetrachloroethene and
Reference:
trichloroethene in microcosms and groundwater. J Am Water Works Assoc 762: 56-
59.
HERO ID: 75110
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Factor
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
2
4
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
common name, but
characterization
details were
omitted.
2. Test
Low
The source and
3
1
3
Substance
purity of the test
Purity
substance were not
reported or verified
by analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Some concurrent
control group
details were not
included; however,
the lack of data was
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
stability,
Stability
homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
The test method
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
was suitable for the
test substance.
6. Testing
Low
Anaerobic
3
2
6
Conditions
conditions were
assumed and not
determined
analytically or
strictly set up
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
experimentally.
7. Testing
High
No inconsistencies
1
1
1
Consistency
were reported or
identified.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Medium
The test organism,
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
species, and
inoculum source
were reported, but
not routinely used
for similar study
types.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
Other possible
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
removal pathways
were not
considered.
12. Sampling
Low
Note from report:
3
1
3
Methods
Sampling procedure
resulted in
increasing
headspace and was
not used in later
work.
Confounding/
13.
Low
Loss of mass
3
1
3
Variable
Confounding
balance was noted
Control
Variables
for starting material
and attributed to
adsorption; this
may have been due
to volatilization
during sampling.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
The target chemical
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
and transformation
and Analysis
product(s)
concentrations,
extraction
efficiency, percent
recovery, and mass
balance were not
reported; however,
these omissions
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
on the study results.
16. Statistical
Low
Statistical analysis
3
1
3
Methods and
or kinetic
Kinetic
calculations were
Calculations
not conducted or
were not described
clearly, and the lack
of information was
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results for TCE.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
30
19
41
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sinn of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.16
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
0
^1 and 1.7
-j 1.7 and
-2.3 and ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
NR1
'Matrix not included in the conceptual model for TCE.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
van Eekert, MHA; Schroder, TJ; van Rhee, A; Stams, AJM; Schraa, G; Field, JA. (2001).
Reference:
Constitutive dechlorination of chlorinated ethenes by a methanol degrading
methanogenic consortium. Bioresour Technol 77:163-170.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00149-8.
HERO ID: 1166576
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The source of the
2
1
2
Substance
test substance was
Purity
reported but the
purity was not
reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Controls were
included.
1
2
2
4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
stability,
Stability
homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have
influenced the Test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
The test method was
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
suitable for the test
substance; the target
chemical was tested
at concentrations
below its aqueous
solubility.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
Testing conditions
were monitored,
reported, and
appropriate for the
method.
1
2
2
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
7. Testing
High
Test conditions were
1
1
1
Consistency
consistent across
samples or study
groups.
8. System
Low
Some TCE removal
3
1
3
Type and
was not accounted
Design
for in this study;
however, absorption
to sludge was
suggested.
Test
9. Test
High
The test organism
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
information or
inoculum source
were reported
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
The outcome
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
assessment
methodology
addressed or
reported the
intended outcomefs]
of interest.
12. Sampling
Low
Details regarding
3
1
3
Methods
sampling methods of
the outcomefs] were
not fully reported.
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the measurements,
and statistical
techniques and
between study
groups (if
applicable) were
considered and
accounted for in data
evaluation
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
The frequency of
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
sampling, target
chemical and
transformation
product(s)
concentrations were
reported in a graph
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
Statistical methods
or kinetic
calculations were
clearly described
and address the
dataset.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
22
20
28
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 and 1.7
^1.7 niul
¦
niul ilS
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Bjerg, PL; Rugge, K; Cortsen, J; Nielsen, PH; Christensen, TH. (1999). Degradation of
Reference:
aromatic and chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the anaerobic part of the
Grindsted Landfill leachate plume: In situ microcosm and laboratory batch
experiments. Ground Water 37:113-121. http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.llll/j.1745-
6584.1999.tb00964.x.
HERO ID: 1486371
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported;
however, the test
substance was
detected by
analytical technique.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Not rated
Not applicable; this
NR
NR
NR
Substance
study was an in-situ
Stability
experiment.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Some testing
conditions were not
reported (such as
temperature and
pH); however,
sufficient data were
reported to
determine that the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
Medium
Some system details
2
1
2
Type and
were omitted but
Design
these omissions
were unlikely to
have impacted the
study results.
Test
9. Test
Medium
Naturally occurring
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
microorganisms in
the aquifer were
used. No further
information was
provided.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
All results were
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
provided in form of
and Analysis
graphs as percentage
of test substance
disappearing over
time.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
18
19
26
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
II i(>h
Medium
1.1) \v
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.37
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
_j1 mill * 1.7
^1.7 mill
¦
mul l:s
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Bjerg, PL; Rugge, K; Cortsen, J; Nielsen, PH; Christensen, TH. (1999). Degradation of
Reference:
aromatic and chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the anaerobic part of the
Grindsted Landfill leachate plume: In situ microcosm and laboratory batch
experiments. Ground Water 37:113-121. http://dx.doi.0rg/lO.llll/j.1745-
6584.1999.tb00964.x.
HERO ID: 1486371
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported;
however, the test
substance was
detected by
analytical technique.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Medium
Some system details
2
1
2
Substance
were omitted but
Stability
these omissions
were unlikely to
have impacted the
study results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
Medium
Some system details
2
1
2
Type and
were omitted but
Design
these omissions
were unlikely to
have impacted the
study results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
Medium
Naturally occurring
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
microorganisms in
the aquifer were
used. No further
information was
provided.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
All results were
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
provided in form of
and Analysis
graphs as percentage
of test substance
disappearing over
time.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
19
20
25
Nigh
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.3
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
^1 niul
_1.; mill
-2..S :nul
Overall
High
¦ 2.A
Quality
Level:
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Nielsen, PH; Bjerg, PL; Nielsen, P; Smith, P; Christensen, TH. (1996). In situ and
Reference:
laboratory determined first-order degradation rate constants of specific organic
compounds in an aerobic aquifer. Environ Sci Technol 30: 31-37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es940722o.
HERO ID: 1486742
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
purity was reported;
Purity
all organics were
analytical grade.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Not rated
Not applicable; this
NR
NR
NR
Substance
study was an in-situ
Stability
experiment.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
Low
Some testing
conditions were not
reported (such as
temperature of the
microcosm and pH);
however, sufficient
data were reported
to determine that the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
3
2
6
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
Medium
Some system details
2
1
2
Type and
were omitted but
Design
these omissions
were unlikely to
have impacted the
study results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
LOD was not
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
specified, but this
omission should not
have affected the
results.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
18
25
1 lifili
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.33
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
^1 niul 1.7
-j 1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Nielsen, PH; Bjerg, PL; Nielsen, P; Smith, P; Christensen, TH. (1996). In situ and
Reference:
laboratory determined first-order degradation rate constants of specific organic
compounds in an aerobic aquifer. Environ Sci Technol 30: 31-37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es940722o.
HERO ID: 1486742
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
purity was reported;
Purity
all organics were
analytical grade.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Biologically
deactivated controls
were included in this
study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
Stability
stability,
homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have
influenced the Test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
Low
Some testing
conditions were not
reported (such as
temperature of the
microcosm and pH);
however, sufficient
data were reported
to determine that the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
3
2
6
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
Medium
Some system details
2
1
2
Type and
were omitted but
Design
these omissions
were unlikely to
have impacted the
study results.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
LOD was not
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
specified, but this
omission should not
have affected the
results.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
19
19
27
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
II i(>h
Medium
1.1) \v
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.37
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
_j1 mill * 1.7
^1.7 mill
¦
mul l:s
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and
Reference:
aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
littB; //dx.doi.ore/10.1061 HAS
CE10733-9372f19931
ii
o
o
HERO ID: 1717600
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2
Methods and
omitted; however,
Kinetic
these omissions
Calculations
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
20
22
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 and 1.7
_j1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and
Reference:
aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
littB; //dx.doi.ore/10.1061 HAS
CE10733-9372f19931
ii
o
o
HERO ID: 1717600
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2
Methods and
omitted; however,
Kinetic
these omissions
Calculations
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
20
22
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 and 1.7
_j1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and
Reference:
aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
fattD;/Mx.dt»I,ore/10,i061/TASCE10733-93 72 ("19931 Ii9;2f3001,
HERO ID: 1717600
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2
Methods and
omitted; however,
Kinetic
these omissions
Calculations
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
20
22
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
-1 and 1.7
_j1.7 and
¦ 2.3
,j2.3 and ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and
Reference:
aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-93 72(1993) 119:2 (300).
HERO ID: 1717600
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2
Methods and
omitted; however,
Kinetic
these omissions
Calculations
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
20
22
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 and 1.7
_j1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Long, JL; Stensel, HD; Ferguson, JF; Strand, SE; Ongerth, JE. (1993). Anaerobic and
Reference:
aerobic treatment of chlorinated aliphatic compounds. J Environ Eng 119: 300-320.
htt»://dx.doi.
.ore/10.1061/CASCE1073 3-93 72T19931119:2 T3001.
HERO ID: 1717600
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2
Methods and
omitted; however,
Kinetic
these omissions
Calculations
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
20
22
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
^1 niul 1.7
-j 1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 and ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Vogel, TM; McCarty, PL. (1985). Biotransformation of tetrachloroethylene to
trichloroethylene, dichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and carbon dioxide under
methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 49:1080-1083.
HERO ID: 1744339
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Control
groups/details were
not included;
however, the lack of
data was not likely
to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
3
2
6
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
Design
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Low
Mixture was used to
evaluate
biodegradation
removal; difficulty in
interpreting removal
because TCE was an
intermediate for PCE
(a component of
mixture)
degradation.
3
1
3
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Some sampling
details were omitted
but this was unlikely
to have impacted the
study results.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
19
19
26
II i(>h
Mi-ilium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.37
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
_j1 mill 1.7
ul.7 mill
¦'2M
^2.3 mul i:3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
•The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Based on lack of control group details and
the test substance, Trichloroethylene, was a degradation product of the test substance mixture.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Vogel, TM; McCarty, PL. (1985). Biotransformation of tetrachloroethylene to
trichloroethylene, dichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and carbon dioxide under
methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 49:1080-1083.
HERO ID: 1744339
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The source and
1
1
1
Substance
purity of the test
Purity
substance were
reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
Control group details
were not included;
however, this study
described a non-
standard or non-
guideline test.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
No information was
2
2
4
Conditions
provided on pH, dark
and light conditions
or duration of the
test.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling time
interval was not
provided. The only
sampling data
reported was the
height of the column
at which the samples
were taken.
