DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
EPA
United States	Office of Chemical Safety and
Environmental Protection Agency	Pollution Prevention
Draft Risk Evaluation for
1,4-Dioxane
Draft Systematic Review Supplemental File:
Data Quality Evaluation for Data Sources on
Consumer Exposure
CASRN: 123-91-1
November 2020

-------
1
2
2
3
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Data Type
Monitoring
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Table of Contents
Reference
Batterman, S.,Jia, C.,Hatzivasilis, G.. 2007. Migration of volatile organic compounds
from attached garages to residences: A major exposure source. Environmental Re-
search 104
Gibson, W. B., Keller, P. R., Foltz, D. J., Harvey, G. J.. 1991. Diethylene glycol
mono butyl ether concentrations in room air from application of cleaner formulations
to hard surfaces. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 1
Sack, T. M., Steele, D. H., Hammerstrom, K., Remmers, J.. 1992. A survey of
household products for volatile organic compounds. Atmospheric Environment 26
Nestmann, E. R., Otson, R., Kowbel, D. J., Bothwell, P. D., Harrington, T. R.. 1984.
Mutagenicity in a modified Salmonella assay of fabric-protecting products containing
1,1,1-trichloroethane. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 6
Batterman, S.,Jia, C.,Hatzivasilis, G.. 2007. Migration of volatile organic compounds
from attached garages to residences: A major exposure source. Environmental Re-
search 104
Tanabe, A., Kawata, K.. 2008. Determination of 1,4-dioxane in household detergents
and cleaners. Journal of AOAC International 91
Jo, W. K., Lee, J. H., Lim, H. J., Jeong , W. S.. 2008. Naphthalene emissions from
moth repellents or toilet deodorant blocks determined using head-space and small-
chamber tests. Journal of Environmental Sciences 20
Kwon, K.,iD, Jo, W., Lim, H., Jeong, W.. 2007. Characterization of emissions
composition for selected household products available in Korea. Journal of Hazardous
Materials 148
Kim, K. W., Lee, B. H., Kim, S., Kim, H. J., Yun, J. H., Yoo, S. E., Sohn, J. R.. 2011.
Reduction of VOC emission from natural flours filled biodegradable bio-composites
for automobile interior. Journal of Hazardous Materials 187
Saraji, M., Shirvani, N.. 2017. Determination of residual 1,4-dioxane in surfac-
tants and cleaning agents using headspace single-drop microextraction followed by
gas chromatography-flame ionization detection. International Journal of Cosmetic
Science 39
i

-------
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Tahara, M., Obama, T., Ikarashi, Y.. 2013. Development of analytical method for
determination of 1,4-dioxane in cleansing products. International Journal of Cosmetic
Science 35
Farajzadeh, M., Nassiry, P., Mogaddam, M. R. A.. 2016. Development of a New
Dynamic Headspace Liquid-Phase Microextraction Method. Chromatographia 79
Eusterbrock, L., Lehmann, J., Ziegler, G.. 2003. Analysis of pyrolysis products during
thermal decomposition of organic components in ceramic green bodies. 80
Makino, R., Kawasaki, H., Kishimoto, A., Gamo, M., Nakanishi, J.. 2006. Estimating
health risk from exposure to 1,4-dioxane in Japan. Environmental Sciences 13
Stachowiak-Wencek, A., Pradzynski, W., Matenko-Nozewnik, M.. 2014. EMISSION
OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) FROM UV-CURED WATER-
BASED LACQUER PRODUCTS. Drewno 57
Kwon, K. D., Jo, W. K.. 2007. Indoor Emission Characteristics of Liquid Household
Products using Purge - and - Trap Method. 12
Lin, W. T., Chen, W. L., Cheng, W. C., Chang, H. C., Tsai, S. W.. 2017. Determining
the Residual Characteristics of Alkylphenols, Arsenic, and Lead as well as Assessing
the Exposures of 1,4-Dioxane from Household Food Detergents. Journal of AOAC
International 100
Myllari, V., Hartikainen, S., Poliakova, V., Anderson, R., Jonkkari, I., Pasanen, P.,
Andersson, M., Vuorinen, J.. 2016. Detergent impurity eifect on recycled HDPE:
Properties after repetitive processing. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 133
Fuh, C. B., Lai, M., Tsai, H. Y., Chang, C. M.. 2005. Impurity analysis of 1,4-dioxane
in nonionic surfactants and cosmetics using headspace solid-phase microextraction
coupled with gas chromatography and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Jour-
nal of Chromatography A 1071
Danish EPA,. 2018. Survey and risk assessment of chemical substances in chemical
products used for "do-it-yourself' projects in the home.
Won, D.,., N.,ong, G.,., Y.,ang, W.,., C.,ollins, P.,.. 2014. Material Emissions Testing:
VOCs from Wood, Paint, and Insulation Materials.
Poppendieck, D., Schlegel, M., Connor, A., Blickley, A.. 2017. Flame retardant
emissions from spray polyurethane foam insulation [Author's manuscript]. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 14
Emmerich, S. J., Gorfain, J. E., Huang, M., Howard-Reed, C.. 2003. Air and Pollutant
Transport from Attached Garages to Residential Living Spaces - NISTIR 7072.
ii

