PEER REVIEW DRAFT. DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE.
x=,EPA
United States Office of Chemical Safety and
Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention
Draft Risk Evaluation for
Perchloroethylene
(Ethene, l,l»2,2-Tetrachloro)
CASRN: 127-18-4
Systematic Review Supplemental File:
Data Quality Evaluation for Data Sources on Consumer and
Environmental Exposure
Ci
ci
ci
ci
NOTICE: This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under
applicable information quality guidelines. It has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent
and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or policy. It is being circulated for review
of its technical accuracy and science policy implications.
April 2020, DRAFT
-------
Table of Contents
HERO
ID
Monitoring
5405
14003
21469
21778
22045
22186
23081
27974
28104
Data Type
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Reference
Pellizzari, E. D.,Wallace, L. A.,Gordon, S. M.. 1992. Elimination kinetics of
volatile organics in humans using breath measurements. Journal of Exposure
Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 2
Clayton, C. A.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Whitmore, R. W.,Perritt, R. L.,Quackenboss, J.
J.. 1999. National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS): Distribu-
tions and associations of lead, arsenic, and volatile organic compounds in EPA
Region 5. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 9
Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Hartwell, T. D.,Sparacino, C. M.,Sheldon, L.
S.,Zelon, H.. 1985. Results from the first three seasons of the TEAM study:
personal exposures, indoor-outdoor relationships, and breath levels of toxic air
pollutants measured for 355 persons in New Jersey.
Aggazzotti, G.,Fantuzzi, G.,Predieri, G.,Righi, E.,Moscardelli, S.. 1994. Indoor
exposure to perchloroethylene (PCE) in individuals living with dry-cleaning
workers. Science of the Total Environment 156
Heavner, D. L.,Morgan, W. T.,Ogden, M. W.. 1995. Determination of volatile
organic compounds and ETS apportionment in 49 homes. Environment Inter-
national 21
Lebret, E.,van de Wiel, H. J.,Bos, H. P.,Noij, D.,Boleij, J. S. M.. 1986. Volatile
organic compounds in Dutch homes. Environment International 12
Wallace, L. A.. 1986. Personal exposures, indoor and outdoor air concentra-
tions, and exhaled breath concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds
measured for 600 residents of New Jersey, North Dakota, North Carolina, and
California. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 12
Chan, C. C.,Vainer, L.,Martin, J. W.,Williams, D. T.. 1990. Determination
of organic contaminants in residential indoor air using an adsorption-thermal
desorption technique. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association
40
Hisham, M. W. M.,Grosjean, D.. 1991. Sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, total
reduced sulfur, chlorinated hydrocarbons and photochemical oxidants in south-
ern California museums. Atmospheric Environment 25
2
2
¦o
m
m
ZJ
ZJ
m
<
m
D
ZJ
>
o
O
o
H
m
O
ZJ
O
c
o
H
m
li
-------
28307
28993
29192
31210
34460
39644
42715
47782
49414
56224
58056
58060
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Thomas, K. W.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Perritt, R. L.,Nelson, W. C.. 1991. Effect of
dry-cleaned clothes on tetrachloroethylene levels in indoor air, personal air, and
breath for residents of several New Jersey homes. Journal of Exposure Analysis
and Environmental Epidemiology 1
Ferrario, J. B.,Lawler, G. C.,Deleon, I. R.,Laseter, J. L.. 1985. Volatile organic
pollutants in biota and sediments of Lake Pontchartrain. Bulletin of Environ-
mental Contamination and Toxicology 34
Singh, H. B.,Salas, L. J.,Stiles, R. E.. 1983. Selected man-made halogenated
chemicals in the air and oceanic environment. Journal of Geophysical Research
88
M. R. Van Winkle, P. A. Scheff. 2001. Volatile organic compounds, polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and elements in the air of ten urban homes. Indoor Air
11
Lehmann, I.,Thoelke, A.,Rehwagen, M.,Rolle-Kampczyk, U.,Schlink, U.,Schulz,
R.,Borte, M.,Diez, U.,Herbarth, O.. 2002. The influence of maternal exposure
to volatile organic compounds on the cytokine secretion profile of neonatal T
cells. Environmental Toxicology 17
Singh, H. B.,Salas, L. J.,Smith, A. J.,Shigeishi, H.. 1981. Measurements of some
potentially hazardous organic chemicals in urban environments. Atmospheric
Environment 15
Ahlers, J.,Regelmann, J.,Riedhammer, C.. 2003. Environmental risk assess-
ment of airborne trichloroacetic acid - a contribution to the discussion on the
significance of anthropogenic and natural sources. Chemosphere 52
Austin, J.. 2003. Day-of-week patterns in toxic air contaminants in southern
California. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 53
Ryan, T. J.,Hart, E. M.,Kappler, L. L.. 2002. VOC exposures in a mixed-use
university art building. AIHA Journal 63
Serrano-Trespalacios, P. I.,Ryan, L.,Spengler, J. D.. 2004. Ambient, indoor and
personal exposure relationships of volatile organic compounds in Mexico City
metropolitan area. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemi-
ology 1
Dowty, B. J.,Carlisle, D. R.,Laseter, J. L.. 1975. New Orleans drinking wa-
ter sources tested by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry: Occurrence and
origin of aromatics and halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Environmental
Science and Technology 9
Ewing, B. B.,Chian, E. S. K.,Cook, J. C.,Evans, C. A.,Hopke, P. K.,Perkins, E.
G.. 1977. Monitoring to detect previously unrecognized pollutants in surface
waters.
-------
58091 Monitoring
58111 Monitoring
58127 Monitoring
74875 Monitoring
75108
76241
78782
94461
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
104106
Monitoring
632064
Monitoring
632310
Monitoring
632484
Monitoring
Ohta, T.,Morita, M.,Mizoguchi, I.. 1976. Local distribution of chlorinated
hydrocarbons in the ambient air in Tokyo. Atmospheric Environment 10
Singh, H. B.,Salas, L. J.,Cavanagh, L. A.. 1977. Distribution, sources and
sinks of atmospheric halogenated compounds. Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association 27
Howie, S. J.. 1981. Ambient perchloroethylene levels inside coin-operated laun-
dries with drycleaning machines on the premises.
Aggazzotti, G.,Fantuzzi, G.,Righi, E.,Predieri, G.,Gobba, F. M.,Paltrinieri,
M.,Cavalleri, A.. 1994. Occupational and environmental exposure to per-
chloroethylene (PCE) in dry cleaners and their family members. Archives of
Environmental and Occupational Health 49
Murray, A. J.,Riley, J. P.. 1973. Occurrence of some chlorinated aliphatic
hydrocarbons in the environment. Nature 242
Kostiainen, R.. 1995. Volatile organic compounds in the indoor air of normal
and sick houses. Atmospheric Environment 29
Lindstrom, A. B.,Proffitt, D.,Fortune, C. R.. 1995. Effects of modified residen-
tial construction on indoor air quality. Indoor Air 5
Schwarzenbach, R. P.,Molnar-Kubica, E.,Giger, W.,Wakeham, S. G.. 1979.
Distribution, residence time, and fluxes of tetrachloroethylene and 1,4-
dichlorobenzene in Lake Zurich, Switzerland. Environmental Science and Tech-
nology 13
Weissflog, L.,Elansky, N.,Putz, E.,Krueger, G.,Lange, C. A.,Lisitzina,
L.,Pfennigsdorff, A.. 2004. Trichloroacetic acid in the vegetation of polluted
and remote areas of both hemispheres - Part II: Salt lakes as novel sources of
natural chlorohydrocarbons. Atmospheric Environment 38
Sexton, K.,Adgate, J. L.,Church, T. R.,Ashley, D. L.,Needham, L.
L.,Ramachandran, G.,Fredrickson, A. L.,Ryan, A. D.. 2005. Children's expo-
sure to volatile organic compounds as determined by longitudinal measurements
in blood. Environmental Health Perspectives 113
Adgate, J. L.,Church, T. R.,Ryan, A. D.,Ramachandran, G.,Fredrickson, A.
L.,Stock, T. H.,Morandi, M. T.,Sexton, K.. 2004. Outdoor, indoor, and per-
sonal exposure to VOCs in children. Environmental Health Perspectives 112
Ohura, T.,Amagai, T.,Senga, Y.,Fusaya, M.. 2006. Organic air pollutants inside
and outside residences in Shimizu, Japan: Levels, sources and risks. Science of
the Total Environment 366
-------
632758
644857
645789
658636
658643
659075
660096
713690
730121
733119
784280
824555
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Zuraimi, M. S.,Tham, K. W.. 2008. Effects of child care center ventilation
strategies on volatile organic compounds of indoor and outdoor origins. Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology 42
Dewulf, J. P.,Van Langenhove, H. R.,Der Auwera, L. F.. 1998. Air/water
exchange dynamics of 13 volatile chlorinated CI- and C2-hydrocarbons and
monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the southern North Sea and the Scheldt
estuary. Environmental Science and Technology 32
Yamamoto, K.,Fukushima, M.,Kakutani, N.,Kuroda, K.. 1997. Volatile organic
compounds in urban rivers and their estuaries in Osaka, Japan. Environmental
Pollution 95
Abrahamsson, K.,Dyrssen, D.,Jogebrant, G.,Krysell, M.. 1989. Halocarbon
concentrations in Askerofjorden related to the water exchange and inputs from
the petrochemical site at Stenungsund. Vatten 45
Amaral, O. C.,Otero, R.,Grimalt, J. 0.,Albaiges, J.. 1996. Volatile and semi-
volatile organochlorine compounds in tap and riverine waters in the area of
influence of a chlorinated organic solvent factory. Water Research 30
Martinez, E.,Llobet, I.,Lacorte, S.,Viana, P.,Barcelo, D.. 2002. Patterns and
levels of halogenated volatile compounds in Portuguese surface waters. Journal
of Environmental Monitoring 4
Huybrechts, T.,Dewulf, J.,Van Langenhove, H.. 2005. Priority volatile organic
compounds in surface waters of the southern North Sea. Environmental Pollu-
tion 133
Gulyas, H.,Hemmerling, L.. 1990. Tetrachloroethene air pollution originating
from coin-operated dry cleaning establishments. Environmental Research 53
Sexton, K.,Mongin, S. J.,Adgate, J. L.,Pratt, G. C.,Ramachandran, G.,Stock,
T. H.,Morandi, M. T.. 2007. Estimating volatile organic compound concentra-
tions in selected microenvironments using time-activity and personal exposure
data. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues
70
Billionnet, C.,Gay, E.,Kirchner, S.,Leynaert, B.,Annesi-Maesano, I.. 2011.