2
1
2
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
High
The analysis of data
1
1
1
Methods and
was clearly
Kinetic
described.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
15
17
20
1 litih
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.18
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 niul 1.7
^1.7 ;nul
¦ 2.3
-2..1 niul n3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Kim, Y; Arp, DJ; Semprini, L. (2000). Chlorinated solvent cometabolism by butane-
Reference:
grown mixed culture. J Environ Eng 126: 934-942.
htto://dx.doi.ore/10.1061/fASCE10733-93 72f20001
126:10f9341,
HERO ID: 1747865
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
There were some
2
2
4
Conditions
omissions in the
reporting of test
conditions.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
Medium
Kinetic calculations
2
1
2
Methods and
were not clearly
Kinetic
described.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
20
23
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.15
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 and 1.7
^1.7 niul
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Bouwer, EJ; McCarty, PL. (1983). Transformations of 1- and 2-carbon halogenated
Reference:
aliphatic organic compounds under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol
45:1286-1294.
HERO ID: 18060
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
No inconsistencies
1
1
1
Consistency
were reported
across studies.
Conditions were
reported.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
Inoculum source was
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
clearly described.
Inoculum
concentration was
reported (10 mL/L").
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Methods
High
Degradation rates
were not reported
for this part of the
study, but sampling
methods were
sufficient for
determining the
ability of the bacteria
to degrade the
starting material.
1
1
1
Confounding/
13.
Medium
Uncertainties of one
2
1
2
Variable
Confounding
standard deviation
Control
Variables
were given for
concentration
measurements for
the haloalkanes. No
variability between
tests was noted in
the study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
Sufficient evidence
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
was provided to
confirm that
sorption to the
column was not the
reason for the
disappearance of the
starting material.
16. Statistical
Medium
Some details and
2
1
2
Methods and
kinetic data for the
Kinetic
batch study were
Calculations
omitted; however,
these omissions
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
20
22
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
II i(>h
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_j1 mill * 1.7
^1.7 mul
¦ ^.:-5
^.3 mill --.i
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Schmidt, KR; Tiehm, A. (2008). Natural attenuation of chloroethenes: identification of
Reference:
sequential reductive/oxidative biodegradation by microcosm studies. Water Sci
Technol 58:1137-1145. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.729.
HERO ID: 1941207
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Not rated
Not applicable; test
NR
NR
NR
Substance
substance was
Purity
measured
analytically at a
polluted site.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Sterile controls were
mentioned but not
fully described.
2
2
4
4. Test
Not rated
Not applicable for
NR
NR
NR
Substance
this site-specific test
Stability
at a polluted site.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Low
Details of the testing
3
2
6
Conditions
conditions were not
reported.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Details regarding
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
this metric were
and Analysis
limited; however,
concentrations of
test substance and
degradation
products were
reported.
16. Statistical
High
The analysis of data
1
1
1
Methods and
was clearly
Kinetic
described.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results was
not possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
15
16
24
II i(>h
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.5
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.5
^1 and 1.7
^1.7 niul
niul
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Haas, JR; Shock, EL. (1999). Halocarbons in the environment: Estimates of
Reference:
thermodynamic properties for aqueous chloroethylene species and their stabilities
in natural settings. Geochim Cosmo Act 63: 3429-3441.
HERO ID: 1960428
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Purity
study type
(calculation].
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(calculation].
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type
(calculation].
Test
5. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
Method
Suitability
applicable to this
study type
(calculation].
6. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
applicable to this
study type
(calculation].
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type
(calculation].
8. System
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Type and
Design
applicable to this
study type
(calculation].
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type
(calculation].
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11.
Low
Presents energetic
3
1
3
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
constraints to
inform possible
metabolism under
natural conditions.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
12. Sampling
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Methods
applicable to this
study type
(calculation).
Confounding/
13.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
applicable to this
study type
(calculation).
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated
applicable to this
study type.
to Exposure
Data
15. Data
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
applicable to this
study type
(calculation).
16.
Low
Statistical analysis
3
1
3
Statistical
or kinetic
Methods and
calculations were
Kinetic
not described
Calculations
clearly.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type
(calculation).
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type
(calculation).
Sum of scores:
7
4
8
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
^1 and 1.7
_j1.7 and
¦ 2.3
,j2.3 niul n3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
•The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Study reports calculated estimates with
limited details for endpoints related to fate (thermodynamic property).
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Bielefeldt, AR; Stensel, HD; Strand, SE. (1995). Cometabolic degradation of TCE and
Reference:
DCE without intermediate toxicity. J Environ Eng 121: 791-797.
htto://dx.doi.ore/10.1061/fASCE1073 3-93 72f19951
12i;llf79il,
HERO ID: 2303792
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported;
however, the test
substance was
detected by
analytical technique.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
Stability
stability,
homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported.
Test
5. Test
Medium
The test method was
2
1
2
Conditions
Method
Suitability
suitable for the test
substance with
minor deviations.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
Some test conditions
1
1
1
Consistency
across samples or
study groups were
not reported.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
Design
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
Low
The test organism,
3
2
6
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
species, and
inoculum source
were not routinely
used for similar
study types (phenol
feeding").
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
There were minor
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
differences between
the assessment
methodology and the
intended outcome
assessment -
possible adaption of
inoculum.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
Medium
Volatilization was
2
1
2
Variable
Confounding
not discussed.
Control
Variables
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Extraction efficiency
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
or recovery was not
reported.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
22
20
30
1 lifili
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.5
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 niul 1.7
-j 1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 niul i:3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Kastner, M. (1991). Reductive dechlorination oftri- and tetrachloroethylenes
depends on transition from aerobic to anaerobic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol
57: 2039-2046.
HERO ID: 2310605
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
was identified by
chemical name.
1
2
2
2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
source and purity
were reported.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Unacceptable
The test method
was not suitable for
the test substance
since TCE was also a
degradation product
of another
compound being
tested it is difficult
to
confirm/ determine
TCE removal. This
deviation and lack
of information
resulted in serious
flaws that make the
study unusable.
4
1
4
6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Some testing
conditions were not
reported (such as
light conditions);
however, sufficient
data were reported
to determine that
the omissions were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
2
4
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Medium
Non-standard test
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
species used that
may have been
adapted to the test
substance.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11.
Medium
Degradation
2
1
2
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
products and
pathways were
proposed based on
the study results.
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Some sampling
details were omitted
but this was
unlikely to have
impacted the study
results.
2
1
2
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated
applicable to this
study type.
to Exposure
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16.
Medium
Some details about
2
1
2
Statistical
the statistical
Methods and
methods and
Kinetic
kinetics were
Calculations
missing and/or only
shown in figures.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
23
20
30
High
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.5
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
_j1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mul
• 2.3
-2.3 mul n3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
'The test method was not suitable for the test substance since TCE was also a degradation product of
another compound being tested it is difficult to confirm or determine TCE removal. Consistent with our
Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives
a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the
metrics was rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented
solely to increase transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Powell, CL; Goltz, MN; Agrawal, A. (2014). Degradation kinetics of chlorinated
Reference:
aliphatic hydrocarbons by methane oxidizers naturally-associated with wetland plant
roots. J Contain Hydrol 170: 68-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j-jconhyd.2014.10.001.
HERO ID: 2533464
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported;
however, the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
Study details for
TCE were reported
in separate study.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
Study details for TCE
NR
NR
NR
Substance
Stability
reported in separate
study.
Test
5. Test
Not rated
Study details for TCE
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
Method
Suitability
reported in separate
study.
6. Testing
Not rated
Study details for
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
TCE were reported
in separate study.
7. Testing
Not rated
Study details for
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
TCE were reported
in separate study.
8. System
Not rated
Study details for
NR
NR
NR
Type and
TCE were reported
Design
in separate study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
Study details for
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
TCE were reported
in separate study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Not rated
Study details for
NR
NR
NR
Methods
TCE were reported
in separate study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated
applicable to this
study type.
to Exposure
Data
15. Data
Unacceptable
This reference cited
4
2
8
Presentation
Reporting
an earlier work for
and Analysis
the TCE study
results.
16.
Not rated
Study details for
NR
NR
NR
Statistical
TCE were reported
Methods and
Kinetic
in separate study.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
8
6
13
High
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.17
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
_j1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mul
• 2.3
-2.3 mul :i3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
'Study details for TCE reported in separate study (not available in HERO: Powell, C.L., Agrawal, A., 2011.
Cometabolic degradation of trichloroethene by methane oxidizers naturally associated with wetland plant
roots: investigation with Carex comosa and Scirpus atrovirens. Wetlands 31 (1), 45-52.) Consistent with
our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source
receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case,
one of the metrics was rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is
presented solely to increase
transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Qin, K; Struckhoff, GC; Agrawal, A; Shelley, ML; Dong, H. (2014). Natural attenuation
Reference:
potential of tricholoroethene in wetland plant roots: Role of native ammonium-
oxidizing microorganisms. Chemosphere 119C: 971-977.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.09.040.
HERO ID: 2534473
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
2
4
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified, but
characterization
details were omitted
that could have
affected
interpretation of the
study results.
2. Test
Low
The source and
3
1
3
Substance
purity of the test
Purity
substance were not
reported or verified
by analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Some concurrent
control group details
were not included;
however, the lack of
data was not likely
to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Low
The test substance
3
1
3
Substance
stability,
Stability
homogeneity,
preparation, and
storage conditions
were not reported,
and these factors
likely influenced the
test substance or
were likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
There were reported
deviations or
omissions in testing
conditions fpH").
2
2
4
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
Medium
There were
2
1
2
Type and
omissions in the
Design
description of the
study type and
design, but this was
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
9. Test
Low
The test organism,
3
2
6
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
species, and
inoculum source
were reported, but
were not routinely
used for similar
study types; and the
deviation may have a
had substantial
impact on the study
results.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
There were minor
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
differences between
the assessment
methodology and the
intended outcome
assessment. Not a
typical
biodegradation
study because
chemical and media
were replenished in
batches.
12. Sampling
Low
Details regarding
3
1
3
Methods
sampling methods of
the outcomefs] were
not fully reported.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in
the measurements
and statistical
techniques and
between study
groups (if
applicable) were not
considered or
accounted for in data
evaluation resulting
in some uncertainty.