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
6833550
6833552
Experimental
Experimental
Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
6833554	Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Completed Exposure Assessments
68437
196351
3660508
3809038
3809054
3809085
3809099
4683373
6302983
Survey
1005964
1005969
Modeling
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Survey
Survey
CPSC,. 2009. Summary of Contractor's Indoor Air Quality Assessment of Homes
Containing Chinese Drywall.
CPSC,. 2011. Indoor Environmental Quality Assessment of Residences Containing
Problem Drywall: Six-Home Follow-Up Study.
NLM,. 2020. PubChem: 1,4-Dioxane: Downloaded 08/31/2020.
Gingell, R., Krasavage, W. J., Wise, R. C., Knaak, J. B., Bus, J., Gibson, W. B.,
Stack, C. R.. 1993. Toxicology of diethylene glycol butyl ether: 1 exposure and risk
assessment. International Journal of Toxicology 12
Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report: 1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List
21
Makino, R., Kawasaki, H., Kishimoto, A., Gamo, M., Nakanishi, J.. 2006. Estimating
health risk from exposure to 1,4-dioxane in Japan. Environmental Sciences 13
Sapphire, Group. 2007. Voluntary Children"s Chemical Evaluation Program [VC-
CEP], Tiers 1, 2, and 3 Pilot Submission For 1,4-Dioxane.
U.S. EPA,. 2005. Quantification of Exposure-Related Water Uses for Various U.S.
Subpopulations.
Health, Canada. 2010. Screening assessment for the challenge: 1,4-Dioxane.
Danish EPA,. 2004. Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 57
2005. Screening for health effects from chemical substances in textile colorants.
H. Willem, B. Singer. 2010. Chemical emissions of residential materials and products:
Review of available information.
Danish EPA,. 2018. Survey and risk assessment of chemical substances in chemical
products used for "do-it-yourself' projects in the home.
U.S. EPA,. 1987. National household survey of interior painters : final report.
U.S, E. P. A.. 1987. Household solvent products: A national usage survey.
28
29
30
30
31
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
40
41
42
111

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
77171
3809002
3809077
Modeling
Modeling
Modeling
GEOMET Technologies,. 1995.
change rates: Final report.
Estimation of distributions for residential air ex-
Walker, I. S., Forest, T. W., Wilson, D. J.. 2005. An attic-interior infiltration and
interzone transport model of a house. Building and Environment 40
Karlovich, B., Thompson, C., Lambach, J.. 2011. A Proposed Methodology for
Development of Building Re-Occupancy Guidelines Following Installation of Spray
Polyurethane Foam Insulation - Revision.
42
43
44
iv

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Refer to Appendix E of ' Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations' at https://www.epa.gov for more information of evaluation procedures
and parameters.
1 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Batterman, S.,Jia, C.,Hatzivasilis, G.. 2007. Migration of volatile organic compounds from attached garages to residences: A
major exposure source. Environmental Research.
Data Type	Monitoring
Hero ID	1065558
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability




Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
passive samplers, tenax absorbant. samples stored 1-3 days




before analysis.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
analytical details reported in another paper, but recoveries,




blanks, methods, etc. discussed.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
indoor air
Domain 2: Representativeness




Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1

Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
around 2007
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
15 samples, but sample is not random or necessarily represen-




tative, although it may capture much of the variation in the




sampled communities.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
indoor air, but directly related to consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity



Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
No raw data. Mean, SD. Max, DF
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Medium
2
recoveries, blanks discussed, although not specific to chemical.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty



Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
SD provided. Investigated various variables.
Overall Quality Determination