Quantitative assessments of indoor air pollution and respiratory health in a
population-based sample of French dwellings. Environmental Research 111
Su, F. C.,Mukherjee, B.,Batterman, S.. 2011. Trends of VOC exposures among
a nationally representative sample: Analysis of the NHANES 1988 through 2004
data sets. Atmospheric Environment 45
Chao, C. Y.,Chan, G. Y.. 2001. Quantification of indoor VOCs in twenty
mechanically ventilated buildings in Hong Kong. Atmospheric Environment 35
-------
1014392
1024859
1062239
1065558
1065844
1066049
1066543
1250702
1391354
1441544
1486815
1488206
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Wang, T.,Wong, C. H.,Cheung, T. F.,Blake, D. R.,Arimoto, R.,Baumann,
K.,Tang, J.,Ding, G. A.,Yu, X. M.,Li, Y. S.,Streets, D. G.,Simpson, I. J.. 2004.
Relationships of trace gases and aerosols and the emission characteristics at
Lin'an, a rural site in eastern China, during spring 2001. Journal of Geophysi-
cal Research: Atmospheres 109
Kostopoulou, M. N.,Golfinopoulos, S. K.,Nikolaou, A. D.,Xilourgidis, N.
K.,Lekkas, T. D.. 2000. Volatile organic compounds in the surface waters
of northern Greece. Chemosphere 40
X. M. Wu, M. G. Apte, R. Maddalena, D. H. Bennett. 2011. Volatile organic
compounds in small- and medium-sized commercial buildings in California. En-
vironmental Science and Technology 45
Batterman, S.,Jia, C.,Hatzivasilis, G.. 2007. Migration of volatile organic com-
pounds from attached garages to residences: A major exposure source. Envi-
ronmental Research 104
Dodson, R. E.,Levy, J. I.,Spengler, J. D.,Shine, J. P.,Bennett, D. H.. 2008.
Influence of basements, garages, and common hallways on indoor residential
volatile organic compound concentrations. Atmospheric Environment 42
S. N. Sax, D. H. Bennett, S. N. Chillrud, P. L. Kinney, J. D. Spengler. 2004.
Differences in source emission rates of volatile organic compounds in inner-city
residences of New York City and Los Angeles. Journal of Exposure Analysis
and Environmental Epidemiology 14
Roose, P.,Van Thuyne, G.,Belpaire, C.,Raemaekers, M.,Brinkman, U. A.. 2003.
Determination of VOCs in yellow eel from various inland water bodies in Flan-
ders (Belgium). Journal of Environmental Monitoring 5
Rule, K. L.,Comber, S. D.,Ross, D.,Thornton, A.,Makropoulos, C. K.,Rautiu,
R.. 2006. Sources of priority substances entering an urban wastewater
catchment—trace organic chemicals. Chemosphere 63
Robinson, K. W.,Flanagan, S. M.,Ayotte, J. D.,Campo, K. W.,Chalmers, A..
2004. Water Quality in the New England Coastal Basins, Maine, New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 1999-2001.
van de Meent, D.,Den Hollander, H. A.,Pool, W. G.,Vredenbregt, M. J.,van
Oers, H. A. M.,de Greef, E.,Luijten, J. a. 1986. Organic micropollutants in
Dutch coastal waters. Water Science and Technology 18
James, K. J.,Stack, M. A.. 1997. The impact of leachate collection on air
quality in landfills. Chemosphere 34
Jia, C.,Batterman, S.,Godwin, C.. 2008. VOCs in industrial, urban and subur-
ban neighborhoods, Part 1: Indoor and outdoor concentrations, variation, and
risk drivers. Atmospheric Environment 42
-------
1657000
1744157
1940132
1946098
1953674
2128010
< 2128575
2128839
2189687
2214330
2277377
2310570
2331366
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Duboudin, C.. 2009. Pollution inside the home: descriptive analyses Part I:
Analysis of the statistical correlations between pollutants inside homes. Envi-
ronnement, Risques & Sante 8
Bouhamra, W. S.,Elkilani, A. S.. 1999. Investigation and modeling of sur-
face sorption-desorption behavior of volatile organic compounds for indoor air
quality analysis. Environmental Technology 20
He, Z.,Yang, G. P.,Lu, X. L.. 2013. Distributions and sea-to-air fluxes of volatile
halocarbons in the East China Sea in early winter. Chemosphere 90
McDonald, T. J.,Kennicutt M C, I. I.,Brooks, J. M.. 1988. VOLATILE OR-
GANIC COMPOUNDS AT A COASTAL GULF OF MEXICO SITE. Chemo-
sphere 17
Stefaniak, A. B.,Breysse, P. N.,Murray, M. P. M.,Rooney, B. C.,Schaefer, J..
2000. An evaluation of employee exposure to volatile organic compounds in
three photocopy centers. Environmental Research 83
He, Z.,Yang, G.,Lu, X.,Zhang, H.. 2013. Distributions and sea-to-air fluxes of
chloroform, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, chlorodibromomethane and
bromoform in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea during spring. Environ-
mental Pollution 177
Su, F. C.,Mukherjee, B.,Batterman, S.. 2013. Determinants of personal, indoor
and outdoor VOC concentrations: An analysis of the RIOPA data. Environ-
mental Research 126
Roda, C.,Kousignian, I.,Ramond, A.,Momas, I.. 2013. Indoor tetrachloroethy-
lene levels and determinants in Paris dwellings. Environmental Research 120
Zoccolillo, L.,Abete, C.,Amendola, L.,Ruocco, R.,Sbrilli, A.,Termine, M.. 2004.
Halocarbons in aqueous matrices from the Rennick Glacier and the Ross Sea
(Antarctica). International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 84
Jia, C.,Batterman, S.,Godwin, C.,Charles, S.,Chin, J. Y.. 2010. Sources and
migration of volatile organic compounds in mixed-use buildings. Indoor Air 20
Bravo-Linares, C. M.,Mudge, S. M.,Loyola-Sepulveda, R. H.. 2007. Occurrence
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Liverpool Bay, Irish Sea. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 54
Yamamoto, K.,Fukushima, M.,Kakutani, N.,Tsuruho, K.. 2001. Contamination
of vinyl chloride in shallow urban rivers in Osaka, Japan. Water Research 35
D'Souza, J. C.,Jia, C.,Mukherjee, B.,Batterman, S.. 2009. Ethnicity, housing
and personal factors as determinants of VOC exposures. Atmospheric Environ-
ment 43
-------
2442846
2443355
2468900
2532571
2535652
2800175
2801663
2802879
2803418
2855333
3004792
3042164
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Loh, M. M.,Houseman, E. A.,Gray, G. M.,Levy, J. I.,Spengler, J. D.,Bennett,
D. H.. 2006. Measured concentrations of VOCs in several non-residential mi-
croenvironments in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology
40
Chin, J. Y.,Godwin, C.,Parker, E.,Robins, T.,Lewis, T.,Harbin, P.,Batterman,
S.. 2014. Levels and sources of volatile organic compounds in homes of children
with asthma. Indoor Air 24
Quack, B.,Suess, E.. 1999. Volatile halogenated hydrocarbons over the western
Pacific between 43 degrees and 4 degrees N. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres 104