3
1
3
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
The transformation
product
concentrations,
extraction efficiency,
percent recovery,
and mass balance
were not reported;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
31
20
42
II i(>h
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.1
^1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Haston, ZC; McCarty, PL. (1999). Chlorinated ethene half-velocity coefficients (KS) for
Reference:
reductive dehalogenation. Environ Sci Technol 33: 223-226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es9805876.
HERO ID: 2777471
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Controls not
reported but were
not likely to have
impacted the results.
2
2
4
4. Test
High
Not discussed but
1
1
1
Substance
not likely to have
Stability
impacted the results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
Design
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Low
The test organism,
3
2
6
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
species, and
inoculum source
were not routinely
used for similar
study types.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
Results provided
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
maximum
transformation rates
under specific
conditions and
selected test species.
12. Sampling
Medium
Method not reported
2
1
2
Methods
but not likely to
impact results.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
21
20
29
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.45
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.5
^1 and 1.7
^1.7 niul
¦ 2.3
_j2.3 anil ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Freedman, DL; Gossett, JM. (1989). Biological reductive dechlorination of
Reference:
tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene to ethylene under methanogenic
conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 55: 2144-2151.
HERO ID: 2802294
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
Type and
Medium
System Type and
Design details (i.e.,
2
1
2
Design
protection from light
or use of amber
bottles) were not
reported.
Test
9. Test
Medium
The test organism
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
was an inoculum
that was pre-
adapted with
(multiple generation
studies) to the test
substance.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
Deficiencies in the
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
outcome assessment
methodology of the
assessment or
reporting were likely
to have had a
substantial impact
on the results. This
non-standard
biodegradation test
indicated the
potential for
biodegradation and
biodegradation
product information
but did not give
biodegradation
rates.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
19
20
25
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
II i(>h
Medium
1.1) \v
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 mill * 1.7
^1.7 mill
¦
^2.:-! mul l:s
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Henry, SM; Grbic-Galic, D. (1991). Influence of endogenous and exogenous electron
Reference:
donors and trichloroethylene oxidation toxicity on trichloroethylene oxidation by
methanotrophic cultures from a groundwater aquifer. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:
236-244.
HERO ID: 2802580
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Some concurrent
control groups
(blanks) were not
included and may
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
3
2
6
4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
stability,
Stability
homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have
influenced the Test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
There were
2
2
4
Conditions
omissions in the
reporting for Testing
conditions; however,
these were not likely
to have a substantial
impact on study
results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
Medium
There were
2
1
2
Type and
omissions in the
Design
reporting for System
Type and Design;
however, these were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
9. Test
Medium
The test organism,
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
species, and
inoculum source
were reported, but
were not routinely
used for similar
study types;
however, the
deviation was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
Biodegradation
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
study provided
reaction rate
information under
specific conditions
with methane
starvation.
12. Sampling
Medium
There were
2
1
2
Methods
omissions in the
reporting for
sampling method;
however, the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
24
20
33
II i(>h
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.65
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
_j1 mill * 1.7
^1.7 mul
¦ ¦>:.*
,j2.3 mul --.i
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Kim, JY; Park, JK; Emmons, B; Armstrong, DE. (1995). Survey of volatile organic
Reference:
compounds at a municipal solid waste cocomposting facility. Water Environ Res 67:
1044-1051. http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/106143095X133284.
HERO ID: 2802998
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The source and
1
1
1
Substance
purity of the test
Purity
substance were not
reported; however,
the test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type
(monitoring].
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
Design
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
Inoculum source
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
was reported.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11.
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated
to Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Unacceptable
Results reported for
TCE were not
sufficient to
evaluate removal
pathways (>0 %
removal efficiency
for volatilization,
biodegradation and
residuals').
4
2
8
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
17
19
25
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.32
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
^1 niul 1.7
-j 1.7 niul
¦ 2.3
-2.3 niul ii3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
'Based on insufficient data reported for TCE. Removal efficiency for volatilization, biodegradation and
residuals for TCE of >0% were not sufficient to evaluate study results. Consistent with our Application of
Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of
Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics
was rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely
to increase transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Tobajas, M; Verdugo, V; Polo, AM; Rodriguez, JJ; Mohedano, AF. (2016). Assessment of
Reference:
toxicity and biodegradability on activated sludge of priority and emerging pollutants.
Environ Technol 37: 713-721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2015.1079264.
HERO ID: 3070754
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
The use of blank
controls was not
reported in this
study; however, they
were a requirement
of the method cited,
OECD Test Guideline
302B.
2
2
4
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
Medium
There were
2
1
2
Type and
omissions in the
Design
description of the
study type and
design, but this was
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Percent recovery
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
was not reported but
and Analysis
was unlikely to have
impacted results.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
18
20
25
II i(>h
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
^1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Phelps, TJ; Niedzielski, JJ; Malachowsky, KJ; Schram, RM; Herbes, SE; White, DC.
Reference:
(1991). Biodegradation of mixed-organic wastes by microbial consortia in
continuous-recycle expanded-bed bioreactors. Environ Sci Technol 25:1461-1465.
HERO ID: 3543307
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Medium
The test inoculum
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
source was reported
to be enriched; the
deviation was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
This study evaluated
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
a bioremediation
technique; this
outcome assessment
is not likely to be
relevant to
environmental
biodegradation.
12. Sampling
Medium
Some details
2
1
2
Methods
regarding the
sampling were
omitted such as the
result of readily and
poorly
biodegradable
reference
substances;
however, this was
not likely to have
influenced the
interpretation of the
study results.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
19
20
25
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Hi.iih
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 niul • 1.7
-1.7 niul
¦
:nul --3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Lee, W; Park, SH; Kim, J; Jung, JY. (2015). Occurrence and removal of hazardous
Reference:
chemicals and toxic metals in 27 industrial wastewater treatment plants in Korea.
Desalination Water Treat 54:1141-1149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.935810.
HERO ID: 3580141
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The source and
1
1
1
Substance
purity of the test
Purity
substance were not
reported; however,
the test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
The use of controls
was not reported but
likely did not impact
the study results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Substance
Medium
Sample storage
conditions were not
2
1
2
Stability
reported but were
unlikely to have
influenced the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
As this was a
2
2
4
Conditions
screening study
looking at several
WWTPs, specific
conditions were not
reported but were
not critical to the
study results.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
Medium
Some system details
2
1
2
Type and
were omitted but
Design
these omissions
were unlikely to
have impacted the
study results.
Test
9. Test
Medium
Details regarding the
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
test organisms at
each WWTP were
not given but their
omission did not
likely impact the
study results.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Some sampling
details were omitted
but this was unlikely
to impact the study
results.
2
1
2
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Transformation
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
products were not
reported, and
volatilization was
likely a large factor
in the lower effluent
concentrations since
the removal rates
were proportional to
air to water ratios.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
22
20
31
II i(>h
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.55
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
_j1 mill * 1.7
^1.7 mill
• ¦>:.*
^2.:-! mul i:s
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Parsons, F; Lage, GB; Rice, R. (1985). Biotransformation of chlorinated organic
Reference:
solvents in static microcosms. Environ Toxicol Chem 4: 739-742.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620040604.
HERO ID: 3797820
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
Purity
purity was reported
(ultrapure].
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Solvent blank on
non-viable
microcosm controls
was used.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
Medium
The authors noted
2
1
2
Consistency
subtle
inconsistencies
between the
microcosms that
may have caused
extended lag
periods.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
Biodegradation
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
products were
measured
throughout the study
although rate
information was not
reported.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
Medium
There was high
2
1
2
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
uncertainty in the
concentrations of the
TCE degradation
products.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Low
Select degradation
3
2
6
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
products were
monitored; however,
quantitative
degradation results
were not presented
for TCE.
16. Statistical
Medium
This metric met the
2
1
2
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Low
Loss due to abiotic
processes and/or
adsorption were not
controlled.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
23
20
30
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.5
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
^1 anil 1.7
^1.7 niul
¦ 2.3
-2.3 mill l:3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
•The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Loss due to abiotic processes and/or
adsorption were not controlled. Concentrations of TCE over time, degradation rate or half-life were not
reported, limiting evaluation of the study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Wakeham, SG; Davis, AC; Karas, JA. (1983). Mesocosm experiments to determine the
Reference:
fate and persistence of volatile organic compounds in coastal seawater. Environ Sci
Technol 17: 611-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00116a009.
HERO ID: 3797829
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The source and
1
1
1
Substance
purity of the test
Purity
substance were not
reported; however,
the test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Sterile control used;
however, use of a
reference substance
was not reported.
2
2
4
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
Medium
Limited detail was
2
1
2
Conditions
Method
Suitability
reported on the test
method.
6. Testing
Medium
There were
2
2
4
Conditions
omissions in testing
conditions; however,
sufficient data were
reported to
determine that the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
7. Testing
Medium
The control
2
1
2
Consistency
experiment was run
on different dates,
not correlating with
other systems.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
Medium
Details regarding the
2
1
2
Type and
Design
System Type and
Design were limited;
however, the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Test
9. Test
Medium
The test organism,
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
species, and
inoculum source
were reported, but
were not routinely
used for similar
study types;
however, the
deviation was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Medium
Some sampling
2
1
2
Methods
details were omitted
but this was unlikely
to have impacted the
study results.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Details regarding
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
this metric were
and Analysis
limited; some of the
data were inferred
from figures.
16. Statistical
Low
Rate constants and
3
1
3
Methods and
half-lives were
Kinetic
calculated based on
Calculations
periods during the
experiments when
volatilization
appears to be
dominant.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results was
not possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
23
18
32
II i(>h
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.78
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
_j1 mill * 1.7
^1.7 mul
¦ ^.:-5
,j2.3 anil --.i
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Wakeham, SG; Davis, AC; Karas, JA. (1983). Mesocosm experiments to determine the
Reference:
fate and persistence of volatile organic compounds in coastal seawater. Environ Sci
Technol 17: 611-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00116a009.
HERO ID: 3797829
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The source and
1
1
1
Substance
purity of the test
Purity
substance were not
reported; however,
the test substance
was identified by
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Sterile control used;
however, use of a
reference substance
was not reported.
2
2
4
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
Medium
Limited detail was
2
1
2
Conditions
Method
Suitability
reported on the test
method.