High
1.6

Extracted

No



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
2 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Gibson, W. B., Keller, P. R., Foltz, D. J., Harvey, G. J.. 1991. Diethylene glycol mono butyl ether concentrations in room air
from application of cleaner formulations to hard surfaces. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	28308
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methodology does not reference a SOP but is de-
scribed in detail and scientifically sound.
Analytical methodology does not reference a SOP but is de-
scribed in detail and scientifically sound.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
High
Low
Low
1
3
3
Surface cleaners, rooms, and other testing conditions were se-
lected to represent exposure scenario.
Multiple timed samples taken from just two cleaners; exp with
each cleaner was duplicated but with slightly different masses
Data is over 15 years old, 1999 paper
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
Data is reported and complete
No quality control issues were identified; calibration curve and
correlation reported
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Some discussion is included related to the uncertainty and vari-
ability.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
3 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Sack, T. M., Steele, D. H., Hammerstrom,
compounds. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	28339
K., Remmers, J.. 1992. A survey of household products for volatile organic
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions High
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology	Low
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
calibration for the additional analytes was performed on only
one of the five instruments, it was assumed that the response
calibration for that instrument was a reasonable estimate for
the other four GC/MS systems.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:	Testing Scenario
Metric 5:	Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6:	Temporality
Medium
Medium
Low
number of products per category varied. Replicates tests for
some products, but not all.
>15 yrs old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 no raw data. Only average reported.
N/A	N/A Precision was determined by repeated analysis of one of the
calibration standard solutions and by duplicate analysis of a
number of the household products
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
Because the methodology for the actual GC/MS analyses was
designed for the determination of the original six chlorinated
solvents, the highest confidence is placed upon the results for
those analytes. For the additional 25 analytes, the analyti-
cal system was calibrated approximately 2 years later under
conditions designed to replicate the original system. As a re-
sult, the reported concentration values for the additional 25
analytes should be regarded as estimates. As a result of this
comparison, it was estimated that in the worst case, a reported
concentration value for one of the 25 additional analytes may
be off by a factor in the range of 0.2-5.
Continued on next page
4 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
 continued from previous page
Study Citation: Sack, T. M., Steele, D. H., Hammerstrom, K., Remmers, J.. 1992. A survey of household products for volatile organic
compounds. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	28339
Domain
Metric
Rating"!" Score
Comments^
Overall Quality Determination

Low 2.3

Extracted

Yes


I High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
5 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Nestmann, E. R., Otson, R., Kowbel, D. J., Bothwell, P. D., Harrington, T. R.. 1984. Mutagenicity in a modified Salmonella
assay of fabric-protecting products containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	194339
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methods were referenced, but were not a widely ac-
cepted source.
Analytical methods were referenced, but were not a widely ac-
cepted source; all equipment provided for GC/MS
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
High
Low
Low
1
3
3
Appropriate for data of interest - WF in Fabric protector (Ta-
ble 3)
Low sample size, two fabric protectors were tested.
1984 paper, source of tested items is older than 15 years
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
Data is all reported and appears to be complete and accurate.
Identified issues were minor and addressed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Study does include some discussion on variability and uncer-
tainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

No



1 High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
6 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Batterman, S.,Jia, C.,Hatzivasilis, G.. 2007. Migration of volatile organic compounds from attached garages to residences: A
major exposure source. Environmental Research.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	1065558
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Sampling methodology discussed in detail following methodol-
ogy in previously published study; sampling equipment, stor-
age, and conditions described
AER measured using constant injection of PFT emitters and
passive samplers; samples analyzed by GC/MS; MDLs reported
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
High
Medium
2
1
2
Testing scenarios likely normal but selection of homes and par-
ticipants not necessarily random or representative; range of
testing conditions exists across selected homes
Sample size = 15 homes; replicate samples taken
Study from 2007, 13 years ago
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
Raw concentration data provided for each house/garage and
VOC; summary statistics provided for each VOC for all houses
At least one field blank collected for each house (25 total
blanks); sampling performance evaluated; recoveries 75-128
percent
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Spatial and temporal variability evaluated; uncertainties and
gaps identified
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3

Extracted

Yes



Continued on next page
7 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
 continued from previous page
Study Citation: Batterman, S.,Jia, C.,Hatzivasilis, G.. 2007. Migration of volatile organic compounds from attached garages to residences: A
major exposure source. Environmental Research.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	1065558
Domain
Metric
Rating^" Score
Comments^

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
8 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Tanabe, A., Kawata, K.. 2008. Determination of 1,4-dioxane in household detergents and cleaners. Journal of AOAC
International.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	2013802
Domain	Metric	Rating^ Score	Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
2
1
N/A
Not a standard but details provided
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
High
Medium
2
1
2
Household detergents and cleaners currently sold in Japan,
may not be in US
n=40 with 1,4 dioxane
2008 study, >5 to 15 years
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
mean, max, min provided for product group but not individual
concentrations
recoveries and replicate samples discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Kruskal Wallis test use to capture variability in results
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7