Plummer, L. N.,Sibrell, P. L.,Casile, G. C.,Busenberg, E.,Hunt, A. G.,Schlosser,
P.. 2013. Tracing groundwater with low-level detections of halogenated VOCs
in a fractured carbonate-rock aquifer, Leetown Science Center, West Virginia,
USA. Applied Geochemistry 33
W. R. Chan, S. Cohn, M. Sidheswaran, D. P. Sullivan, W. J. Fisk. 2014.
Contaminant levels, source strengths, and ventilation rates in California retail
stores. Indoor Air 25
Insogna, S.,Prison, S.,Marconi, E.,Bacaloni, A.. 2014. Trends of volatile chlori-
nated hydrocarbons and trihalomethanes in Antarctica. International Journal
of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 94
Ofstad, E. B.,Drangsholt, H.,Carlberg, G. E.. 1981. Analysis of volatile halo-
genated organic compounds in fish. Science of the Total Environment 20
Rogers, H. R.,Crathorne, B.,Watts, C. D.. 1992. Sources and fate of organic
contaminants in the Mersey estuary: Volatile organohalogen compounds. Ma-
rine Pollution Bulletin 24
Dawes, V. J.,Waldock, M. J.. 1994. Measurement of Volatile Organic Com-
pounds at UK National Monitoring Plan Stations. Marine Pollution Bulletin
28
Brown, T.,Dassonville, C.,Derbez, M.,Ramalho, 0.,Kirchner, S.,Crump,
D.,Mandin, C.. 2015. Relationships between socioeconomic and lifestyle factors
and indoor air quality in French dwellings. Environmental Research 140
Wallace, L. A.. 1987. The total exposure assessment methodology (TEAM)
study: Summary and analysis: Volume I. 1
Jain, R. B.. 2015. Levels of selected urinary metabolites of volatile organic
compounds among children aged 6-11 years. Environmental Research 142
-------
3052900
3242836
3246559
3371701
3393192
3453092
3453725
3488897
3489827
3489953
3490995
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Hartwell, T. D.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Perritt, R. L.,Whitmore, R. W.,Zelon, H. 95
S.,Wallace, L.. 1987. Comparison of volatile organic levels between sites and
seasons for the total exposure assessment methodology (team) study. Atmo-
spheric Environment 21
Christof, 0.,Seifert, R.,Michaelis, W.. 2002. Volatile halogenated organic com- 96
pounds in European estuaries. Biogeochemistry 59
Wiedmann, T. 0.,Guthner, B.,Class, T. J.,Ballschmiter, K.. 1994. GLOBAL 97
DISTRIBUTION OF TETRACHLOROETHENE IN THE TROPOSPHERE -
MEASUREMENTS AND MODELING. Environmental Science and Technology
28
"0
Kiurski, J. S.,Oros, I. B.,Kecic, V. S.,Kovacevic, I. M.,Aksentijevic, S. M.. 2016. 98
The temporal variation of indoor pollutants in photocopying shop. Stochastic ^
Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 30 ^
m
K. W. Tham, M. S. Zuraimi, S. C. Sekhar. 2004. Emission modelling and 100 ^
validation of VOCs' source strengths in air-conditioned office premises. Envi- n
ronment International 30 <
D
T. Hoang, R. Castorina, F. Gaspar, R. Maddalena, P. L. Jenkins, Q. Zhang, 101
T. E. Mckone, E. Benfenati, A. Y. Shi, A. Bradman. 2016. VOC exposures in -jj
California early childhood education environments. Indoor Air 27 H
D
Dai, H.,Jing, S.,Wang, H.,Ma, Y.,Li, L.,Song, W.,Kan, H.. 2017. VOC charac- 102 O
teristics and inhalation health risks in newly renovated residences in Shanghai, 2
China. Science of the Total Environment 577 O
Ma, H.,Zhang, H.,Wang, L.,Wang, J.,Chen, J.. 2014. Comprehensive screening 103
and priority ranking of volatile organic compounds in Daliao River, China.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186
o
m
O
ZJ
Bianchi, E.,Lessing, G.,Brina, K. R.,Angeli, L.,Andriguetti, N. B.,Peruzzo, J. 104 ^
R.,Do Nascimento, C. A.,Spilki, F. R.,Ziulkoski, A. L.,da Silva, L. B.. 2017. c
Monitoring the Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Potential and the Presence of Pesti- O
cides and Hydrocarbons in Water of the Sinos River Basin, Southern Brazil.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 72
Wittlingerova, Z.,Machackova, J.,Petruzelkova, A.,Zimova, M.. 2016. Occur- 105
rence of perchloroethylene in surface water and fish in a river ecosystem aifected
by groundwater contamination. Environmental Science and Pollution Research
23
m
Burton, W. C.,Harte, P. T.. 2013. Bedrock Geology and Outcrop Fracture
Trends in the Vicinity of the Savage Municipal Well Superfund Site, Milford,
New Hampshire.
106
-------
3501965
3543217
3544414
3545469
3559503
3561656
3563210
3570809
3573107
3573147
3580141
3587944
3797825
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Blanco, S.,Becares, E.. 2010. Are biotic indices sensitive to river toxicants? A 107
comparison of metrics based on diatoms and macro-invertebrates. Chemosphere
79
Sidonia, V.,Haydee, K. M.,Ristoiu, D.,Luminita, S. D.. 2009. Chlorinated 108
solvents detection in soil and river water in the area along the paper factory
from Dej Town, Romania. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai. Chemia 54
Zoccolillo, L.,Rellori, M.. 1994. Halocarbons in Antarctic surface waters. In- 109
ternational Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 55
Amagai, T.,01ansandan,,Matsushita, H.,Ono, M.,Nakai, S.,Tamura, K.,Maeda, 110
K.. 1999. A survey of indoor pollution by volatile organohalogen compounds ~Q
in Katsushika, Tokyo, Japan. Indoor and Built Environment 8 ^T1
ZJ
Focazio, M. J.,Kolpin, D. W.,Barnes, K. K.,Furlong, E. T.,Meyer, M. T.,Zaugg, 111 ^
S. D.,Barber, L. B.,Thurman, M. E.. 2008. A national reconnaissance for phar- ITI
maceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United States—II) ^
untreated drinking water sources. Science of the Total Environment 402 C
o
Begerow, J.,Jermann, E.,Keles, T.,Freier, I.,Ranft, U.,Dunemann, L.. 1996. 112 ^
Internal and external tetrachloroethene exposure of persons living in diiferently
polluted areas of Northrhine-Westphalia (Germany). Zentralblatt fuer Hygiene
und Umweltmedizin 198
D
Kawauchi, T.,Nishiyama, K.. 1989. Residual tetrachloroethylene in dry-cleaned 113 O
clothes. Environmental Research 48 "Z.
o
Fielding, M.,Gibson, T. M.,James, H. A.. 1981. Levels of trichloroethylene, 114
tetrachloroethylene and para-dichlorobenzene in groundwaters. Environmental
Technology Letters 2
o
Minsley, B.. 1983. Tetrachloroethylene contamination of groundwater in Kala- 115 ^0
mazoo. Journal of the American Water Works Association 75 o
c
Coffin, R. R.,Witherell, L. E.,Novick, L. F.,Stone, K. M.. 1987. ESTABLISH- 116 O
MENT OF AN EXPOSURE LEVEL TO TETRACHLOROETHYLENE IN
AMBIENT AIR IN VERMONT. Public Health Reports 102
Lee, W.,Park, S. H.,Kim, J.,Jung, J. Y.. 2015. Occurrence and removal of 117
hazardous chemicals and toxic metals in 27 industrial wastewater treatment
plants in Korea. Desalination and Water Treatment 54
Duclos, Y.,Blanchard, M.,Chesterikoff, A.,Chevreuil, M.. 2000. Impact of paris 118
waste upon the chlorinated solvent concentrations of the river Seine (France).
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 117
Schwarzenbach, R. P.,Giger, W.,Hoehn, E.,Schneider, J. K.. 1983. Behavior 119
of organic compounds during infiltration of river water to groundwater. Field
studies. Environmental Science and Technology 17
m
-------
3827236
3970464
3975032
3975036
3975042
3975046
3982325
3982442
4140523
4149721
4149731
4149734
4152375
4440449
4442460
Experimental
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Monitoring
Cdc,. 2017. National report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. 120
Atsdr,. 2007. Public health assessment: Peninsula Boulevard groundwa- 121
ter plume town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York: EPA facility ID:
NYN000204407.
Usgs,. 2006. Recent (2003-05) water quality of Barton Springs, Austin, Texas, 122
with emphasis on factors eifecting variability.
Usgs,. 1994. Organic compounds downstream from a treated-wastewater dis- 123
charge near Dalls, Texas, March 1987.
Usgs,. 2006. Water-quality conditions of Chester Creek, Anchorage, Alaska, 124 "0
1998-2001. [J]
Usgs,. 2003. A national survey of methyl tert-butyl ether and other volatile 125 -q
organic compounds in drinking-water sources: Results of the random survey. |~n
<
Ak, D. E. C.. 2012. Wendell Avenue (MC cleaners). 126 ^
Usgs,. 2009. Organic wastewater compounds, pharmaceuticals, and coliphage 127 O
in ground water receiving discharge from onsite wastewater treatment systems
near La Pine, Oregon: Occurrence and implications for transport. Tj
Helz, G. R.,Hsu, R. Y.. 1978. Volatile chloro- and bromocarbons in coastal 128 O
waters. Limnology and Oceanography 23
o
Aggazzotti, G.,Predieri, G.. 1986. SURVEY OF VOLATILE HALOGENATED 130 q
ORGANICS (VHO) IN ITALY - LEVELS OF VHO IN DRINKING WATERS, q
SURFACE WATERS AND SWIMMING POOLS. Water Research 20 q
m
Fytianos, K.,Vasilikiotis, G.,Weil, L.. 1985. Identification and determination of 131 Q
some trace organic compounds in coastal seawater of Northern Greece. Bulletin 7)
of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 34 Q
C
Hurford, N.,Law, R. J.,Payne, A. P.,Fileman, T. W.. 1989. Concentrations of 132 ^
chemicals in the North Sea arising from discharges from chemical tankers. 5 |TI
Sauer, T. C.. 1981. Volatile organic compounds in open ocean and coastal 133
surface waters. Organic Geochemistry 3
Ec,. 2014. SINPHONIE: Schools Indoor Pollution and Health Observatory 134
Network in Europe.
Wetzel, T. A.. 2014. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Indoor Air: 135
Emission From Consumer Products and the Use of Plants for Air Sampling.