6. Testing
Medium
There were
2
2
4
Conditions
omissions in testing
conditions; however,
sufficient data were
reported to
determine that the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
7. Testing
Medium
The control
2
1
2
Consistency
experiment was run
on different dates,
not correlating with
other systems.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
Medium
Details regarding the
2
1
2
Type and
Design
System Type and
Design were limited;
however, the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Test
9. Test
Medium
The test organism,
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
species, and
inoculum source
were reported, but
were not routinely
used for similar
study types;
however, the
deviation was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Medium
Some sampling
2
1
2
Methods
details were omitted
but this was unlikely
to have impacted the
study results.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Details regarding
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
this metric were
and Analysis
limited; some of the
data were inferred
from figures.
16. Statistical
Low
Rate constants and
3
1
3
Methods and
half-lives were
Kinetic
calculated based on
Calculations
periods during the
experiments when
volatilization
appears to be
dominant.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results was
not possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
23
18
32
II i(>h
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.78
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.8
_j1 mill * 1.7
^1.7 mul
¦ ^.:-5
,j2.3 anil --.i
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Gossett, JM. (1985). Anaerobic degradation of CI and C2 chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Reference:
(ESL-TR-85-38). Tyndal AFB, FL: Air Force Engineering & Services Center.
HERO ID: 4140341
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Low
The test substance
3
1
3
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Limited detail was
provided on control
results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
Stability
stability,
homogeneity,
preparation and
storage conditions
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Medium
Sampling details
2
1
2
Methods
were not fully
reported; alternate
sampling of
duplicate tests run
side by side.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated
study type.
to Exposure
Data
15. Data
Unacceptable
Extraction
4
2
8
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
efficiency, percent
recovery, and mass
balance were not
reported. In
addition, analytical
methods were not
reported and there
was an
unaccounted-for
loss of test material.
16.
Medium
Calculations
2
1
2
Statistical
summarized and
Methods and
experimental values
Kinetic
were not reported.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Low
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
26
20
35
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
lli»li
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.75
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
_j1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mul
¦
mul iiS
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
'Extraction efficiency, percent recovery, and mass balance were not reported; analytical methods were not
reported, and loss of test material was not accounted for which limits the evaluation of the study. Consistent
with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source
receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case,
one of the metrics was rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is
presented solely to increase transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Alvarez-Cohen, L; McCarty, PL. (1991). Effects of toxicity, aeration and reductant
Reference:
supply on trichloroethylene transformation by a mixed methanotrophic culture. Appl
Environ Microbiol 57: 228-235.
HERO ID: 4140406
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
Medium
Variable degradation
2
1
2
Consistency
rates were observed
and some test
conditions across
samples were not
reported, but these
discrepancies were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
High
Mixed
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
methanotrophic
culture.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Medium
Some sampling
2
1
2
Methods
details were omitted
but this was unlikely
to have impacted the
study results.
Confounding/
13.
Low
Variation in
3
1
3
Variable
Confounding
transformation rates
Control
Variables
indicated that loss
was affected by
factors other than
strictly biotic
processes.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
High
The analysis of data
1
1
1
Methods and
was clearly
Kinetic
described.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Low
Variation in
transformation rates
indicated that loss
was affected by
factors other than
strictly biotic
processes.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
21
20
26
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.3
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
^1 niul 1.7
-j 1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Variation in transformation rates indicated
that loss was affected by factors other than strictly biotic processes.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Dow Chem Co. (1977). The Inhibition of Anaerobic Sludge Gas Production By 1,1,1-
Reference:
trichloroethane, Methylene Chloride, Trichloroethylene and Perchloroethylene, Part
2. (OTS: OTS0517178; 8EHQ Num: NA; DCN: 86- 870002089; TSCATS ReflD: 309930;
CIS: NA).
HERO ID: 4213887
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Low
The source and
3
1
3
Substance
purity of the test
Purity
substance were not
reported or verified
by analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
Design
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
10. Test
Organism
Partitioning
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Outcome
Assessment
11. Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
Unacceptable
Study describes
inhibition of gas
production not
biodegradation.
4
1
4
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Medium
The extraction
recovery was 50%.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
21
20
26
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.3
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
^1 niul 1.7
^1.7 :ind
¦ 2.3
-2.3 ;uul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Study describes inhibition of gas production
not biodegradation rates or transformation pathways. Consistent with our Application of Systematic
Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics was rated as
unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase
transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Kao, CM; Prosser, J. (1999). Intrinsic bioremediation of trichloroethylene and
Reference:
chlorobenzene: field and laboratory studies. J Hazard Mater 69: 67-79.
HERO ID: 660136
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported;
however, the
omissions or
identified impurities
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
Stability
stability, preparation
and storage
conditions were not
reported; however,
these factors were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
Some details limited;
2
2
4
Conditions
however, this did not
limit the
interpretation of the
results.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
Medium
Some details limited;
2
1
2
Type and
however, this did not
Design
limit the
interpretation of the
results.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
This study evaluated
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
co-metabolism; the
use of different
substrates was likely
to have had a
substantial impact
on results.
12. Sampling
Low
Information
3
1
3
Methods
regarding this metric
was not reported.
Confounding/
13.
Medium
Limited information
2
1
2
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
was presented
regarding this
metric; variability
and uncertainty in
the measurements
between triplicate
tests were not
reported; an average
of the tests was
reported.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Some information
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
was not reported;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
16. Statistical
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2
Methods and
omitted; however,
Kinetic
these omissions
Calculations
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information for this
site-specific study,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results was
not possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
25
19
32
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.68
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
_j1 niul 1.7
^1.7 :uul
¦ ¦>:.*
and --.i
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Kao, CM; Prosser, J. (1999). Intrinsic bioremediation of trichloroethylene and
Reference:
chlorobenzene: field and laboratory studies. J Hazard Mater 69: 67-79.
HERO ID: 660136
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported;
however, the
omissions or
identified impurities
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
Stability
stability, preparation
and storage
conditions were not
reported; however,
these factors were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Some testing
condition details
were not reported;
however, these
factors were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
2
2
4
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
7. Testing
Medium
Some test conditions
2
1
2
Consistency
across samples or
study groups were
not reported, but
these discrepancies
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results
8. System
Type and
High
Testing conditions
were monitored,
1
1
1
Design
reported, and
appropriate for the
method.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
This study evaluated
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
intrinsic
bioremediation; this
outcome assessment
not likely to be
relevant to
environmental
biodegradation.
12. Sampling
Low
Information
3
1
3
Methods
regarding this metric
was not reported.
Confounding/
13.
Medium
Limited information
2
1
2
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
was presented
regarding this
metric; variability
and uncertainty in
the measurements
between triplicate
tests were not
reported, however,
an average of the
tests was reported.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Some information
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
was not reported;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
16. Statistical
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2
Methods and
omitted; however,
Kinetic
these omissions
Calculations
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information for this
site-specific study,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results was
not possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
25
19
32
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.68
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
_j1 niul 1.7
^1.7 :uul
¦ ¦>:.*
illlll ili-i
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Freitag, D; Ballhorn, L; Geyer, H; Korte, F. (1985). Environmental hazard profile of
organic chemicals: an experimental method for the assessment of the behaviour of
organic chemicals in the ecosphere by means of simple laboratory tests with 14C
labelled chemicals. Chemosphere 14:1589-1616.
HERO ID: 85251
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test
Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
Unacceptable
No information was
provided about the
test substance other
than a general
statement that some
test substances
were bought, and
some were
synthesized in the
lab.
4
2
8
2. Test
Substance
Purity
Unacceptable
No information was
provided about the
test substance other
than a general
statement that some
test substances
were bought, and
some were
synthesized in the
lab.
4
1
4
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
No information was
provided.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Substance
Stability
Unacceptable
No information was
provided about the
test substance.
4
1
4
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Unacceptable
No details about the
test method were
provided.
4
1
4
6. Testing
Conditions
Unacceptable
No information
regarding the
testing conditions
were provided.
4
2
8
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
7. Testing
Unacceptable
Critical exposure
4
1
4
Consistency
details across
samples were not
reported and these
omissions resulted
in serious flaws that
had a substantial
impact on the
overall confidence,
consequently
making the study
unusable.
8. System
Not rated
No information was
NR
NR
NR
Type and
provided.
Design
Test
9. Test
Low
The inoculum was
3
2
6
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
identified as
adapted activated
sludge. No further
information
regarding the
source of the sludge
was provided.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11.
Not rated
No information was
NR
NR
NR
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
provided.
12. Sampling
Not rated
No information was
NR
NR
NR
Methods
provided.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14.
Not rated
No information was
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated
provided.
to Exposure
Data
15. Data
Low
A single data point,
3
2
6
Presentation
Reporting
3.4% degradation,
and Analysis
was provided.
16.
Not rated
No information was
NR
NR
NR
Statistical
Methods and
provided.
Kinetic
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
NR
NR
NR
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
30
12
44
High
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
3.67
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
_j1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mul
•
-2.3 mul :i3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
'No information was provided about the test substance other that a statement saying some test substances
were bought, some were synthesized in the lab. Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in
TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4),
EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, six of the metrics were rated as unacceptable.
As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Bouwer, EJ; Rittmann, BE; McCarty, PL. (1981). Anaerobic degradation of halogenated
Reference:
1- and 2-carbon organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 15: 596-599.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00087a012.
HERO ID: 9818
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
Test
9. Test
Medium
Nonstandard
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
organism from
laboratory scale
digester was used in
this study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling frequency
was reported but
method was not
documented.
2
1
2
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this type
of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
20
23
Nigh
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.15
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
-1 and • 1.7
-1.7 ;ind
,j2.3 and ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Bouwer, EJ; Rittmann, BE; McCarty, PL. (1981). Anaerobic degradation of halogenated
Reference:
1- and 2-carbon organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 15: 596-599.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00087a012.
HERO ID: 9818
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Medium
Nonstandard
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
organism from
laboratory scale
digester was used in
this study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling frequency
was reported but
method was not
documented.
2
1
2
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
Low
Greater than 100%
remaining relative to
the controls after 25
weeks.
3
1
3
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
19
20
25
II i(>h
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.25
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
_j1 mill 1.7
^1.7 mul
¦ 2.3
-2.3 mul n3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Greater than 100% of test substance was
remaining relative to the controls after 25 weeks.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Jensen, S; Rosenberg, R. (1975). Degradability of some chlorinated aliphatic
Reference:
hydrocarbons in sea water and sterilized water. Water Res 9: 659-661.
