Final Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation of Consumer Exposure Studies CASRN: 123-91-1 December 2020


E*ii^3j#X United States

LhI i^Wk Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention

Final Risk Evaluation for
1,4-Dioxane

Systematic Review Supplemental File:

Data Quality Evaluation of Consumer
Exposure Studies

CASRN: 123-91-1

/CX

December 2020

-------
1

2

2

3

3

4

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

Table of Contents

Data Type

Monitoring

Experimental

Experimental
Experimental

Experimental

Experimental
Experimental

Experimental

Experimental

Experimental

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

-------
3539090

3565197
3579327
3660508

3809004

3809005
3828958

3830103
4149695

6302983

6322475

6322476

Experimental

Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental

Experimental
Experimental

Experimental

Experimental

Experimental
Experimental
Experimental

6811748

Experimental

Tahara, M., Obama, T., Ikarashi, Y.. 2013. Development of analytical method for	14

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	15

Dynamic Headspace Liquid-Phase Microextraction Method. Chromatographia 79

Eusterbrock, L., Lehmann, J., Ziegler, G.. 2003. Analysis of pyrolysis products during	16

thermal decomposition of organic components in ceramic green bodies. 80

Makino, R., Kawasaki, H., Kishimoto, A., Gamo, M., Nakanishi, J.. 2006. Estimating	17

health risk from exposure to 1,4-dioxane in Japan. Environmental Sciences 13

Stachowiak-Wencek, A., Pradzynski, W., Matenko-Nozewnik, M.. 2014. EMISSION	18

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	19

Products using Purge - and - Trap Method. 12

Lin, W. T., Chen, W. L., Cheng, W. C., Chang, H. C., Tsai, S. W.. 2017. Determining	20

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.,	22

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	23

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	24

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:	25

VOCs from Wood, Paint, and Insulation Materials.

Poppendieck, D., Schlegel, M., Connor, A., Blickley, A.. 2017. Flame retardant	26

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	27

Transport from Attached Garages to Residential Living Spaces - NISTIR 7072.

ii

-------
6833550
6833552

Experimental
Experimental

Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
6833554	Databases Not Unique to a Chemical

Completed Exposure Assessments

68437

Completed Exposure Assessment

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

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 eifects 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

iii

-------
77171

3809002

3809077

Modeling
Modeling
Modeling

GEOMET Technologies,. 1995. Estimation of distributions for residential air ex-
change rates: Final report.

42

Walker, I. S., Forest, T. W., Wilson, D. J.. 2005. An attic-interior infiltration and	43

interzone transport model of a house. Building and Environment 40

Karlovich, B., Thompson, C., Lambach, J.. 2011. A Proposed Methodology for	44

Development of Building Re-Occupancy Guidelines Following Installation of Spray
Polyurethane Foam Insulation - Revision.

iv

-------
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

-------
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

passive samplers, tenax absorbant. samples stored 1-3 days

before analysis.

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

High

analytical details reported in another paper, but recoveries,

blanks, methods, etc. discussed.

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

indoor air

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5:

Currency

Medium

around 2007

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Medium

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

indoor air, but directly related to consumer products.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Medium

No raw data. Mean, SD. Max, DF

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Medium

recoveries, blanks discussed, although not specific to chemical.

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

High

SD provided. Investigated various variables.

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.6

Extracted

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.

^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.

If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.

2 of 44

-------
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

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

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

Some discussion is included related to the uncertainty and vari-
ability.

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

2.0

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.

3 of 44

-------
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^

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Metric 2:

Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology

Metric 3: Biomarker Selection

High
Low

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:
Metric 5:

Testing Scenario
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 3 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

-------
— 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

-------
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

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

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

Study does include some discussion on variability and uncer-
tainty.

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

2.0

Extracted

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.

^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.

6 of 44

-------
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

-------
— 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

-------
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

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

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

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.

9 of 44

-------
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:

Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology

Metric 3: 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 2 The data likely represent the relevant exposure scenario; some
drawbacks due to mixing as it is a chamber study

Medium 2 seven products were tested (only 1 contained 1,4-Dioxane)

Medium 2 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

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

limited discussion on variability and uncertainty

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.

10 of 44

-------
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

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

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

Variability addressed, key uncertainties, limitations, and data
gaps are not discussed

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.

11 of 44

-------
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

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

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

Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed

Overall Quality Determination

Low

2.7

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.

12 of 44

-------
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 ('< nimioiil s:

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Medium 2 Sampling methodology was not a current standard, but sam-

pling methods were being tested. These were discussed and
explained.

Metric 2: Analytical Methodology Medium 2 Analytical Methods were being tested in this experiment. Not

a current standard, but full descripted and scientifically sound

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
Low

High

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

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

Very limited discussion on uncertainties, limitations, and data

gaps

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

1.9

Extracted

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.

$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.

13 of 44

-------
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

Japanese products but main surfactants likely similar/same in

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

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

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.

14 of 44

-------
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







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.

15 of 44

-------
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

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

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

The graph displayed the variation between two measurements.

Overall Quality Determination

Low

2.6

Extracted

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.

^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.

16 of 44

-------
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

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

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

Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed

Overall Quality Determination

Low

2.4

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.

17 of 44

-------
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

('< nimioiil 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

-------
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: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Medium

Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection

Medium 2
N/A 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 2

High 1

Medium 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 Raw concentrations reported, no summaries

N/A

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.

19 of 44

-------
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

('< nimioiil 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

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

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

Very limited discussion on the variability and uncertainty.

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

1.9

Extracted

Yes

Continued on next page

20 of 44

-------
— 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^

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.

21 of 44

-------
Study Citation: Myllari, V., Hartikainen, S., Poliakova, V., Anderson, R., Jonkkari, I., Pasanen, P., Andersson, M., Vuorinen, J.. 2016.

Detergent impurity effect on recycfed HDPE: Properties after repetitive processing. Journaf of Appiied Poiymer Science.
Data Type Experimentai

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

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

some discussion included on uncertainties, limitations, and
data gaps

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

1.9

Extracted

t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.

^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.

22 of 44

-------
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 ('< nimioiil 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

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

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

Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed.

Overall Quality Determination

Low

2.3

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.

23 of 44

-------
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

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

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

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.

24 of 44

-------
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

-------
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





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.

26 of 44

-------
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

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

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

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

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.

27 of 44

-------
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

-------
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







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.

29 of 44

-------
Study Citation:
Data Type
Hero ID

NLM,. 2020. PubChem: 1,4-Dioxane: Downloaded 08/31/2020.

Databases Not Unique to a Chemical

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

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

Key uncertainties, limitations, and data gaps are not discussed.

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.0

Extracted

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.

30 of 44

-------
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

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

Data closely represents exposure scenarios of interest.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 3: Documentation of References

High

References appear to be available for all reported data, inputs,
and defaults

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Low

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.

31 of 44

-------
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

-------
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



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.

33 of 44

-------
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

-------
Study Citation: U.S. EPA,. 2005. Quantification of Exposure-Reiated 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

-------
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

-------
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







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.

37 of 44

-------
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

i

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty High

i

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

-------
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
conducted under one set of conditions.

exposure to epoxy
from chamber test

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

gaps.

data

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

-------
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

-------
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

-------
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:
Metric 2:

Mathematicl Equations
Model Evaluation

High
Medium

1

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

-------
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

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

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

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.

43 of 44

-------
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

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

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

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.

44 of 44

-------