Extracted

Yes


t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
9 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Jo, W. K., Lee, J. H., Lim, H. J., Jeong , W. S.. 2008. Naphthalene emissions from moth repellents or toilet deodorant blocks
determined using head-space and small-chamber tests. Journal of Environmental Sciences.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	2331549
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
2
1
N/A
sampling methodology was described and scientifically sound
analytical methodologies were cited and from widely accepted
sources (e.g., EPA and ASTM Methods)
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Medium
Medium
2
2
2
The data likely represent the relevant exposure scenario; some
drawbacks due to mixing as it is a chamber study
seven products were tested (only 1 contained 1,4-Dioxane)
source of tested items could be less consistent with current
exposures (between 5-15 years)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Data is reported for each product along with summary statis-
tics; frequency of detection was low for 1,4-Dioxane (was not
detected in 6/7 samples)
Laboratory and field blank traps, spiked samples
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
limited discussion on variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9

Extracted

Yes



( High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
10 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Kwon, K.,iD, Jo, W., Lim, H., Jeong, W.. 2007. Characterization of emissions composition for selected household products
available in Korea. Journal of Hazardous Materials.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	2443123
Domain	Metric	Rating^ Score	Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
High
Medium
2
1
2
Products from Korea, but results are likely similar to US
n=59 household products
2007 study, >5 to 15 years
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
concentration of all analytes per product reported, no sum-
maries
Quality assurance/quality control techniques and results were
not directly discussed, but can be implied through the study"s
use of standard field and laboratory protocols
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Variability addressed, key uncertainties, limitations, and data
gaps are not discussed
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7

Extracted

Yes


1 High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
11 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Kim, K. W., Lee, B. H., Kim, S., Kim, H. J., Yun, J. H., Yoo, S. E., Sohn, J. R.. 2011. Reduction of VOC emission from
natural flours filled biodegradable bio-composites for automobile interior. Journal of Hazardous Materials.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3538078
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Low
N/A
2
3
N/A
Two methods employed, both described in detail but not cited
from a source
GC/MS method and instruments widely acceptable, but no
limits reported
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low
Low
Medium
3
3
2
Temperature varied to represent different seasons for cars; dis-
crepancy between air exchange rates between two methods
n=5 for each neat and composite (pineapple and cassava) ma-
terial; only two data points for 1,4-dioxane
2011 study, <10 years
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Emission factor data reported for TVOC in graphs, 1,4 dioxane
reported in text with single data points only for each composite
Multiple methods tested and compared but not obvious the
distinction between TVOC and chemical emissions
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.7

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
12 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Saraji, M., Shirvani, N.. 2017. Determination of residual 1,4-dioxane in surfactants and cleaning agents using headspace
single-drop microextraction followed by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection. International Journal of Cosmetic
Science.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3538324
Domain
Metric
Ratingt
Score
('< niirnoril s:
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methodology was not a current standard, but sam-
pling methods were being tested. These were discussed and
explained.
Analytical Methods were being tested in this experiment. Not
a current standard, but full descripted and scientifically sound
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
High
Low
High
1
3
1
Testing conditions closely represent relevant exposure scenarios
for the products of interest, 4 concentrations were taken to fit
calibration curve (n = 4)
Products appear to be current, <5 years
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
All data and equations appear to be reported and complete.
No quality control issues were identified
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Very limited discussion on uncertainties, limitations, and data
gaps
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9

Extracted

No



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
13 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Tahara, M., Obama, T., Ikarashi, Y.. 2013. Development of analytical method for determination of 1,4-dioxane in cleansing
products. International Journal of Cosmetic Science.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3539090
Domain	Metric	Rating^ Score	Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
2
1
N/A
Not a standard but sample prep provided in detail
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
High
Medium
2
1
2
Japanese products but main surfactants likely similar/same in
US
n=15 products
2013 study, >5 to 15 years old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
concentration per product listed, no summaries, chro-
matograms provided
standard curves used, calibration detailed in water
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Limited discussion of uncertainties, gaps, and limitations
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9

Extracted

Yes


t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
14 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Farajzadeh, M., Nassiry, P., Mogaddam, M. R. A.. 2016. Development of a New Dynamic Headspace Liquid-Phase Microex-
traction Method. Chromatographia.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3565197
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methods are new but are clearly described and sci-
entifically sound
Analytical methods are new but are clearly described and sci-
entifically sound
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
High
Low
High
1
3
1
Testing conditions closely represent relevant exposure scenarios
Method tested at each analyte level for each product (n=3);
n=l raw sample for each product
tested items appear to be current (4 yr)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Single raw concentration value reported; only summary statis-
tics report for relative recoveries (no raw data)
No quality control issues were identified
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Very limited discussion on uncertainties, limitations, and data
gaps
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7