HERO ID: 9841
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported;
however, the test
substance was
detected by
analytical technique.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Appropriate
negative control but
no positive or
toxicity controls
reported in this
study.
3
2
6
4. Test
Low
The test substance
3
1
3
Substance
stability,
Stability
preparation, and
storage conditions
were not reported,
and these factors
were likely to have
had an impact on
the study results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
Test conditions
2
2
4
Conditions
were reported with
some details
omitted.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
Medium
The test system was
2
1
2
Type and
Design
reported for both
open and closed
systems each under
light and dark
condition with some
details omitted;
however, omissions
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Test
9. Test
Low
Inoculum source
3
2
6
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
was not routinely
used and was not
validated for
microbial action.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11.
Low
This study used a
3
1
3
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
continuous-flow
methanogenic fixed-
film laboratory-
scale column.
12. Sampling
Unacceptable
Serious
4
1
4
Methods
uncertainties or
limitations were
identified in
sampling methods
of the outcome of
interest (leaks in
valves) and these
were likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the
results, resulting in
serious flaws, which
made the study
unusable.
Confounding/
13.
Low
Leaks were noted;
3
1
3
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
loss in open systems
attributed to
possible
volatilization; not
controlled or
quantified.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated
study type.
to Exposure
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Data
15. Data
Low
There was
3
2
6
Presentation
Reporting
insufficient evidence
and Analysis
presented to
confirm that parent
compound
disappearance was
not likely due to
some other process;
this was noted by
the authors and
concluded that
closed systems
should be used to
assess degradation.
16.
Statistical
Methods and
High
The analysis of data
was clearly
described.
1
1
1
Kinetic
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible
(i.e., reference
substance not used;
loss was not
confined to one
process").
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
32
19
44
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.32
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
^1 niul 1.7
-j 1.7 niul
¦ 2.3
-2.3 mid i:3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
•Serious uncertainties or limitations were identified in sampling methods of the outcome of interest. In
addition, loss from leaks in valves and open test systems were likely to have a substantial impact on the
results. These serious flaws make the study unusable. Consistent with
our Application of Systematic Review
in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score =
4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics was rated as
unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase
transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Tabak, HH; Quave, SA; Mashni, CI; Barth, EF. (1981). Biodegradability studies with
Reference:
organic priority pollutant compounds. J Water Pollut Control Fed 53:1503-1518.
HERO ID: 9861
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Some quantitative
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
details were
and Analysis
omitted; however,
overall results were
clearly reported.
16. Statistical
Medium
Some details were
2
1
2
Methods and
omitted; however,
Kinetic
these omissions
Calculations
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study results.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
18
20
24
High
Medium
l.mv
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
^1 and 1.7
_j1.7 niul
• 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Wood, PR; Parsons, FZ; DeMarco, J; Harween, HJ; Lang, RF; Payan, IL; Ruiz, MC. (1981).
Reference:
Introductory study of the biodegradation of the chlorinated methane, ethane and
ethene compounds. Paper presented at American Water Works Association Annual
Conference and Exposition, June 7-11,1981, St. Louis, MO.
HERO ID: 9881
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported;
however, the test
substance was
detected by GC-MS
analytical technique.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
Not rated
Trichloroethylene
NR
NR
NR
Substance
was a
Stability
transformation
product from carbon
tetrachloride in this
study
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Low
There were some
3
2
6
Conditions
omissions in the
reporting of test
conditions. pH,
specific temperature
and light control
were not reported.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
High
Absorption was
discussed.
1
1
1
Control
Variables
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Specific chemical
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
concentrations were
and Analysis
not reported.
16. Statistical
Medium
Half-life calculation
2
1
2
Methods and
was not described.
Kinetic
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
19
19
27
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.42
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
^1 nnil 1.7
^1.7 niul
¦ 2.3
-2.3 mill i!3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium1
•The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Trichloroethylene is a transformation
product in this study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Dilling, WL; Tefertiller, NB; Kallos, GJ. (1975). Evaporation rates and reactivities of
Reference:
methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated compounds in dilute aqueous solutions.
Environ Sci Technol 9: 833-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60107a008.
HERO ID: 58054
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Substance
Medium
Purity not reported;
however, MS
2
1
2
Purity
analysis performed
at start of study,
m/z corresponds to
trichloroethylene.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
Not reported for the
hydrolysis study.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
MS analysis
performed at start
of study.
1
1
1
Test
5. Test
High
Methanol was used
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
as a co-solvent.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
Water was purged
with air 15 min
prior to initiation of
study; the authors
appeared to be
assuming that
hydrolysis was
followed by
oxidation; thus, by
having an
abundance of
oxygen, they
ensured that the
rate-determining
step was hydrolysis.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
The outcome of
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
interest and its basis
were reported.
12. Sampling
Medium
Sampling methods
2
1
2
Methods
were omitted.
Sampling timing
was suitable.
Confounding/
13.
Medium
Dichloroacetic acid
2
1
2
Variable
Confounding
and hydrogen
Control
Variables
chloride were
assumed to be the
degradation
products; however,
they were never
determined
experimentally.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Transformation
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
products not
identified.
16. Statistical
Medium
Statistical methods
2
1
2
Methods and
or kinetic
Kinetic
calculations were
Calculations
not reported.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
18
16
22
1 litili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.38
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 :nul ¦ 1.7
^1.7 niul
-2.3
_j2.3 ;ind ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Jeffers, PM; Ward, LM; Woytowitch, LM; Wolfe, NL. (1989). Homogeneous Hydrolysis
Reference:
Rate Constants for Selected Chlorinated Methanes Ethanes Ethenes and Propanes.
Environ Sci Technol 23: 965-969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00066a006.
HERO ID: 661098
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name and
CASRN.
2. Test
Medium
The source and
2
1
2
Substance
purity of the test
Purity
substance were
stated in a general
manner relating to
all materials in the
study.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Study controls were
not included but this
did not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Medium
Details regarding
2
1
2
Substance
this metric were
Stability
limited but this did
not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
Test
5. Test
High
The method was
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
suitable for the
substance; test
substance
concentration was
no higher than 10%
of its water
solubility limit.
6. Testing
Conditions
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were
general but this did
not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
2
4
7. Testing
Medium
Details regarding
2
1
2
Consistency
this metric were
general but this did
not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
Design
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Details regarding
this metric were not
reported but this did
not limit the
interpretation of the
results.
2
1
2
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this
Exposure
study type.
Data
15. Data
Low
Details regarding
3
2
6
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
the analytical
procedure were
very general; this
may limit
meaningful / precise
interpretation of the
results.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
22
18
30
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
1 lifih
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.67
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
^1 niul ¦ 1.7
-1.7 niul
• 2.3
:nul --3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Rodriguez, C; Linge, K; Blair, P; Busetti, F; Devine, B; Van Buynder, P; Weinstein, P;
Reference:
Cook, A. (2012). Recycled water: potential health risks from volatile organic
compounds and use of 1,4-dichlorobenzene as treatment performance indicator.
Water Res 46: 93-106. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.032.
HERO ID: 1008978
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name and
CASRN.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Not applicable to
the
field/monitoring
studies. Source and
purity of analytical
standard were not
reported.
2
2
4
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
WWTP monitoring
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
study; could be
considered site-
specific data.
12. Sampling
Medium
Minor limitations
2
1
2
Methods
were identified in
sampling methods;
however, the
limitations were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on results.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated to
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
Medium
Some target
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
chemical
and Analysis
concentrations
were reported only
in a figure;
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study
results.
16.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Statistical
criteria for high
Methods and
confidence as
Kinetic
expected for this
Calculations
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
17
17
23
1 ligh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.35
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
^1 mill ¦ 1..-
_1./ mill
-2..S mul
Overall
High
¦ 2.A
Quality
Level:
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Tancrede, M; Yanagisawa, Y; Wilson, R. (1992). Volatilization of volatile organic
Reference:
compounds from showers: I. Analytical method and quantitative assessment (pp.
1103-1111). (BIOSIS/92/15798).
HERO ID: 1023248
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
Study investigated
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
volatilization from
shower water; this
is an uncommon
study type for a fate
endpoint.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
Sources of
variability were
addressed in the
study.
1
1
1
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated to
applicable to this
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
Medium
Data were mainly
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
reported in figures.
and Analysis
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
18
18
23
II it>h
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.28
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
_j1 mill 1.7
_j1.7 mul
¦ 2.3
_j2.3 mul n3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'This study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Study investigated volatilization from
shower water. Study results may not be relevant to a specific/designated Fate endpoint.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Chiou, CT; Freed, VH; Peters, LJ; Kohnert, RL. (1980). Evaporation of solutes from
Reference:
water. Environ Int 3: 231-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(80)90123-3.
HERO ID: 18077
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Low
Source and purity
3
1
3
Substance
were not reported.
Purity
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Study controls not
reported.
3
2
6
4. Test
Medium
Test substance
2
1
2
Substance
stability was not
Stability
discussed.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
18
17
23
II it>h
Medium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.41
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
_j1 ;iiul ¦ 1.7
^1.7 mul
mul ii3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Dilling, WL. (1977). Interphase transfer processes. II. Evaporation rates of chloro
methanes, ethanes, ethylenes, propanes, and propylenes from dilute aqueous
solutions. Comparisons with theoretical predictions. Environ Sci Technol 11: 405-
409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60127a009.
HERO ID: 18370
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Low
There were possible
3
1
3
Substance
mixture concerns
Purity
since two to five
compounds were
run together.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
A series of
compounds were
run, but no mention
of controls.
2
2
4
4. Test
Medium
Not discussed but
2
1
2
Substance
were not likely to
Stability
have influenced the
test results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Low
Sampling was not
3
1
3
Methods
described and may
have influenced the
test results.
Confounding/
13.
Low
Sources of
3
1
3
Variable
Confounding
variability and
Control
Variables
uncertainty in the
measurements and
statistical
techniques and
between study
groups were not
considered or
accounted for in
data evaluation.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated to
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16.
Medium
Statistics were not
2
1
2
Statistical
Methods and
conducted/ reported
for the
Kinetic
Calculations
experimental study.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
23
18
28
1 litili
Mi-ilium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.56
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
^1 mill 1.7
_j1.7 mul
^2.3 mul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Dunovant, VS; Clark, CS; Que Hee, SS; Hertzberg, VS; Trapp, JH. (1986). Volatile
Reference:
Organics in the Wastewater and Airspaces of Three Wastewater Treatment Plants
(pp. 886-895). (NIOSH/00165921). Dunovant, VS; Clark, CS; Que Hee, SS; Hertzberg,
VS; Trapp, JH.