136
-------
12793
23126
27401
27961
28339
58143
58314
58324
58563
1040048
1512515
1752751
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Won, D.,Corsi, R. L.,Rynes, M.. 2000. New indoor carpet as an adsorptive 136
reservoir for volatile organic compounds. Environmental Science and Technol-
ogy 34
Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E.,Leaderer, B.,Zelon, H.,Sheldon, L.. 1987. Emissions 137
of volatile organic compounds from building materials and consumer products.
Atmospheric Environment 21
Tichenor, B. A.,Sparks, L. E.,Jackson, M. D.,Guo, Z.,Mason, M. A.,Plunket, C. 138
M.,Rasor, S. A.. 1990. Emissions of perchloroethylene from dry cleaned fabrics.
Atmospheric Environment 24
Guo, Z. S.,Tichenor, B. A.,Mason, M. A.,Plunket, C. M.. 1990. The tempera- 139 ~0
ture dependence of the emission of perchloroethylene from dry cleaned fabrics. ^
Environmental Research 52 ZJ
ZJ
Sack, T. M.,Steele, D. H.,Hammerstrom, K.,Remmers, J.. 1992. A survey of 140 171
household products for volatile organic compounds. Atmospheric Environment
26
to tetrachloroethylene vapor and elimination in breath after inhalation. Amer-
ican Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 36
<
m
Fernandez, J.,Guberan, E.,Caperos, J.. 1976. Experimental human exposures 141 O
o
Opdam, J. J.,Smolders, J. F.. 1987. Alveolar sampling and fast kinetics of 142 O
tetrachloroethene in man. II. Fast kinetics. Occupational and Environmental O
Medicine 44 2
o
I
Imbriani, M.,Ghittori, S.,Pezzagno, G.,Capodaglio, E.. 1988. Urinary excretion 143
of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) in experimental and occupational ex-
posure. Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health 43 j-j-j
o
Kreiling, J. A.,Stephens, R. E.,Reinisch, C. L.. 2005. A mixture of environmen- 144
tal contaminants increases cAMP-dependent protein kinase in Spisula embryos. Q
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 19 C
o
Sherlach, K. S.,Gorka, A. P.,Dantzler, A.,Roepe, P. D.. 2011. Quantification 145 n
of perchloroethylene residues in dry-cleaned fabrics. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 30
S. Kim, J. A. Kim, J. Y. An, H. J. Kim, S. D. Kim, J. C. Park. 2007. 146
TVOC and formaldehyde emission behaviors from flooring materials bonded
with environmental-friendly MF/PVAc hybrid resins. Indoor Air 17
Kwon, K. iD,Jo, W.,Lim, H.,Jeong, W.. 2008. Volatile pollutants emitted 147
from selected liquid household products. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research 15
-------
2534318
2535652
2655630
2718034
3559311
3587655
4440489
4442460
4532343
4663242
4683353
4683358
4683360
4683366
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Experimental
Kowalska, J.,Szewczyriska, M.,Posniak, M.. 2014. Measurements of chlorinated 148
volatile organic compounds emitted from office printers and photocopiers. En-
vironmental Science and Pollution Research 22
W. R. Chan, S. Cohn, M. Sidheswaran, D. P. Sullivan, W. J. Fisk. 2014. 149
Contaminant levels, source strengths, and ventilation rates in California retail
stores. Indoor Air 25
Kowalska, J.,Gierczak, T.. 2013. Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of the 150
Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted from the Office Equipment
Items. Indoor and Built Environment 22
M. Nohr, W. Horn, O. Jann, M. Richter, W. Lorenz. 2015. Development 151
of a multi-VOC reference material for quality assurance in materials emission m
testing. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 407
AJ
Chao, C. Y. H.,Tung, T. C. W.,Niu, J. L.,Pang, S. W.,Lee, R. Y. M.. 1999. 152 ^
Indoor perchloroethylene accumulation from dry cleaned clothing on residential <
premises. Building and Environment 34 171
Cheng, W. enHsi,Tsai, D. Y.,Lu, J. iaYu,Lee, J. enWei. 2016. Extracting Emis- 153 O
sions from Air Fresheners Using Solid Phase Microextraction Devices. Aerosol 5
and Air Quality Research 16 ~n
H
UL Env. 2017. Floor Coating VOC Emissions Research Report. 154 q
o
Wetzel, T. A.. 2014. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Indoor Air: 157 ~Z.
Emission From Consumer Products and the Use of Plants for Air Sampling. O
C. B. Keil, M. Nicas. 2003. Predicting room vapor concentrations due to spills 158 ^
of organic solvents. AIHA Journal 64 \j]
o
Won, D. Yang W.. 2012. Material emission information from: 105 building 159 ^0
materials and consumer products. 0
C
C Solal, C. Rousselle, C. Mandin, J. Manel, F. Maupetit. 2008. VOCs and 160 O
formaldehyde emissions from cleaning products and air fresheners. International m
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate (Indoor Air 2008)
A. T. Hodgson. 1999. Common indoor sources of volatile organic compounds: 161
Emission rates and techniques for reducing consumer exposures.
A.T.Hodgson. 2001. Predicted concentrations in new relocatable classrooms of 162
volatile organic compounds emitted from standard and alternate interior finish
materials.
A. C. Ortiz. 2010. Identifying sources of volatile organic compounds and aide- 163
hydes in a high performance building.
-------
Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
484177
729385
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
1359400
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
3970117
3970236
3970251
3970268
3981163
4663145
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
Databases Not Unique to a Chemi-
cal
Completed Exposure Assessments
18169
Completed Exposure Assessment
22606
23126
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
35002
Completed Exposure Assessment
58062
Completed Exposure Assessment
164
Jia, C. R.,D'Souza, J.,Batterman, S.. 2008. Distributions of personal VOC 164
exposures: A population-based analysis. Environment International 34
Arif, A. A.,Shah, S. M.. 2007. Association between personal exposure to volatile 165
organic compounds and asthma among US adult population. International
Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 80
Staples, C. A.,Werner, A. F.,Hoogheem, T. J.. 1985. Assessment of priority 166
pollutant concentrations in the United States using STORET database. Envi-
ronmental Toxicology and Chemistry 4
"0
U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. Chemical data reporting: 1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethene. 167 ^
ZJ
ZJ
Oppt Monitoring Database. 2017. Perchloroethylene. 168 n
m
Pubchem,. 2017. PubChem: Tetrachloroethylene. 169 §
D
ZJ
>
Household Products, Database. 2017. Household products database: Chemical 170 t|
information: Tetrachloroethylene. 7^
D
Consumer Product Information, Database. 2017. What's in it? tetra- 171 O
chloroethylene. "Z.
2
Bartzis, J.. 2018. Prioritization of building materials as indoor pollution sources 172
(BUMA).
m
173 o
73
Page, G. W.. 1981. Comparison of groundwater and surface water for patterns 173 0
and levels of contamination by toxic substances. Environmental Science and ^
Technology 15 ^
m
Ipcs,. 1984. Tetrachloroethylene. Environmental Health Criteria 31 174
Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E.,Leaderer, B.,Zelon, H.,Sheldon, L.. 1987. Emissions 175
of volatile organic compounds from building materials and consumer products.
Atmospheric Environment 21
U.S, E. P. A.. 2001. Sources, emission and exposure for trichloroethylene (TCE) 176
and related chemicals.
o
Fuller, B. B.. 1976. Air pollution assessment of tetrachloroethylene.
177
-------
58284
Completed Exposure Assessment
192111
200024
380600
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
630433
630715
630847
633141
694628
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
695495
732615
735303
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
819974
1265174
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Zoeteman, B. C. J.,Harmsen, K.,Linders, J. B. H. J.,Morra, C. F. H.,Slooff, 178
W.. 1980. Persistent organic pollutants in river water and ground water of the
Netherlands. Chemosphere 9
Atsdr,. 1997. Toxicological profile for tetrachloroethylene. 179
Fishbein, L.. 1992. Exposure from occupational versus other sources. Scandi- 180
navian Journal of Work, Environment and Health 18
Duboudin, C.. 2010. Pollution inside the home: descriptive analyses Part II: 181
Identification of groups of homogenous homes in terms of pollution. Environ-
nement, Risques & Sante 9
"0
Chien, Y. C.. 1997. The influences of exposure pattern and duration on elimina- 182 ^
tion kinetics and exposure assessment of tetrachloroethylene in humans [PhD]. 73
7)
Letkiewicz, F.,Johnston, P.,Macaluso, C.,Elder, R.,Yu, W.. 1982. Occurrence 183 ^
in tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) in drinking water, food and air. —
Nysdoh,. 2005. Improving human risk assessment for tetrachloroethylene by 184 q
using biomakers and neurobehavioral testing.
>
Benignus, V. A.,Boyes, W. K.,Geller, A. M.,Bushnell, P. J.. 2009. Long-term 185 Zj
perchloroethylene exposure: A meta-analysis of neurobehavioral deficits in oc- ^
cupationally and residentially exposed groups. Journal of Toxicology and En- q
vironmental Health, Part A: Current Issues 72 ^
o
Destaillats, H.,Maddalena, R. L.,Singer, B. C.,Hodgson, A. T.,McKone, T. E.. 186 —I
2008. Indoor pollutants emitted by office equipment: A review of reported data O
and information needs. Atmospheric Environment 42 H
C. J. Weschler. 2009. Changes in indoor pollutants since the 1950s. Atmo- 187 ^
spheric Environment 43 _
kJ
C
Gilbert, D.,Goyer, M.,Lyman, W.,Magil, G.,Walker, P.,Wallace, D.,Wechsler, 188 O
A.,Yee, J.. 1982. An exposure and risk assessment for tetrachloroethylene. H
Dawson, H. E.,McAlary, T.. 2009. A compilation of statistics for VOCs from 189
post-1990 indoor air concentration studies in North American residences unaf-
fected by subsurface vapor intrusion. Ground Water Monitoring and Remedia-
tion 29
Bogen, K. T.,McKone, T. E.. 1988. Linking indoor air and pharmacokinetic 190
models to assess tetrachloroethylene risk. Risk Analysis 8
. 1988. Toxic Air Pollutant Emission Factors Compilation For Selected Air
Toxic Compounds and Sources.