Extracted

Yes



( High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
15 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Eusterbrock, L., Lehmann, J., Ziegler, G.. 2003. Analysis of pyrolysis products during thermal decomposition of organic
components in ceramic green bodies.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3579327
Domain	Metric	Rating^ Score	Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methodology is described.
The analytical methodology was described,
biomarker was not used in this experiment
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Low
Low
2
3
3
The testing methodology was relevant to the process of gener-
ating flue gas and collecting contaminants.
It appears that only two samples were collected/analyzed for
1.4D
This study is >15 years old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Results were only provided in graph form.
QA/QC measures were not reported
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
The graph displayed the variation between two measurements.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.6

Extracted

No



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
16 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Makino, R., Kawasaki, H., Kishimoto, A., Gamo, M., Nakanishi, J.. 2006. Estimating health risk from exposure to 1,4-dioxane
in Japan. Environmental Sciences.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3660508
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methodology is discussed but some sampling infor-
mation is not provided (i.e., sampling conditions, equipment,
sample storage conditons/duration)
Analytical methodology discussed and adequate but some miss-
ing information (i.e., recovery samples, instrument calibration)
biomarker is not used.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Low
Low
2
3
3
Testing conditions likely represent exposure scenario but some
information is not described.
Samples size moderate, but replicate tests not perfomed
>15 years (2003)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Summary statistics are reported but are missing one or more
parameters
Quality assurance/quality control techniques and results were
not directly discussed, but can be implied.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.4

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
17 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation:
Stachowiak-Wencek, A., Pradzynski, W., Matenko-Nozewnik, M.. 2014. EMISSION OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COM-

POUNDS (VOC) FROM UV-CURED WATER-BASED LACQUER PRODUCTS. Drewno.

Data Type
Experimental

Hero ID
3809004

Domain
Metric Rating^ Score
('onilriciil s:
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Medium
Medium
2
2
2
Wood and lacquer products relevant, better match for com-
mercial scale than residential/consumer
3 pieces of wood and 3 lacquers each (n=9), 2 samples for each
compound/wood (n=18)
Study from 2014, >5 to 15 years old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
24 h and 72 h raw concentrations reported
Samples also taken from uncoated wood pieces
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Variability characterized but key uncertainties and gaps not
identified
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
18 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Kwon, K. D., Jo, W. K.. 2007. Indoor Emission Characteristics of Liquid Household Products using Purge - and - Trap
Method.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3809005
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling conditions and methodology clearly described and
methods validated
Not known standard but methods and instrumentation detailed
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
High
Medium
2
1
2
Products selected likely relevant to consumer scenario but pur-
chased in Korea
2007, >5 to 15 years old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Raw concentrations reported, no summaries
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

Yes


t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
19 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Lin, W. T., Chen, W. L., Cheng, W. C., Chang, H. C., Tsai, S. W.. 2017. Determining the Residual Characteristics of
Alkylphenols, Arsenic, and Lead as well as Assessing the Exposures of 1,4-Dioxane from Household Food Detergents. Journal
of AOAC International.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3828958
Domain
Metric
Ratingt
Score
('< niirnoril s:
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methodology was reported and scientifically sound,
but was not only from widely accepted sources.
Analytical methodology was reported and scientifically sound,
but was not only from widely accepted sources; headspace
SPME-GC-MS method
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
High
High
High
1
1
1
Testing conditions closely represent relevant exposure scenarios
- dish washing
80 different food detergents were included.
Sources of tested items appears to be current (within 5 years);
2017 study
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Summary stats reported in text; raw data ( individual WF for
all food detergents) are not reported, and therefore summary
statistics cannot be reproduced. No measure of variation in-
cluded.
No quality control issues were identified; stock solutions cali-
brated
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Very limited discussion on the variability and uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9

Extracted

Yes



Continued on next page
20 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
 continued from previous page
Study Citation: Lin, W. T., Chen, W. L., Cheng, W. C., Chang, H. C., Tsai, S. W.. 2017. Determining the Residual Characteristics of
Alkylphenols, Arsenic, and Lead as well as Assessing the Exposures of 1,4-Dioxane from Household Food Detergents. Journal
of AOAC International.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3828958
Domain
Metric
Rating^" Score
Comments^-

r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
21 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Myllari, V., Hartikainen, S., Poliakova, V., Anderson, R., Jonkkari, I., Pasanen, P., Andersson, M., Vuorinen, J.. 2016.
Detergent impurity effect on recycled HDPE: Properties after repetitive processing. Journal of Applied Polymer Science.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	3830103
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
2
1
N/A
Sampling methodology was described and cited - did not come
from widely accepted source.
Analytical methodologies were described and cited from widely
accepted source (e.g., ASTM)
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
High
Low
High
1
3
1
Testing conditions closely represent relevant exposure scenar-
ios, recycled plastics
n=5, 1,4-Dioxane concentration includes points at 5 different
extrusions.
Sources of tested items appears to be current (within 5 years),
2016 study
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
1,4-Dioxane concentrations are only reported in a figure - do
not have text or tabulated data
No quality control issues were identified
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
some discussion included on uncertainties, limitations, and
data gaps
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9