HERO ID: 1993670
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
Control was used to
determine
detection limit
1
2
2
4. Test
Not rated
This is a field type
NR
NR
NR
Substance
Stability
study were stability
was not considered.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
Type and
Medium
Equilibrium was
not established or
2
1
2
Design
reported. This was
an open system.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
Study may have
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
reported site-
specific results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
Low
The WWTP water is
3
1
3
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
a mixture and may
have impacted
volatility of the test
substance. Other
variables may have
possibly influenced
volatility besides
those reported.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated to
applicable to this
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Statistical
criteria for high
Methods and
confidence as
Kinetic
Calculations
expected for this
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
18
17
22
1 lijih
Medium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.29
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
_j1 mill ¦ 1.7
^1.7 ;ind
¦'2.3
mill ii3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: The volatility is reported for 3 sites in open
systems.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
He, Z; Yang, G; Lu, X; Zhang, H. (2013). Distributions and sea-to-air fluxes of
Reference:
chloroform, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, chlorodibromomethane and
bromoform in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea during spring. Environ Pollut
177: 28-37. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.008.
HERO ID: 2128010
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type.
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Low
Many possible
variables impacted
the study results in
this field study.
3
1
3
6. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
applicable to this
study type.
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type.
8. System
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Type and
applicable to this
Design
study type.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
Flux from a field
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
study was not
specifically a fate
outcome of interest.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Medium
Some data were
reported only in
figures.
2
2
4
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
14
11
17
II it>h
Mi-ilium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.55
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
_j1 mill ¦ 1.7
_j1.7 mul
¦•2.:-:
_j2.:-> anil :_3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Estimation Programs
Reference:
Interface Suite™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11 [Computer Program]. Washington,
DC. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-
estimation-program- interface.
HERO ID: 2347246
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Purity
study type fSAR],
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type fSAR],
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type fSAR],
Test
5. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
Method
Suitability
applicable to this
study type fSAR],
6. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
applicable to this
study type fSAR],
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type fSAR],
8. System
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Type and
Design
applicable to this
study type fSAR],
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
applicable to this
study type fSAR],
12. Sampling
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Methods
applicable to this
study type fSAR],
Confounding/
13.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
applicable to this
study type fSAR],
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated to
study type.
Exposure
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type [SAR],
NR
NR
NR
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type (SAR).
NR
NR
NR
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
18. QSAR
Models
High
The models in EPI
Suite™ have
defined endpoints.
Chemical Domain
and performance
statistics for each
model are known,
and unambiguous
algorithms are
available in the EPI
Suite™
documentation
and/or cited
references to
establish their
scientific validity.
Many EPI Suite™
models have
correlation
coefficients >0.7,
cross-validated
correlation
coefficients >0.5,
and standard error
values <0.3;
however,
correlation
coefficients (r2, q2)
for the regressions
of some
environmental fate
models (i.e.
BIOWIN) are lower,
as expected,
compared to
regressions which
have specific
experimental
values such as
water solubility or
log Kow (octanol-
water partition
coefficient").
1
1
1
Sum of scores:
2
3
1
Nigh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1
_j1 ;ind 1.7
_j1.7 :uul
¦¦2.3
_j2.3 mul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Soltanali, S; Hagani, ZS. (2008). Modeling of air stripping from volatile organic
compounds in biological treatment processes. Int J Environ Sci Tech 5: 353-360.
HERO ID: 2529433
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Purity
study type.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Study control not
reported but not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study
results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type.
Test
5. Test
High
The test method
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
measured influent,
effluent and VOCs.
6. Testing
Low
Some test
3
2
6
Conditions
conditions were
reported but not all
(i.e. unnamed
facilities').
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
Medium
Retention time and
2
1
2
Type and
Design
temperature were
not reported.
Test
9. Test
Low
Not clear of test
3
2
6
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
organism source
(domestic or
industrial sewage").
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Low
May have given
3
1
3
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
site- /WWTP-
specific results.
12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Sample timing was
not well described.
3
1
3
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
Sampling results
were not clearly
reported.
3
2
6
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
25
18
38
1 lijih
Medium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2.06
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2.3
_j1 mill ¦ 1.7
^1.7 ;ind
mill ii3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Low1
•The study's overall quality rating was downgraded. Rationale: Modeling study that did not report the
related experimental details well.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Chen, WH; Yang, WB; Yuan, CS; Yang, JC; Zhao, QL. (2014). Fates of chlorinated volatile
Reference:
organic compounds in aerobic biological treatment processes: the effects of aeration
and sludge addition. Chemosphere 103: 92-98.
http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.ll.039.
HERO ID: 2799543
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Analytical blanks
were included;
biodegradation
controls were not
included. Source
and purity of
analytical standard
were not included.
2
2
4
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
Some details were
2
2
4
Conditions
omitted; however,
sufficient data were
reported to
determine that the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study
results.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this
Partitioning
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Medium
There was
2
1
2
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
incomplete
reporting of
measured
concentrations in
the media analyzed.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
None identified.
1
1
1
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated to
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
Medium
Concentrations of
2
2
4
Presentation
Reporting
the target chemical
and Analysis
were not reported.
16.
High
The analysis of data
1
1
1
Statistical
was clearly
Methods and
described.
Kinetic
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Medium
There was
incomplete
reporting of
measured
concentrations in
the media analyzed;
mass distributions
were reported, no
serious study
deficiencies were
identified, and the
value was plausible.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Sum of scores:
20
20
28
II it>h
Medium
l.mv
Ov erall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.4
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
^1 :nul • 1.7
^1.7 niul
^2.:-! mul
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Parker, WJ; Thompson, DJ; Bell, JP; Melcer, H. (1993). Fate of volatile organic
Reference:
compounds in municipal activated sludge plants. Water Environ Res 65: 58-65.
HERO ID: 2803053
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Chemical name(s)
of external
control (s) not
reported.
2
2
4
4. Test
Not rated
This is a field type
NR
NR
NR
Substance
study where
Stability
stability was not
considered.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
the criteria for
high confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
Unacceptable
Testing conditions
were not well
reported (pH,
temperature,
sludge
concentrations').
4
2
8
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type.
8. System
Medium
Likely an open
2
1
2
Type and
Design
system where test
material could
have been lost.
Test
9. Test
High
This metric met
1
2
2
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
the criteria for
high confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11.
Unacceptable
The extent of air
4
1
4
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
stripping is a
function of the
compound
physical-chemical
properties and a
function of WWTP
design and
operation.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met
1
1
1
Methods
the criteria for
high confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
Medium
This metric met
2
1
2
Variable
Confounding
the criteria for
Control
Variables
high confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated
study type.
to Exposure
Data
15. Data
Medium
Some information
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
was not reported;
however, these
omissions were
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the
study results.
16.
High
This metric met
1
1
1
Statistical
the criteria for
Methods and
high confidence as
Kinetic
expected for this
Calculations
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
22
17
27
1 lifili
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.88
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
^1 :nul ¦ 1.7
^1.7 mill
- 2.3
-2.3 ;ind ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
'Study evaluates removal based on air stripping. The extent of air stripping is a function of the compound
physical-chemical properties and a function of WWTP design and operation. Consistent with our
Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives
a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the
metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is
presented solely to increase transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Pant, P; Allen, M; Cai, Y; Jayachandran, K; Chen, Y, in. (2007). Influence of physical
Reference:
factors on trichloroethylene evaporation from surface water. Water Air Soil Pollut
183:153-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll270-007-9365-5.
HERO ID: 3543365
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Conditions
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated to
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Statistical
criteria for high
Methods and
confidence as
Kinetic
expected for this
Calculations
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
14
18
18
II it>h
Mi-ilium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1
_j1 ;iiul ¦ 1.7
_j1.7 mill
• 2.3
^2.3 anil ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Keefe, SH; Barber, LB; Runkel, RL; Ryan, JN. (2004). Fate of volatile organic
Reference:
compounds in constructed wastewater treatment wetlands. Environ Sci Technol 38:
2209-2216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es034661i.
HERO ID: 3566693
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
applicable to this
study type.
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Medium
The test organisms
2
2
4
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
were reported but
were not routinely
used.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This is primarily a
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
modeling study
based on field
samples.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
14.
Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
2
2
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Medium
The study results
were reasonable.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Models
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
Sum of scores:
14
15
18
1 1 it'll
Medium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sinn of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.2
_j1 :iiul 1.7
_j1.7 ;uul
•
^.3 ;ind :_3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Briiggemann, R; Trapp, S. (1988). Release and fate modelling of highly volatile
Reference:
solvents in the river Main. 17: 2029-2041.
HERO ID: 3629597
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High, Medium,
Factor
Low,
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The chemical
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
of interest was
identified by
name.
2. Test
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Substance
not applicable
Purity
to this study
type.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is
not applicable
to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Substance
not applicable
Stability
to this study
type.
Test
5. Test
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
Method
Suitability
not applicable
to this study
type.
6. Testing
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
not applicable
to this study
type.
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
not applicable
to this study
type.
8. System
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Type and
Design
not applicable
to this study
type.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
not applicable
to this study
type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
not applicable
to this study
type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
not applicable
to this study
type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
12. Sampling
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Methods
not applicable
to this study
type.
Confounding/
13.
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
not applicable
to this study
type.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
not applicable
Exposure
to this study
type.
Data
15. Data
Unacceptable
Only estimated
4
2
8
Presentation
Reporting
data were
and Analysis
reported; no
analytical
method nor
measured data
for detection of
the test
substance was
reported.
16. Statistical
High
The analysis of
1
1
1
Methods and
data was
Kinetic
Calculations
clearly
described.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
Unacceptable
Unable to
evaluate and
verily results
based on the
data reported.
4
1
4
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is
NR
NR
NR
Models
not applicable
to this study
type.
Sum of scores:
10
6
15
1 lijih
Medium
Low
Overall Score
= Sum of
Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric
Weighting
Factors:
2.5
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
-1 niul 1.7
^1.7 ;uul
niul LiS
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
'This is a site-specific modeling study reporting estimated data. Consistent with our Application of
Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of
Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics
were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely
to increase transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Culver, TB; Shoemaker, CA; Lion, LW. (1991). Impact of vapor sorption on the
Reference:
subsurface transport of volatile organic compounds: A numerical model and analysis.