191
-------
1788276
2536230
2537636
3491017
3543741
3572966
x 3573238
<
3573428
3797979
3827300
3827392
3839195
3969286
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
de Bias, M.,Navazo, M.,Alonso, L.,Durana, N.,Gomez, M. C.,Iza, J.. 2012. 192
Simultaneous indoor and outdoor on-line hourly monitoring of atmospheric
volatile organic compounds in an urban building. The role of inside and outside
sources. Science of the Total Environment 426
Du, Z.,Mo, J.,Zhang, Y.. 2014. Risk assessment of population inhalation expo- 193
sure to volatile organic compounds and carbonyls in urban China. Environment
International 73
L. Golsteijn, D. Huizer, M. Hauck, R. van Zelm, M. A. Huijbregts. 2014. Includ- 194
ing exposure variability in the life cycle impact assessment of indoor chemical
emissions: the case of metal degreasing. Environment International 71
"0
. 2015. Health Assessment for Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil and Sediment 195 ITI
Data Evaluation, Corozal Well Site, Corozal, Puerto Rico, July 29, 2015. EPA ^
Facility ID: PRN000206452. ^
m
McDonald, G. J.,Wertz, W. E.. 2007. PCE, TCE, and TCA vapors in subslab 196 <
soil gas and indoor air: A case study in upstate New York. Ground Water TJ\
Monitoring and Remediation 27 5
D
Bauer, U.. 1991. OCCURRENCE OF TETRACHLOROETHYLENE IN THE 197 5
FEDERAL-REPUBLIC-OF-GERMANY. Chemosphere 23 "n
De Rooij, C.,Boutonnet, J. C.,Garny, V.,Lecloux, A.,Papp, R.,Thompson, R. 198 O
S.,Van Wijk, D.. 1998. Euro Chlor risk assessment for the marine environ- O
ment OSPARCOM region: North sea - Tetrachloroethylene. Environmental "Z.
Monitoring and Assessment 53 ^
Ciger, W.,Molnarkubica, E„ 1978. TETRACHLOROETHYLENE IN CON- 199 q
TAMINATED GROUND AND DRINKING WATERS. Bulletin of Environ- m
mental Contamination and Toxicology 19 Q
7)
Nicnas,. 2001. Tetrachloroethylene " Priority existing chemical. Assessment 200 0
Report No. 15. ^
o
—I
Oecd,. 2013. Emission scenario document on the industrial use of adhesives for 201 171
substrate bonding.
U.S, E. P. A.. 2011. Background indoor air concentrations of volatile organic 202
compounds in North American residences (1990-2005): A compilation of statis-
tics for assessment vapor intrusion.
Ecb,. 2005. European Union risk assessment report: Tetrachloroethylene. Part 203
1 - Environment. 57
Australian Government Department of, Health. 2016. Human health tier III 204
assessment for l-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone.
-------
3970109
3970186
3970279
3970790
3970791
3970807
3970809
3970811
3970833
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
3970838
Completed Exposure Assessment
3970842
3970844
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
3978056
Completed Exposure Assessment
3978068
3978081
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
3978375
Completed Exposure Assessment
U.S, E. P. A.. 2012. Toxicological review of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethy- 205
lene).
U.S, E. P. A.. 1998. Cleaner technologies substitutes assessment for professional 206
fabricare processes.
ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: Tetrachloroethylene. 207
Echa,. 2014. Substance evaluation report - Tetrachloroethylene. 208
Echa,. 2008. Annex XV restriction report: Tetrachloroethylene. 209
Spolana, a s. 2014. Chemical safety report: Trichloroethylene. 210 ^
m
Domo Caproleuna GmbH. 2014. Chemical safety report: Industrial use as an 211 ^
extractive solvent for the purification of caprolactam from caprolactam oil. ^
<
D. O. W. Deutschland. 2014. Chemical safety report: Industrial use as process 212 m
chemical (enclosed systems) in Alcantara material production.
D
Vlisco Netherlands, B. V.. 2014. Chemical safety report Part A: Use of 213 ^0
trichloroethylene as a solvent for the removal and recovery of resin from dyed
cloth.
agents. 106
>
Parker Hannifin, Manufacturing. 2014. Chemical safety report: Use of 214 q
trichloroethylene as a process solvent for the manufacturing of hollow fibre gas ^
separation membranes out of polyphenylene oxide (PPO). q
H
. 2014. Exposure assessment: Trichloroethylene, Part 3. 215 O
—I
Iarc,. 2014. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to 216
humans: Trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and some other chlorinated —
m
ZJ
O
c
Atsdr,. 2006. Health consultation: Evaluation of tetrachloroethylene vapor 217 O
intrusion into buildings located above a contaminated aquifer: Schlage Lock
Company Security, El Paso County, Colorado: EPA facility ID: COD082657420.
Atsdr,. 2005. Health consultation: Walden"s Ridge utility district: Signal 218
Mountain, Hamilton County, Tennessee.
Atsdr,. 2008. Health consultation: Public comment release: Indoor and out- 219
door air data evaluation for Chillum perc site: Chillum perc site (aka Chillum
perchloroethylene): Chillum, Prince George County, Maryland: EPA facility
ID: MDN000305887.
Carex, Canada. 2017. Tetrachloroethylene— Environmental estimate. 220
-------
3978377
3978390
3980994
3981152
3982134
3982310
3982312
3986480
3986481
<
- 4151966
4152094
4152270
4152304
4663189
Survey
1005969
1065590
2331429
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Completed Exposure Assessment
Survey
Survey
Survey
Carex, Canada. 2017. Tetrachloroethylene— Environmental estimate: Indoor
air.
221
Who,. 2006. WHO IRIS: Tetrachloroethylene. 222
Atsdr,. 2011. Case studies in environmental medicine: tetrachloroethylene 223
toxicity.
Environment Canada, Health Canada. 1993. Canadian Environmental protec- 224
tion act priority substances list assessment report tetrachloroethylene.
European Chlorinated Solvents, Association. 2011. Health profile on per- 225
chloroethylene. "0
m
Oehha,. 2001. Public health goal for tetrachloroethylene in drinking water. 226 ^
ZJ
Arb,. 1991. Proposed identification of perchloroethylene as a toxic air contam- 227 TT\
inant. —
m
Carb,. 1991. Technical support document part A: Proposed identification of 228 §
perchloroethylene as a toxic air contaminant. O
>
Carb,. 1991. Technical support document part B: Proposed identification of 229 T|
perchloroethylene as a toxic air contaminant. ^
D
P. E. I. Associates. 1985. Asbestos dust control in brake maintenance. Draft. 230 O
Z
Ec,. 2004. European Union risk assessment report: Tetrachloroethylene. 231 ^
o
Wu,,et al.,. 2001. Sources, emissions and exposures for trichloroethylene (TCE) 232 |
and related chemicals. m
o
Herbert, P.,Charbonnier, P.,Rivolta, L.,Servais, M.,Van Mensch, F.,Campbell, 233 /0
I.. 1986. The occurrence of chlorinated solvents in the environment. Prepared 0
by a workshop of the European Chemical Industry Federation (CEFIC). Chem-
istry and Industry 24
m
Delmaar, J. E.. Emission of chemical substances from solid matrices: a method 234
for consumer exposure assessment.
235
U.S, E. P. A.. 1987. Household solvent products: A national usage survey. 235
Abt. 1992. Methylene chloride consumer use study survey findings. 236
Wang, S.,Majeed, M. A.,Chu, P.,Lin, H.. 2009. Characterizing relationships be- 237
tween personal exposures to VOCs and socioeconomic, demographic, behavioral
variables. Atmospheric Environment 43
C
o
-------
2443306
Modeling
56224
85812
2494965
3001596
S 4440489
Survey
Modeling
Modeling
Modeling
Modeling
Modeling
Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study. 238
2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related to total volatile organic com-
pounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health 58
242
Serrano-Trespalacios, P. I.,Ryan, L.,Spengler, J. D.. 2004. Ambient, indoor and 242
personal exposure relationships of volatile organic compounds in Mexico City
metropolitan area. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemi-
ology 1
Park, J. H.,Spengler, J. D.,Yoon, D. W.,Dumyahn, T.,Lee, K.,Ozkaynak, H.. 243
1998. Measurement of air exchange rate of stationary vehicles and estimation ^
of in-vehicle exposure. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epi- m
demiology 8 7}
ZJ
Akita, Y.,Carter, G.,Serre, M. L.. 2007. Spatiotemporal nonattainment assess- 244 ^
ment of surface water tetrachloroethylene in New Jersey. Journal of Environ- —
mental Quality 36 g
Olie, J. D.,Bessems, J. G.,Clewell, H. J.,Meulenbelt, J.,Hunault, C. C.. 2015. 245 ^
Evaluation of semi-generic PBTK modeling for emergency risk assessment after
acute inhalation exposure to volatile hazardous chemicals. Chemosphere 132 Zj
UL Env. 2017. Floor Coating VOC Emissions Research Report. 246 q
o
H
m
O
ZJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
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.