Extracted

No



r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
22 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Fuh, C. B., Lai, M., Tsai, H. Y., Chang, C. M.. 2005. Impurity analysis of 1,4-dioxane in nonionic surfactants and cosmetics
using headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
Journal of Chromatography A.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	4149695
Domain	Metric	Ratingt Score	('< niirnoril s:
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
2
1
N/A
Sampling methodology not cited but described and sound
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low
Medium
Medium
3
2
2
Products are reasonable but all from Taiwan
n=6 for surfactants, n=27 for products
2005 study, 15 years old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Range and standard dev given but not all raw data for each
product
Results compared to other literature, recoveries reported
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.3

Extracted

Yes


1 High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
23 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Danish EPA,. 2018. Survey and risk assessment of chemical substances in chemical products used for "do-it-yourself' projects
in the home.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	6302983
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Climate chamber tests were performed according to ISO 16000-
9/11, prEN 16516
Sampling and analysis of VOC was carried out according to
ISO 16000-6, LOD for 1,4 D provided.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low
Low
High
3
3
1
Tests conducted under a single set of conditions.
Sample size small; only one test conducted for 1,4D, although
data were collected at 3 sampling intervals.
Study conducted April-December 2017
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Only one test was conducted; results reported for 3 sampling
intervals.
QA/QC not discussed but implied through the use of ISO
methods for sampling and analysis.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
The report noted that the estimated uncertainty for sample
preparation and sampling is 20-40 percent depending on the
sample type and collection volume. No discussion of data gaps
or limitations.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
24 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Won, D.,., N.,ong, G.,., Y.,ang, W.,., C.,ollins, P.,.. 2014. Material Emissions Testing: VOCs from Wood, Paint, and Insulation
Materials.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	6322475
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Tests according to ASTM D5116-2010
GS/MS for samples from Tenax/Carbograph and Tenax coated
with PFPH
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
High
High
Medium
1
1
2
Specific mention of " do-it-yourself' two-component spray foam
insulation product
n=30 building materials tested for 121 VOCs measured
2014 study, 5 to 15 years
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
Cone and EF at timed intervals; summary data for EFs
Background and blank samples
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Characterizes variability in the media studied
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
25 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Poppendieck, D., Schlegel, M., Connor, A., Blickley, A.. 2017. Flame retardant emissions from spray polyurethane foam
insulation [Author's manuscript]. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	6322476
Domain	Metric	Rating^ Score	Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
NIST and ASTM standards; detailed methods, equipment, etc.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
High
High
2
1
1
1,4D concentrations shown at 40C, not necessarily applicable
to all seasons (summer only)
n> 10
2019 study
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
1,4 dioxane concentrations reported in graphs; other data pro-
vided in text
Chamber control used, other details not provided but unlikely
to impact the results
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Variability in foams, chamber conditions, uncertainties and
limitations discussed
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6

Extracted

No


1 High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
26 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Emmerich, S. J., Gorfain, J. E., Huang, M., Howard-Reed, C.. 2003. Air and Pollutant Transport from Attached Garages to
Residential Living Spaces - NISTIR 7072.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	6811748
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
N/A
1
2
N/A
The pressurization tests were generally conducted according to
ASTM Standard E 779-99 (ASTM 1999) using blower doors.
Error analysis and confidence intervals calculated according to
ASTM standard 799-99 but no detection limits reported.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Medium
Low
2
2
3
Testing scenario appropriate but specific to DC and results
aligned with results from other studies
Sample size = 5 houses
Study from 2003, >15 years ago
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Effective leakage area (ELA) and air change rate (ACH) data
reported for all houses; average and stardard deviations re-
ported.
QA/QC not discussed but implied through adherence to ASTM
standards
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Variations in houses tested and respective results are charac-
terized; results compared to other studies to identify data gaps
or uncertainties
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
27 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation:
CPSC,. 2009.
Summary of Contractor's Indoor Air Quality Assessment of Homes Containing Chinese Drywall.
Data Type
Experimental

Hero ID
6833550

Domain

Metric Rating"!" Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions High	1 sampling methodologies were compliant with EPA, CDC,
ASTDR approaches
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology	High	1 analytical methods were well described and referenced from
widely accepted sources (ASTM, EPA, NIOSH)
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection	N/A	N/A
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
High
High
Medium
1
1
2
testing conditions closely represent relevant exposure scenario
n=13 (number of primary and duplicate pairs above reporting
limit) for 1,4-Dioxane
sources of tested items could be less consistent with current
exposures (5-15 years)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
All individual data is not reported; summary statistics are de-
tailed and complete
quality assurance/control measures were applied and only mi-
nor issues were identified
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Discussion included surrounding variability and uncertainty -
section in article dedicated to limitations
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3