Water Resour Res 27: 2259-2270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/91WR00223.
HERO ID: 3809323
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Purity
study type.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated to
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Statistical
criteria for high
Methods and
confidence as
Kinetic
expected for this
Calculations
type of study.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
9
12
12
II it>h
Mi-ilium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1
_j1 ;iiul ¦ 1.7
^1.7 mul
anil
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Matienzo, LV. (1989). Staff report on development of treatment standards for non-
Reference:
RCRA solvent waste. Sacramento, CA: Toxic Substances Control Program.
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/17/16884.pdf.
HERO ID: 3982116
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Low
The test substance
3
1
3
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported
or verified by
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
Study controls
were not reported
in this study.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type.
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Unacceptable
Details regarding
the treatment
process test
method were not
reported in this
study.
4
1
4
6. Testing
Conditions
Unacceptable
Testing conditions
were not reported
in this study.
4
2
8
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type.
8. System
Type and
Unacceptable
System Type and
Design details
4
1
4
Design
were not reported
in this study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11.
Unacceptable
Study details were
4
1
4
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
not reported to
evaluate
methodology.
12. Sampling
Methods
Unacceptable
Sampling details
were not reported
in this study.
4
1
4
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated
applicable to this
study type.
to Exposure
Data
15. Data
Unacceptable
Study and data
4
2
8
Presentation
Reporting
details were not
and Analysis
reported in this
study.
16.
High
The metric is not
1
1
1
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
applicable to this
study type.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Unacceptable
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
4
1
4
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
33
13
42
High
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
3.23
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
_j1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mul
• 2.3
_j2.3 mul
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
'Due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible.
Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a
data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable.
In this case, five of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable
and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. Consistent with our Application of Systematic
Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, seven of the metrics were rated as
unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase
transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Matienzo, LV. (1989). Staff report on development of treatment standards for non-
Reference:
RCRA solvent waste. Sacramento, CA: Toxic Substances Control Program.
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/17/16884.pdf.
HERO ID: 3982116
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Low
The test substance
3
1
3
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not reported
or verified by
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
Study controls
were not reported
in this study.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type.
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
Unacceptable
Details regarding
the treatment
process test
method were not
reported in this
study.
4
1
4
6. Testing
Conditions
Unacceptable
Testing conditions
were not reported
in this study.
4
2
8
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type.
8. System
Type and
Unacceptable
System Type and
Design details
4
1
4
Design
were not reported
in this study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11.
Unacceptable
Study details were
4
1
4
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
not reported to
evaluate
methodology.
12. Sampling
Methods
Unacceptable
Sampling details
were not reported
in this study.
4
1
4
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
noted.
NR
NR
NR
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated
applicable to this
study type.
to Exposure
Data
15. Data
Unacceptable
Study and data
4
2
8
Presentation
Reporting
details were not
and Analysis
reported in this
study.
16.
High
The metric is not
1
1
1
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
applicable to this
study type.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Unacceptable
Due to limited
information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
4
1
4
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
33
13
42
High
M i'il iu in
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
3.23
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
_j1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mul
• 2.3
_j2.3 mul
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
'Due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible.
Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations document, if a metric for a
data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable.
In this case, seven of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable
and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Blaney, BL. (1989). Applicability of steam stripping to organics removal from
wastewater streams. (EPA/600/9-89/072). Cincinnati, OH: Blaney, BL.
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/23/22522.pdf.
HERO ID: 3986884
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Some concurrent
control group
details were not
included; however,
the lack of data was
not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Not rated
This is a field type
NR
NR
NR
Substance
Stability
study were stability
was not considered.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Low
There were
3
2
6
Conditions
reported deviations
or omissions in
testing conditions,
and these were
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the results
(temperature").
7. Testing
Medium
There were
2
1
2
Consistency
omissions in the
reporting across
study groups, but
these not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study
results.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
Medium
The system designs
2
1
2
Type and
were not described
Design
well but the
omission was not
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study
results.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Methods
Low
Details regarding
sampling methods
of the outcomefs]
were not fully
reported, and the
omissions were
likely to have had a
substantial impact
on the study
results.
3
1
3
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Low
Sources of
variability and
uncertainty in the
measurements and
statistical
techniques and
between study
groups (if
applicable) were
not considered or
accounted for in
data evaluation
resulting in some
uncertainty.
3
1
3
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated to
applicable to this
study type.
Exposure
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
Low
There was
insufficient
evidence presented
to confirm that
parent compound
disappearance was
not likely to have
been due to some
other process.
Analytical details
were not well
reported.
3
2
6
16.
Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Statistical analysis
or kinetic
calculations were
not conducted or
were not described
clearly.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
25
17
34
1 ligh
Medium
Low
Overall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
2
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
2
_j1 mill ¦ 1.7
^1.7 ;ind
mill
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Smith, JH; Bomberger, DC, Jr; Haynes, DL. (1980). Prediction of the volatilization rates
Reference:
of high-volatility chemicals from natural water bodies. Environ Sci Technol 14:1332-
1337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60171a004.
HERO ID: 58132
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
Medium
Source and purity
2
1
2
Substance
were not reported;
Purity
but were not likely
to have impacted
the study results.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Standard results
were not reported
but were not likely
to have impacted
the study results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Medium
Not discussed, but
2
1
2
Substance
not likely to have
Stability
impacted the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
Medium
There were minor
2
1
2
Consistency
inconsistencies in
test conditions
across samples or
study groups, but
these discrepancies
were not likely to
have had a
substantial impact
on the study
results.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Medium
Not well reported;
2
1
2
Methods
but not likely to
have impacted the
study results.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated to
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16.
Medium
Not well reported,
2
1
2
Statistical
but not likely to
Methods and
have impacted the
Kinetic
study results.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
20
18
25
1 ligli
Medium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sinn of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.39
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.4
_j1 :iiul 1.7
-j 1.7 mill
•2.3
^2.3 mul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Bell, J; Melcer, H; Monteith, H; Osinga, I; Steel, P. (1993). Stripping of volatile organic
Reference:
compounds at full-scale municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water Environ Res
65: 708-716. http://dx.doi.Org/10.2175/WER.65.6.2.
HERO ID: 658661
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this
study type.
NR
NR
NR
4. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Substance
applicable to this
Stability
study type.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
applicable to this
study type.
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study type.
8. System
Type and
Medium
Open system where
test substance may
2
1
2
Design
have been lost.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Confounding/
13.
Not rated
The study noted
NR
NR
NR
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
that design
parameters may
have impacted the
results.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated to
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16.
Medium
Emission rates
2
1
2
Statistical
were estimated by
Methods and
multiplying the
Kinetic
average VOC
Calculations
concentrations by
the appropriate
airflow rates.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Medium
The study results
were reasonable;
however, due to
limited information,
evaluation of the
reasonableness of
the study results
was not possible.
2
1
2
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
12
11
14
1 ligh
Mi-ilium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sinn of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.27
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 nnil ¦ 1.7
_j1.7 mul
¦•2.:-:
^2.3 mul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Stubin, AI; Brosnan, TM; Porter, KD; Jimenez, L; Lochan, H. (1996). Organic priority
pollutants in New York City municipal wastewaters: 1989-1993. Water Environ Res
68:1037-1044. http://dx.doi.org/10.2175/106143096X128108.
HERO ID: 658797
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable, or
Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
was identified by
chemical name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
was identified by
Purity
analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Source and purity
of analytical
standard were not
reported; however,
a guideline
analytical method
was used.
2
2
4
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
Design
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
noted.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this
Unrelated to
study type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
Reporting
criteria for high
and Analysis
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
16.
Not rated
The analysis of data
NR
NR
NR
Statistical
was clearly
Methods and
described.
Kinetic
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as
expected for this
type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
13
16
18
II it>h
Mi-ilium
Low
Ov erall Score =
Sum of Weighted
Scores/Sum of
Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.12
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_j1 ;iiul ¦ 1.7
^1.7 mul
mul ii3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Gay, BW, Jr; Hanst, PL; Bufalini, JJ; Noonan, RC. (1976). Atmospheric oxidation of
Reference:
chlorinated ethylenes. Environ Sci Technol 10: 58-67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60112a005.
HERO ID: 59310
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance was
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
identified by chemical
name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
Purity
purity was reported as
research grade. The
test substance source
was not reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
Blanks controls were
not reported for the
test system.
3
2
6
4. Test
Medium
Details were omitted
2
1
2
Substance
Stability
regarding the test
substance stability and
preparation; however,
this was not likely to
have influenced the
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
Some details were
2
2
4
Conditions
omitted regarding
testing conditions;
however, this was not
likely to have
influenced the results.
7. Testing
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
applicable to this
study; multiple
samples were not run.
8. System
High
Details were omitted
1
1
1
Type and
Design
regarding the test
system and design;
however, this was not
likely to have
influenced the results.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this study
type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this study
Partitioning
type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were noted.
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
applicable to this study
Unrelated to
type-
Exposure
Data
15. Data
Medium
Some information was
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
not reported (or
reported in a figure);
however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.
16. Statistical
Not rated
Statistical analysis or
NR
NR
NR
Methods and
kinetic calculations
Kinetic
were not reported.
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
The study results were
reasonable. This metric
met the criteria for
high confidence as
expected for this type
of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this study
type.
Sum of scores:
16
15
24
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.6
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.6
_j1 mill ¦ 1.7
_j1.7 nnil
-2.3
^2.3 mill ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Park, J; Choi, E; Cho, IH; Kim, YG. (2003). Solar light induced degradation of
Reference:
trichloroethylene (TCE) using Ti02: effects of solar light intensity and seasonal
variations. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 38:1915-1926.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ESE-120022889.
HERO ID: 1497906
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
High
The test substance
1
2
2
Substance
Substance
Identity
identified by name.
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity were
Purity
reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Negative controls were
not included; however,
this omission was not
likely to have hindered
the interpretation of
the results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Medium
Details regarding this
2
1
2
Substance
metric were omitted;
Stability
however, this was not
likely to have hindered
the interpretation of
the results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
Some details were
2
2
4
Conditions
limited; temperature
was not reported.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this study
type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this study
Partitioning
type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
12. Sampling
Medium
Details regarding this
2
1
2
Methods
metric were limited;
however, this was not
likely to have hindered
the interpretation of
the results.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated to
applicable to this study
type.