Tl
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
m
O
73
o
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Pellizzari, E. D.,Wallace, L. A.,Gordon, S. M.. 1992. Elimination kinetics of volatile organics in humans using breath
measurements. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 5405
Domain
Metric
Ratingt
Score
('< > 111T r i e 111 s
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Sampling methodology detailed in separate reference which we
don't have. Upgradable upon examination of reference.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
>20 years old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
Only 4 subjects
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Provided consumer products used, but not names or active
ingredients.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
High
1
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
limited discussion
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Clayton, C. A.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Whitmore, R. W.,Perritt, R. L.,Quackenboss, J. J.. 1999. National Human Exposure Assess-
Data Type
Hero ID
ment Survey (NHEXAS): Distributions and associations of lead,
Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Monitoring
14003
arsenic, and volatile organic compounds in EPA Region 5.
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Sampling methodologies explained in detail in other papers
Analytical methodologies explained in detail in other papers,
air samples
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
>15 years ago
Large sample size
Indoor air, but not directly related to consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
No raw, no minimum.
Supplemental articles on QA/QC activities of project..
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.4
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
Extracted
Yes
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation:
Data Type
Hero ID
Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Hartwell, T. D.,Sparacino, C. M.,Sheldon, L. S.,Zelon, H.. 1985. Results from the first
three seasons of the TEAM study: personal exposures, indoor-outdoor relationships, and breath levels of toxic air pollutants
measured for 355 persons in New Jersey.
Monitoring
21469
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Standard sampling method not mentioned. Air - Tenax, pump
flow rates, 12 hr period; Breath - spirometer; No info on sample
storage, duration prior to analysis. Field blanks conducted.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
GC/MS/COMP. Only very limited detailes provided. Recov-
eries provided, but no other discussion on calibration.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
30 yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Large sample size, duplicates
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air, but not specific to a product
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Only GM, mean, and max provided. No raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Dups, field blanks, lab blanks, controls
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Aggazzotti, G.,Fantuzzi, G.,Predieri, G.,Righi, E.,Moscardelli, S.. 1994. Indoor exposure to perchloroethylene (PCE) in
individuals living with dry-cleaning workers. Science of the Total Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 21778
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Sampling protocol is described in detail.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Analytical methods are described, and calibration and detec-
tion limits are given.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Biomarker not used for alveolar/breath sampling
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Presumed to be Modena, Italy
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Data collected prior to publication in 1994 (15+ years)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Breath samples from both exposed and control populations,
replicate indoor air samples from 30 households
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Consumer indoor air exposure measured by indoor air concen-
trations and breath samples
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Summary statistics only
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
Quality assurance is not directly discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Some discussion of variability between different members of
same household
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Heavner, D. L.,Morgan, W. T.,Ogden, M. W.. 1995. Determination of volatile organic compounds and ETS apportionment
in 49 homes. Environment International.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 22045
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Flow rate provided. No calibration mentioned. Field blanks
used.
No LOD/LOQ.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
Samples collected in 1991
Indoor air in residence, but not directly tied to a consumer
product, but list of potential products listed.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 No raw data. No percent detected.
Medium 2 field blanks, no recoveries
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High 1 SD. compared results between smokers and non smokers.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.9
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Lebret, E.,van de Wiel, H. J.,Bos, H. P.,Noij, D.,Boleij, J. S. M.. 1986. Volatile organic compounds in Dutch homes.
Environment International.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 22186
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Low
N/A
sampling method is well explained, but no discussion of storage
conditions and calibration.
calibration, DT, recovery samples are not mentioned.
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
>15 yrs old
Indoor air study, but not consumer products specific.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
range, mean, deta frequency are provided, but no raw data,
no QA/QC is discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
discussion of variability/uncertainty is quite limited.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Wallace, L. A.. 1986. Personal exposures, indoor and outdoor air concentrations, and exhaled breath concentrations of
selected volatile organic compounds measured for 600 residents of New Jersey, North Dakota, North Carolina, and California.
Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 23081
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
High
1
1
1 breath
"0
m
m
73
73
m
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
>15 yrs old
indoor air study, but not analysis for consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
no raw data
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.4
Extracted
Yes
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Chan, C. C.,Vainer, L.,Martin, J. W.,Williams, D. T.. 1990. Determination of organic contaminants in residential indoor air
using an adsorption-thermal desorption technique. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 27974
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology
Medium
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Medium
N/A
N/A
Sampling methodology discussed. At each of 12 homes the fol-
lowing samples were collected in November or December 1986:
four indoor air samples, of varying volumes, using single sor-
bent tube and one indoor air sample using two sorbent tubes
connected in series. Repeat samplings were carried out at six
of these homes in February or March, 1987. The indoor air
samples were collected on the main floor of the home, usually
in the living or family room, where no obvious sources of con-
tamination were present. Indoor air samples were collected at
the same time, usually in the evening or late afternoon where
a uniform 90-minute sampling time was used and pump flow
rates were adjusted to sample the required volume of air. Air
volumes sampled varied from 5 to 50 L. After sample collec-
tion the sorbent tubes were sealed in individual screw cap glass
tubes and then stored in a tightly sealed container until ana-
lyzed.
Analytical methodology discussed. Samples were analyzed us-
ing adsorption/Thermal Desorption coupled with Gas Chro-
matography/Mass Spectrometry (ATD/GS/MS). Method De-
tection Limit (ng/tube) provided in Table I; 6.0 ng/tube for
DCM, TCE and PERC. Analysis was carried out within two
days of sampling.
Biomarker is not used.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High
Currency Low
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
1 Canada
3 >15 years (1986,, 1987)
2 large sample (60 indoor air samples collected 1986: 4 samples
using single sorbent tube and 1 sample using two sorbent tubes
connected in a series and 12 homes, so 5x12=60 and 30 indoor
air samples collected 1987 at 6 homes: 5x6=30).
2 Some discussion of exposure scenario, samples collected on
main floor of the home usually in living room or family room
where no source of contamination was present.
¦0
m
m
ZJ
ZJ
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Chan, C. C.,Vainer, L.,Martin, J. W.,Williams, D. T.. 1990. Determination of organic contaminants in residential indoor air
using an adsorption-thermal desorption technique. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 27974
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
No supplemental or raw data. Tables II and III report indoor
air concentrations (range and mean) for 12 homes during 1986
and 6 homes during 1987, respectively.
A blank sorbent tube was carried to and from each home and
handled and analyzed as a sample, except that no air was sam-
pled through the tube. Each week, three tubes fortified at a low
level (approx 70-80 ng) and three tubes fortified at a medium
level (approx 700- 800 ng) with a standard mixture of target
compounds, together with a blank tube, were transported to
and from one sampling site and analyzed by ATD/GC/MS.
To assess the stability of the organic target compounds dur-
ing storage of the sampling tube, triplicate sorbent tubes for-
tified with the target compounds at low and medium levels
(approx 70-80 and 700-800 ng, respectively), together with a
blank tube, were stored for 0,1,3 and 7 days under normal stor-
age conditions and then analyzed by ATD/GC/MS.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Since concentrations of contaminants can vary greatly, effec-
tive use of the technique requires that several air samples of
different volumes be collected at each location.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
Extracted
Yes
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
o
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Hisham, M. W. M.,Grosjean, D.. 1991. Sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, total reduced sulfur, chlorinated hydrocarbons and
photochemical oxidants in southern California museums. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 28104
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology
Medium
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Medium
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Sampling methodology discussed. Chlorinated hydrocarbons
(e.g., PERC) were measured at one museum in the Los Ange-
les area: the Gene Autry Western Heritage Museum (located
between Griffin Park and Burbank). Measurements were car-
ried out over a period of 2 weeks. Indoor air quality was sur-
veyed at several (typically five) locations within each museum
including exhibit galleries, collection storage areas, and other
settings such as a research library. Chlorinated hydrocarbons
were measured on-line using calibrated continuous analyzers.
All analyzers were outfitted with two 1/4 in diameter Teflon
sampling lines. Data were acquired around-the-clock every 30
min, yielding alternatively indoor and outdoor air concentra-
tions..
Analytical methodology discussed. Chlorinated hydrocarbons
were measured by electron capture gas chromatography (EC-
GC) as described earlier (Hisham and Grosjean, 1989; Williams
and Grosjean, 1989, 1990) using a SRI model 8610 gas chro-
matograph equipped with a Valco 140 BN EC detector. For
the chlorinated hydrocarbons, precisely metered amounts of
the pure liquids were injected in a 1.00 m 3 Teflonlined con-
tainer. Our EC-GC calibration data for chlorinated hydrocar-
bons were independently verified by analyzing a standard mix-
ture prepared and calibrated in the laboratory of Dr R. Ras-
mussen (Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, OR). This mix-
ture, contained in a passivated stainless steel conister, included
0.5-1.1 ppb each of some 15 halogenated hydrocarbons. Anal-
ysis of this mixture in our laboratory gave excellent agreement
for C2C14 (corresponding to nominal and measured response
factors of 0.042 and 0.041 ppb mm-1, respectively. Analysis
of the 15-compound mixture also enabled us to verify that
none of these compounds interfered with PAN, CH3CCI 3 or
C2C14 under our experimental conditions (Hisham and Gros-
iean, 1990). Detection limit was 0.1 ppb for tetrachloroethy-
lene (PERC)
Biomarker is not used
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
High
California, Los Angeles area at the Gene Autry Western Her-
itage Museum.