Extracted
Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
28 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: CPSC,. 2011. Indoor Environmental Quality Assessment of Residences Containing Problem Drywall: Six-Home Follow-Up
Study.
Data Type	Experimental
Hero ID	6833552
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
2
1
N/A
Methodology discussed and generally appropriate but not all
details provided; unlikely to have substantial impact on results
GC/MS according to EPA"s Method TO-15; air exchange via
ASTM Standard E741-00
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Medium
Medium
2
2
2
Data likely represent standard home scenarios; temperature,
RH, and dew point varied and recorded
n=6 homes
2011, 9 years ago
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
ACH ranges and graphs provided; raw concentration data for
all chemicals
Recoveries reported, QA/QC methods outlined
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Limited characterization of variability in houses and limited
discussion of uncertainties
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9

Extracted

Yes



( High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
29 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: NLM,. 2020. PubChem: 1,4-Dioxane: Downloaded 08/31/2020.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 6833554
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments'
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
N/A
High
N/A
1
No sampling was conducted for this database; referenced sam-
ples have sources cited with their own methodologies
The analytical methods referenced are generally from widely
accepted sources (e.g. OSHA, EPA, NIOSH)
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
High
High
1
1
1
When applicable, geographical information is reported - State
drinking water guidelines
data generally reflects current exposures - Data continues to be
updated and dates are provided when there are multiple values
for the same property
When applicable, the information closely represents relevant
exposure scenario
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
High
High
1
1
Database is well known and accepted source; primary data is
always referenced and link provide when applicable
information in the database data is well organized and under-
standable by the target audience
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.0

Extracted

No



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
30 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Gingell, R., Krasavage, W. J., Wise, R. C., Knaak, J. B., Bus, J., Gibson, W. B., Stack, C. R.. 1993. Toxicology of diethylene
glycol butyl ether: 1 exposure and risk assessment. International Journal of Toxicology.
Data Type	Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID	68437
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
2
The assessment uses techniques that are from reliable sources
and are generally accepted by the scientific community; how-
ever, a discussion of assumptions, extrapolations, measure-
ments, and models is limited.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Data closely represents exposure scenarios of interest.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
References appear to be available for all reported data, inputs,
and defaults
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Very limited discussion on uncertainties, limitations, and data
gaps .
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
31 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Ecjrc,. 2002. European Union risk assessment report:
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 196351
1,4-dioxane. 2nd Priority List.
Domain Metric Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
1
Sound and acceptable methodology used in this assessment
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario High
1
Addressed consumer exposure from intentional use and unin-
tential use (14D as impurity).
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References High
1
References are publically available for all reported data
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Medium
2
limited discussion of uncertainties.
Overall Quality Determination High
1.2

Extracted Yes

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
32 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Makino, R., Kawasaki, H., Kishimoto, A., Gamo, M., Nakanishi, J.. 2006. Estimating health risk from exposure to 1,4-dioxane
in Japan. Environmental Sciences.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3660508
Domain Metric
Rating^
Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
1
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2 Interindividual variability of exposure was addressed. Uncer-
tainty factors were used in calculations but uncertainty was
not discussed in detail.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2
Extracted
Yes

r High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
33 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Sapphire, Group. 2007. Voluntary Children"s Chemical Evaluation Program [VCCEP]. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 Pilot Submission
For 1,4-Dioxane.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3809038
Domain Metric Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
1
Sound methodology
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario High
1
Children's exposure was estimated for a variety of pathways
from contact with water, lotions, mother's milk, indoor air,
cleaning materials. This represents exposure scenarios of in-
terest.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References High
1

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty High
1
Uncertainties, variabilities, and data gaps were discussed.
Overall Quality Determination High
1.0

Extracted Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
34 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: U.S. EPA,. 2005. Quantification of Exposure-Related Water Uses for Various U.S. Subpopulations.
Data Type	Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID	3809054
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
1

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
The exposure scenarios (ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact)
from water usage patterns are likely relevant to 1,4-D; although
the report does not specifically address the chemical.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1