Exposure
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as expected
Calculations
for this type of study.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this study
type.
Sum of scores:
18
18
24
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
1.33
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 niul 1.7
-1.7 and
-2.3
^2.3 and ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Park, J; Choi, E; Cho, IH; Kim, YG. (2003). Solar light induced degradation of
Reference:
trichloroethylene (TCE) using Ti02: effects of solar light intensity and seasonal
variations. J Environ Sci Health A Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng 38:1915-1926.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/ESE-120022889.
HERO ID: 1497906
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance
identified by chemical
name.
1
2
2
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source and purity were
Purity
reported.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Negative controls were
not included; however,
this omission was not
likely to have hindered
the interpretation of
the results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Medium
Details regarding this
2
1
2
Substance
metric were omitted;
Stability
however, this was not
likely to have hindered
the interpretation of
the results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
Some details were
2
2
4
Conditions
limited; temperature
was not reported.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this study
type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this study
Partitioning
type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
12. Sampling
Medium
Minor limitations
2
1
2
Methods
involving loss of test
material due to
sampling; however, this
was minimal and not
likely to have had
substantial influence on
the results.
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Confounding
criteria for high
Control
Variables
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this study
Exposure
type.
Data
15. Data
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as expected
Calculations
for this type of study.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this study
type.
Sum of scores:
18
18
24
II it>h
Med ill ill
Low
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum
of Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.33
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 and
• 2.3
_j2.3 and ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Dobaradaran, S; Nabizadeh, R; Mahvi, AH; Noroozi, A; Yunesian, M; Rastkari, N;
Reference:
Nazmara, S; Zarei, S. (2012). Kinetic and degradation efficiency of trichloroethylene
(TCE) via photochemical process from contaminated water. Afr J Biotechnol 11:
2006-2012.
HERO ID: 2128765
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance was
identified by chemical
name.
1
2
2
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source was reported.
Purity
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
No details about a dark
control were provided;
hydrolysis was not
considered.
3
2
6
4. Test
Medium
The test substance
2
1
2
Substance
stability, homogeneity,
Stability
preparation or storage
conditions were not
reported; however,
these factors were not
likely to have
influenced the test
substance or were to
have had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
6. Testing
Medium
There were omissions
2
2
4
Conditions
in testing conditions;
however, sufficient data
were reported to
determine that the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
8. System
Medium
There were omissions
2
1
2
Type and
Design
in system details;
however, sufficient data
were reported to
determine that the
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this study
type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this study
Partitioning
type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
12. Sampling
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Medium
Sources of variability
and uncertainty in the
measurements and
statistical techniques
and between study
groups (if applicable)
were reported in the
study and minor
deviations or omissions
were not likely to have
had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
1
2
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this study
Exposure
type.
Data
15. Data
Low
Data for well water
3
2
6
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
samples were only
presented in figures.
16. Statistical
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Methods and
criteria for high
Kinetic
confidence as expected
Calculations
for this type of study.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this study
type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Sum of scores:
22
18
31
llifih
M i'il iu in
l.mv
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum
of Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.72
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.7
^1 mill 1.7
-1.7 mul
mul n/5
Overall
Quality
Level:
Medium
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Shirayama, H; Tohezo, Y; Taguchi, S. (2001). Photodegradation of chlorinated
Reference:
hydrocarbons in the presence and absence of dissolved oxygen in water. Water Res
35:1941-1950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00480-2.
HERO ID: 3544747
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance was
identified by chemical
name.
1
2
2
2. Test
High
The test substance
1
1
1
Substance
source was reported.
Purity
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Low
The control substance
was not reported;
however, the lack of this
data was not likely to
influence the study
results.
3
2
6
4. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Substance
criteria for high
Stability
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
Test
5. Test
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Conditions
Method
Suitability
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
6. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
2
2
Conditions
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
7. Testing
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Consistency
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
Design
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this study
type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this study
type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
12. Sampling
Methods
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
Confounding/
Variable
Control
13.
Confounding
Variables
Not rated
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
NR
NR
NR
14. Outcomes
Unrelated to
Exposure
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR
Data
Presentation
and Analysis
15. Data
Reporting
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
2
2
16. Statistical
Methods and
Kinetic
Calculations
Medium
Some details were
omitted; however, these
omissions were not
likely to have had a
substantial impact on
the study results.
2
1
2
Other
17.
Verification or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Models
Not rated
The metric is not
applicable to this study
type.
NR
NR
NR
Sum of scores:
16
17
22
Nigh
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum
of Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.29
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.1
_j1 and 1.7
_j1.7 nnd
•2.3
_j2.3 and ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Reference:
Dilling, WL; Tefertiller, NB; Kallos, GJ. (1975). Evaporation rates and reactivities of
methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, and other chlorinated compounds in dilute aqueous solutions.
Environ Sci Technol 9: 833-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es60107a008.
HERO ID: 58054
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Determination
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Comments
Metric
Score
Metric
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Score
Test Substance
1. Test
Substance
Identity
High
The test substance was
identified by chemical
name.
1
2
2
2. Test
Substance
Purity
High
The test substance
purity and source were
not reported; however,
MS analysis was
performed at start of
study. The detection
method was specifically
at the m/z of the
desired compound, so
the purity was not
likely to have affected
the results.
1
1
1
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Medium
Some concurrent
control group details
were not included;
however, the lack of
data was not likely to
have had a substantial
impact on the study
results.
2
2
4
4. Test
Substance
Stability
High
Mass spectra analysis
was performed at start
of study.
1
1
1
Test
Conditions
5. Test
Method
Suitability
High
Methanol was used as a
co-solvent.
1
1
1
6. Testing
Conditions
High
Water was purged with
air 15 min prior to
initiation of study; the
authors appear to be
assuming that
hydrolysis is followed
by oxidation; thus, by
having an abundance of
oxygen, they ensure
that the rate-
determining step is
hydrolysis.
1
2
2
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
7. Testing
High
No inconsistencies
1
1
1
Consistency
were reported or
identified.
8. System
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Type and
criteria for high
Design
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this study
type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
applicable to this study
Partitioning
type.
Outcome
11. Outcome
High
The outcome of interest
1
1
1
Assessment
Assessment
Methodology
and its basis were
reported.
12. Sampling
Methods
Medium
Sampling methods
were omitted. Sampling
timing was suitable.
2
1
2
Confounding/
13.
High
This metric met the
1
1
1
Variable
Control
Confounding
Variables
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
14. Outcomes
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Unrelated to
applicable to this study
Exposure
type.
Data
15. Data
Medium
Transformation
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
products were not
identified.
16. Statistical
Medium
Statistical methods or
2
1
2
Methods and
kinetic calculations
Kinetic
Calculations
were not reported.
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility of
Results
High
This metric met the
criteria for high
confidence as expected
for this type of study.
1
1
1
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this study
type.
Sum of scores:
18
18
24
High
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum of
Weighted Scores/Sum
of Metric Weighting
Factors:
1.33
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
1.3
_j1 niul 1.7
_j1.7 ;ind
¦ 2.3
_j2.3 niul ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
High1
delated HERO ID: 3970783, ECHA. Phototransformation in water: Tetrachloroethylene. 2017.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Study
Freitag, D; Ballhorn, L; Geyer, H; Korte, F. (1985). Environmental hazard profile of
Reference:
organic chemicals: an experimental method for the assessment of the behaviour of
organic chemicals in the ecosphere by means of simple laboratory tests with 14C
labelled chemicals. Chemosphere 14:1589-1616.
HERO ID: 85251
Domain
Metric
Qualitative
Comments
Metric
Metric
Weighted
Determination
Score
Weighting
Score
[i.e., High,
Medium, Low,
Factor
Unacceptable,
or Not rated]
Test
1. Test
Low
No information was
3
2
6
Substance
Substance
Identity
provided about the
test substance other
than stating that
some test substances
were bought, and
some were
synthesized in the
lab.
2. Test
Low
The test substance
3
1
3
Substance
source and purity
Purity
were not explicitly
reported or verified
by analytical means.
Test Design
3. Study
Controls
Unacceptable
No information was
provided regarding
this metric.
4
2
8
4. Test
Not rated
No information was
NR
NR
NR
Substance
Stability
provided regarding
this metric.
Test
5. Test
Not rated
No information was
NR
NR
NR
Conditions
Method
Suitability
provided but may be
available in
referenced sources.
6. Testing
Conditions
Unacceptable
No information was
provided regarding
this metric.
4
2
8
7. Testing
Not rated
No information was
NR
NR
NR
Consistency
provided regarding
this metric.
8. System
Not rated
No information was
NR
NR
NR
Type and
Design
provided but may be
available in
referenced sources.
Test
9. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organisms
Organism
Degradation
applicable to this
study type.
10. Test
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Organism
Partitioning
applicable to this
study type.
-------
Peer Review Draft Document. Do Not Release or Distribute
Outcome
11.
Not rated
Little to no
NR
NR
NR
Assessment
Outcome
Assessment
Methodology
information was
provided but may be
available in
referenced sources.
12. Sampling
Not rated
Little to no
NR
NR
NR
Methods
information was
provided but may be
available in
referenced sources.
Confounding/
Variable
13.
Confounding
Not rated
No confounding
variables were noted.
NR
NR
NR
Control
Variables
14.
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Outcomes
Unrelated
applicable to this
study type.
to Exposure
Data
15. Data
Medium
A single data point
2
2
4
Presentation
and Analysis
Reporting
(36% degradation)
was provided. More
information may be
available in the study
report; however, it is
illegible.
16.
Not rated
Little to no
NR
NR
NR
Statistical
information was
Methods and
provided.
Kinetic
Calculations
Other
17.
Verification
or
Plausibility
of Results
Not rated
Little to no
information was
provided; therefore, it
is difficult to interpret
the results.
NR
NR
NR
18. QSAR
Not rated
The metric is not
NR
NR
NR
Models
applicable to this
study type.
Sum of scores:
16
9
29
Nigh
Medium
Low
Overall Score = Sum
of Weighted
Scores/Sum of Metric
Weighting Factors:
3.22
Overall
Score
(Rounded):
4
-1 :uul 1.7
^1.7 ;iiul
¦'2.3
-2.3 ;ind ^3
Overall
Quality
Level:
Unacceptable1
'A single data point (36% degradation) was provided. More info may be available in the report; however,
the document is illegible. Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations
document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable (score
= 4), EPA will determine the
study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is
considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
------- |