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Hisham, M. W. M.,Grosjean, D.. 1991. Sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, total reduced sulfur, chlorinated hydrocarbons and
photochemical oxidants in southern California museums. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 28104
Domain
Metric
Rating"^" Score
Comments^-
Metric 5: Currency Low
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
3 >15 years (1989)
2 At the Gene Autry Museum, our survey yielded some 600 data
points each for PAN, CH3CC13 and C2C1 , all from EC-GC
measurements. These pollutants were ubiquitous and could
be detected at all indoor locations. Summarized in Table !
are maximum concentrations and the corresponding range of
24-h averages.. Note: both indoor and outdoor samples were
collected.
2 At the Gene Autry Museum, measurement of indoor pollutants
were made at three locations, one in the museum exhibit area
(Trail View Window), one in a hallway connected to the outside
by a large roll-up door for truck deliveries, (the 'buffer zone')
and one in a working area, the Conservation Room, which was
near the buffer zone and connected to it by a small hallway
and swing doors. The exhibit area was connected to the mu-
seum main HVAC system, and the buffer zone and Conserva-
tion Room were both connected to a smaller HVAC system.
Both HVAC units were equipped with 50: 50 carbon-Carusorb
chemical filtration. Each indoor location exhibited a different
pattern with respect to indoor pollutant concentrations.
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
No supplemental or raw data provided. Table 1 summarizes
maximum concentrations and ranges of 24-h average concen-
trations at the Gene Autry Museum. Indoor air concentrations
reported for PERC (C2C14). Also Table 4 reports twenty-four
hour averaged PERC (C2C14) at the Gene Autry Museum .
Calibration data for the EC-GC all exhibited linear behavior
(R >0.998) in the range of concentrations tested, i.e. 0.7-9 ppb
for CzCI4,. The corresponding detection limit was 0.1 ppb for
tetrachloroethylene.
o
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Hisham, M. W. M.,Grosjean, D.. 1991. Sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, total reduced sulfur, chlorinated hydrocarbons and
photochemical oxidants in southern California museums. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 28104
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Indoor levels of ozone, NO 2 and PAN were substantially lower
than outdoor levels when the roll-up door was closed, see Fig.
1. The opposite was true of the chlorinated hydrocarbons,
(also shown in Fig. 1), thus pointing out to indoor sources of
methyl chloroform and tetrachloroethylene. Indoor sources of
chlorinated hydrocarbons have also been identified at six of the
nine institutions included in our previous study (Hisham and
Grosjean, 1989).
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation:
Data Type
Hero ID
Thomas, K. W.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Perritt, R. L.,Nelson, W. C.. 1991. Effect of dry-cleaned clothes on tetrachloroethylene
levels in indoor air, personal air, and breath for residents of several New Jersey homes. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology.
Monitoring
28307
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Sampling methodology is described with some details; no men-
tion of sample storage.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
Analysis methods only briefly described
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Nine homes in New Jersey
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Study conducted prior to 1991 (15+ years ago)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Replicate samples, appropriate timing for biomonitoring
(breath) samples, repeated sampling over scenario time
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Consumer inhalation exposure via dry-cleaned clothes, mea-
sured by indoor air/breath concentrations
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Results reported in summary/chart form, not raw data
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Quality control and assurance discussed; field blanks, two in-
dependent labs for analysis
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Variability and uncertainty discussed with respect to garment
types and other factors affecting emissions
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Ferrario, J. B.,Lawler, G. C.,Deleon, I. R.,Laseter, J. L.. 1985. Volatile organic pollutants in biota and sediments of Lake
Pontchartrain. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 28993
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
N/A
sampling method is described well, calibration is not refered.
Analysis method is based onNational Bureau of Standards pro-
cedure though, modified ver. Older method (1976).
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Low
Low
1
3
3
3
>15 yrs old
sample size is quite small.
study of oysters/clams is off PECO.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
No raw data.
Blanks and calibration standards used, in addition internal
standards, however results not reported.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No dicsussion for variability/uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.3
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Singh, H. B.,Salas, L. J.,Stiles, R. E.. 1983. Selected man-made halogenated chemicals in the air and oceanic environment.
Journal of Geophysical Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 29192
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Low
N/A
N/A
sampling method, equipments are discribed. But there is time
lag(3 - 6weeks) between sampling and analysis, experimental
protocol is provided in another reference(singh 1982).
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High
Currency Low
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium
>15 yrs old
Sufficient sample size(About 40). These samples are collected
in various dates, sites, and depth. But no replicate samples.
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 Dataset is well summarized. But no raw data is showed(just
average value). The meaning of hyphen is not explained.
Medium 2 QA is described a bit like calibration, standards though, dis-
cussion is quite limited.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
Comparison of measured values and predicted values is de-
scribed though, limited discussion.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.0
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: M. R. Van Winkle, P. A. Scheff. 2001. Volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and elements in the air
of ten urban homes. Indoor Air.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 31210
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium 2 Sampling methodology discussed under Study Design.
High 1 The canisters were analyzed in accordance with the U.S. EPA
Compendium Method TO-14 by Gas Chromatography with Se-
lected Ion Monitoring Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS).
N/A N/A Biomarker is not used.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium 2
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
U.S., Southeast Chicago, IL
>15 yrs (1994-1995)
large sample size (48 samples see Table 1) no replicates?
The questionnaire was designed to measure variables that
may influence pollutant penetration, dispersion, and source
strength. Potential influencing variables that were measured
included household activity levels, household chemical sources,
and factors that could affect ventilation. Specific variables in-
cluded foods cooked, cleaners used during sampling, visitors
during sampling, noticeable odors by occupant, chemicals used
by occupant, window open status, and air-conditioning use.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 No supplemental or raw data. Summary stats for indoor air
provided in Table 1.
Medium 2 Quality assurance was performed on the indoor data by the
Illinois Department of Public Health. VOC, PAH, and elemen-
tal concentrations that were qualified as quantified (>10 times
the mean blank concentration) and estimated (between 3 and
10 times the mean blank concentration) were included in the
data analyses.
¦0
m
m
ZJ
ZJ
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: M. R. Van Winkle, P. A. Scheff. 2001. Volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and elements in the air
of ten urban homes. Indoor Air.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 31210
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
See Discussion section. Indoor VOC concentrations were
highly variable. Similar to the TEAM study, the range of in-
door VOC concentrations were within a factor of 10 to 1000.
As indicated in Table 1, the indoor VOC concentrations, with
the exception of methylene chloride, are generally comparable
to the other studies
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Lehmann, I.,Thoelke, A.,Rehwagen, M.,Rolle-Kampczyk, U.,Schlink, U.,Schulz, R.,Borte, M.,Diez, U.,Herbarth, O.. 2002.
The influence of maternal exposure to volatile organic compounds on the cytokine secretion profile of neonatal T cells.
Environmental Toxicology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 34460
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Sampling methods and equipment are described.
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
A GC-MS method was described with detection lmits provided.
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
High
1
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5
Currency
Low
3
Data collected >15 years old
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
No replicates.
Metric 7
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air measured in children's bedrooms.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
Summary statistics provided with description of data set, range
of concentrations, and number of samples in data set only.
Metric 9
Quality Assurance
Low
3
Quality assurance is not directly discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No discussion on variability but limitations were discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
Study Citation: Singh, H. B.,Salas, L. J.,Smith, A. J.,Shigeishi, H.. 1981. Measurements of some potentially hazardous organic chemicals in
urban environments. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 39644
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
to
o
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
Low
3
Sampling described in very general terms
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
Analysis done in field
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1
Three sites: Los Angeles, Phoenix, Oakland
Metric 5
Currency
Low
3
Data collected prior to 1980 (15+ years ago)
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
"Large amount of data", but number of samples not specified
Metric 7
Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Outdoor ambient air concentrations for various chemicals in-
cluding PERC; not currently scenario of interest
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
Summary data only
No specific discussion of quality control/assurance
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No specific discussion of uncertainty/variability with regards
to PERC
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.7
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Ahlers, J.,Regelmann, J.,Riedhammer, C.. 2003. Environmental risk assessment of airborne trichloroacetic acid - a contribution
to the discussion on the significance of anthropogenic and natural sources. Chemosphere.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 42715
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
Unacceptable
4
Sampling methods not described
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
N/A
N/A
Unacceptable for other metrics
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Unacceptable for other metrics
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
N/A
N/A
Unacceptable for other metrics
Metric 5
Currency
N/A
N/A
Unacceptable for other metrics
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
N/A
N/A
Unacceptable for other metrics
Metric 7
Exposure Scenario
Unacceptable
4
Study discussed concentrations in soil, rainwater, and plants -
none of these are scenarios of interest
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Unacceptable for other metrics
Unacceptable for other metrics
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Unacceptable for other metrics
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 4.0.
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Austin, J.. 2003. Day-of-week patterns in toxic air contaminants in southern California. Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 47782
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
to
to
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Data taken from public database (CARB TAC)
Data taken from public database (CARB TAC)
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1
TAC sites throughout California
Metric 5
Currency
Low
3
Data collected between 1989-2001 (15+ years ago)
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
N/A
N/A
Data taken from public database (CARB TAC)
Metric 7
Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Study looks at weekly variations in ambient outdoor air con-
centration - not currently scenario of interest
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Summary data included in document
Data taken from public database (CARB TAC)
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium 2 Study examines temporal variability
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.2
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Ryan, T. J.,Hart, E. M.,Kappler, L. L.. 2002. VOC exposures in a mixed-use university art building. AIHA Journal.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 49414
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
N/A
1
2
N/A
Gave sampling details. Samples refrigerated and analyzed
within 2 weeks.