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

Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
35 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Health, Canada. 2010. Screening assessment for the challenge: 1,4-Dioxane.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3809085
Domain
Metric Rating"!"
Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology High
1
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario High
1 Discusses consumer exposure to household products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty High
1
Overall Quality Determination High
1.0
Extracted
Yes


t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
36 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Danish EPA,. 2004. Survey of Chemical Substances in Consumer Products, No. 57 2005. Screening for health effects from
chemical substances in textile colorants.
Data Type	Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID	3809099
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
2
Report states that methodology is similar to recommended
methods by the EU, as described in the Technical Guidance
Document (2003).
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Exposure scenario for dermal, oral, and inhalation exposure to
Danish children only.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No discussion of uncertainties, limitations, or data gaps.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
37 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: H. Willem, B. Singer. 2010. Chemical emissions of residential materials and products: Review of available information.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 4683373
Domain Metric
Rating^
Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
1
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3 US report, but a bit old report(> 5yrs) and no chemicals in-
terest.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
Extracted
No


t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
38 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Danish EPA,. 2018. Survey and risk assessment of chemical substances in chemical products used for "do-it-yourself' projects
in the home.
Data Type	Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID	6302983
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^

Domain 1: Reliability





Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
2
Limited discussion regarding assumptions,
models.
extrapolations, and
Domain 2: Representative





Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Exposure scenario represents inhalation
floor paint. Concentrations were derived
exposure to epoxy
from chamber test
conducted under one set of conditions.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References High	1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2 Limited discussion of key uncertainties, limitations, and data
gaps.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
Extracted
Yes


t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
39 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: U.S. EPA,. 1987. National household survey of interior painters : final report.
Data Type	Survey
Hero ID	1005964
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments-!"
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Data Collection Methodology
Data Analysis Methodology
High
High
1
1

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Sampling / Sampling Size
Response Rate
High
Medium
High
1
2
1
Medium, Sample size and methodology reported but sample
size relatively small, error 6.9 percent
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Reporting of Results
Metric 7: Quality Assurance
High
High
1
1

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

Overall Quality Determination
High
1.1

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
40 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation:	U.S, E. P. A.. 1987. Household solvent products: A national usage survey.
Data Type	Survey
Hero ID	1005969
Domain	Metric	Rating^ Score	Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Data Collection Methodology
Data Analysis Methodology
High
High
1
1
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Sampling / Sampling Size
Response Rate
High
High
Medium
1 Nationwide (U.S.A.) survey with outreach via random dialing
and willingness to provide address and respond to survey.
1
2
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Reporting of Results
Metric 7: Quality Assurance
High
Medium
1
2
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3
Extracted

Yes

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
41 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation:
GEOMET Technologies,. 1995. Estimation of distributions for residential air
exchange rates: Final report.
Data Type
Modeling

Hero ID
77171

Domain
Metric Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Mathematicl Equations	High	1
Metric 2: Model Evaluation	Medium 2 Sought additional PFT measurement results (e.g., from re-
cently completed studies) for areas with limited representation.
Further compensation was obtained by applying weighting fac-
tors in the analysis.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 >15 years old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
High
High
1
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3
Extracted
Yes


t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
42 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Walker, I. S., Forest, T. W., Wilson, D. J.. 2005. An attic-interior infiltration and interzone transport model of a house.
Building and Environment.
Data Type	Modeling
Hero ID	3809002
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Mathematicl Equations
Model Evaluation
High
Medium
1
2
Key mathematical equations are provided in detail
The two zone ventilation model was verified by comparing pre-
dictions to measured hourly averaged data. The level of peer
review for this model is not known. It is from a published
journal.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Article was published 15 years ago (2005); model does repre-
sent relevant conditions in exposure scenario
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
Low
Medium
3
2
Equations and details about the calculations are available in
the published paper; unknown if a model outside of this paper
exists that will automatically calculate these values.
Model inputs are provided but uncertain if they are standard
to commonly accepted
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Uncertainty and variability were mentioned but not thoroughly
discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
43 of 44

-------
DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Study Citation: Karlovich, B., Thompson, C., Lambach, J.. 2011. A Proposed Methodology for Development of Building Re-Occupancy
Guidelines Following Installation of Spray Polyurethane Foam Insulation - Revision.
Data Type	Modeling
Hero ID	3809077
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Mathematicl Equations
Model Evaluation
High
Low
1
3
The paper does not provide information on the level of evalu-
ation this model has received. It is clear that the author has
conducted an evaluation (revisions); however, the level of peer
review is unknown. Quality assurance was not discussed in
detail.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Exposure Scenario
High
1

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
Low
High
3
1
The methodology followed for this work has many similarities
to the methodology that is described in the draft Center for
the Polyurethanes Industry/Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance
SPF Insulation Emissions Testing Protocol. That protocol was
the subject of a technical paper that was prepared for the 2008
CPI conference.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
A commonly prescribed re-occupancy guideline in the SPF in-
dustry is 24 hours. The data developed for Bayseal OC and
CC foams support this rule of thumb.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8

Extracted

Yes



t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
* The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
44 of 44

-------