DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE EPA United States Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention Draft Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane Draft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for Data Sources on Consumer Exposure CASRN: 123-91-1 November 2020 ------- 1 2 2 3 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 DRAFT-DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Data Type Monitoring Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Experimental Table of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 ------- |