Methods well described, but info such as calibration, blanks,
and recoveries were not provided.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Exposure Scenario High 1
>15 yrs
18 to 90 samples
personal monitoring in printing studio at university (relevant
to high-end hobbyist)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
No raw data. Missing the range, but has average, median and
AD.
Used the Qedit function for accuracy and precision, but was
not described. Blanks not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Discussion different locations of building, compared to other
studies, provided SD.
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Serrano-Trespalacios, P. I.,Ryan, L.,Spengler, J. D.. 2004. Ambient, indoor and personal exposure relationships of volatile
organic compounds in Mexico City metropolitan area. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 56224
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
Detailed sampling methodology, except no storage duration or
calibration procedures reported.
1
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
Over 15 years old
Over 90 individuals
Indoor air samples not linked to specific consumer products.
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2 No raw, missing minimum
1
D
O
Z
o
H
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1 Comparison to other studies.
O
H
m
O
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
AJ
o
C
Extracted
Yes
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Dowty, B. J.,Carlisle, D. R.,Laseter, J. L.. 1975. New Orleans drinking water sources tested by gas chromatography-mass
spectrometry: Occurrence and origin of aromatics and halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Environmental Science and
Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 58056
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
to
Cn
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Unacceptable
Medium
1
3
4
2
Appears to be only a single sample
source water is media of interest, but not finished water
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
Low
3
3
No raw, data
little discussion
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
Extracted
m
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
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.
-------
Study Citation: Ewing, B. B.,Chian, E. S. K.,Cook, J. C.,Evans, C. A.,Hopke, P. K.,Perkins, E. G.. 1977. Monitoring to detect previously
unrecognized pollutants in surface waters.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 58060
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
to
<35
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Government paper so assumed use of appropriate methods.
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
Analytical methodology is described and discussed.
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
sw samples
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5
Currency
Low
3
> 15 years
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Unacceptable
4
No concentrations; qualitative. Additional data in Progress
Reports.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
SW samples collected.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Unacceptable
4
No concentrations provided.
Metric 9
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No discussion on QA.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No variability or discussion on uncertainties.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.7.
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Ohta, T.,Morita, M.,Mizoguchi, I.. 1976. Local distribution of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the ambient air in Tokyo. Atmo-
spheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 58091
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
to
-
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
to
GO
Study Citation: Singh, H. B.,Salas, L. J.,Cavanagh, L. A.. 1977. Distribution, sources and sinks of atmospheric halogenated compounds.
Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 58111
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Sampling procedures are given, though more detail for ambient
air than surface water samples
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Analytical methods and equipment are given in detail
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Field studies conducted in California
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Article published in 1977 (40+ years ago)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
Sampling at two sites, one week each. Not clear how many
samples were taken
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
A concentration is given for PERC in ocean water
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Summary data only
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Medium
2
Some indications of quality control procedures in analysis de-
scription
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Study examined variability between more and less urban loca-
tions
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.9
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Howie, S. J.. 1981. Ambient perchloroethylene levels inside coin-operated laundries with drycleaning machines on the premises.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 58127
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
to
CO
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Analytical methods discussed in Section 5
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
Six laundries in Washington DC
Data collected in 1980 (15+ years ago)
Large number of replicate samples
Consumer inhalation exposure via dry-cleaned clothes at laun-
dry facilities, measured by indoor concentrations
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
High
1
1
Raw data provided in Appendix B as well as summary data
Quality assurance discussed in section 7
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Variability and uncertainty are discussed
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Aggazzotti, G.,Fantuzzi, G.,Righi, E.,Predieri, G.,Gobba, F. M.,Paltrinieri, M.,Cavalleri, A.. 1994. Occupational and envi-
ronmental exposure to perchloroethylene (PCE) in dry cleaners and their family members. Archives of Environmental and
Occupational Health.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 74875
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
o
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Sampling protocol is described in detail.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Analytical methods are described, and calibration and detec-
tion limits are given.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Biomarker not used for alveolar/breath sampling
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Modena, Italy
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Data collected prior to publication in 1994 (15+ years)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Breath samples from both exposed and control populations,
replicate indoor air samples from 30+ households
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Consumer indoor air exposure measured by indoor air concen-
trations and breath samples
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Summary statistics only
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
Quality assurance is not directly discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Some discussion of variability between different times of day,
control vs exposed groups
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Murray, A. J.,Riley, J. P.. 1973. Occurrence of some chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in the environment. Nature.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 75108
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Unacceptable
4
sampling methods, equipments, and any other information are
missed.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
GC-ECD is used, calibration, LOD, recovery samples are not
described.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
> 15 yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
sample size is moderate(6 sample), no replicate samples.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
samples are collected from the North East Atlantic.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
No raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No description of QA/QC.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
no discussion of variability/Uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.7.
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
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.
-------
Study Citation: Kostiainen, R.. 1995. Volatile organic compounds in the indoor air of normal and sick houses. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 76241
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium 2 Sampling methods are described in detail
High 1 Analytical methods are given in detail, including calibration
and detection limits
N/A N/A No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
High
1
Not given, but assume Finland based on laboratory location
Metric 5: Currency
Low
3
Data collected prior to publication in 1994 (15+ years)
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
More than 10 locations selected as both normal and "sick"
houses, but collection period not given and no mention of repli-
cates
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
1
Consumer exposure through indoor air concentration
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Data mostly presented as summary statistics; some raw data
given to illustrate particular cases
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
3
Quality assurance is not directly discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Discussion of how a variety of building and furnishing materials
affects indoor air quality
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Lindstrom, A. B.,Proffitt, D.,Fortune, C. R.. 1995. Effects of modified residentiai construction on indoor air quaiity. Indoor
Air.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 78782
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
tenax, stated followed epa guidelines. Described sampled
homes.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
HPLC and provided MDLs, but did not describe the HPLC.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
>15 yrs
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
10 homes
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
testing conditions well described (housing characteristics).
Only one geographic location.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
only geometric means provided. No SD, range.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
No SD or CV. described differences between conventional and
experimental homes, no discussion of uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.3
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Schwarzenbach, R. P.,Molnar-Kubica, E.,Giger, W.,Wakeham, S. G.. 1979. Distribution, residence time, and fluxes of tetra-
chloroethylene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene in Lake Zurich, Switzerland. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 94461
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Sampling information is provided.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
Analytical methods are described (gas stripping, chromatogra-
phy) but instrument calibration not discussed
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Study looks at PERC levels in surface water; no biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Lake Zurich, Switzerland
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Sampling done in 1977-78 (15+ years)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
Samples collected in different months throughout year to com-
pare different lake conditions. Some replicate samples.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Surface water in lake; sources identified as sewage treatment
plants
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Raw data not provided; summary of PERC concentration data
in samples given as charts (Fig 2)
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
Quality assurance implied through standard protocols
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Variability is characterized for some but not all samples; un-
certainties are identified
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.9
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.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Weissflog, L.,Elansky, N.,Putz, E.,Krueger, G.,Lange, C. A.,Lisitzina, L.,Pfennigsdorff, A.. 2004. Trichloroacetic acid in the
vegetation of polluted and remote areas of both hemispheres - Part II: Salt lakes as novel sources of natural chlorohydrocarbons.
Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 104106
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
Cn
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Sampling methodology is described and discussed, besides,
some infomation of equipments or sampling strage conditions
are missed.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
Analytical methodology is described and discussed, besides,
some information of instruments or recovery samples are
missed.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
>15yrs
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
less discuss an use of replicate samples.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
The information of surface water is discribed.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
raw data, less information of summary of data
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
no discussion
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
uncertainty is discussed.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.1
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
co
<35
Study Citation:
Data Type
Hero ID
Sexton, K.,Adgate, J. L.,Church, T. R.,Ashley, D. L.,Needham, L. L.,Ramachandran, G.,Fredrickson, A. L.,Ryan, A. D.. 2005.
Children's exposure to volatile organic compounds as determined by longitudinal measurements in blood. Environmental
Health Perspectives.
Monitoring
632064
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
High
1
collected by trained phlebotimist
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
analyzed at CDC using GS MS. Few details provided.
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5
Currency
Low
3
Samples in 2000
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Large sample size
Metric 7
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Not directly related to consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 No raw data. Missing SD
Medium 2 Quality control was established by using two separate quality
control materials, of which at least one was analyzed daily.
Blood levels for the control pools were compared with pre-
viously established 99 percent confidence limits. Among the
additional data validity checks were examination of gas chro-
matography retentio time, analyte accurate mass, and instru-
ment sensitivity, as well as comparison of mass ratios bwith
known standards.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
Study Citation: Adgate, J. L.,Church, T. R.,Ryan, A. D.,Ramachandran, G.,Fredrickson, A. L.,Stock, T. H.,Morandi, M. T.,Sexton, K.. 2004.
Outdoor, indoor, and personal exposure to VOCs in children. Environmental Health Perspectives.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 632310
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
co
- 15 years old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
Medium
1
2
no recoveries
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
No CV
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Ohura, T.,Amagai, T.,Senga, Y.,Fusaya, M.. 2006. Organic air pollutants inside and outside residences in Shimizu, Japan:
Levels, sources and risks. Science of the Total Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 632484
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
no storage duration, passive samplers
passive sampling were linearly correlated with the concentra-
tions measured by active sampling, calibration not discussed.
Good recoveries.
N/A
co
GO
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
High
1
japan
Metric 5: Currency
Low
3
>15 yrs
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
24 hr samples, large sample size
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
1
Questionairre on Selected sociodemographic characteristics
and exposure- related attributes
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Medium
2
No individual samples.
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
1
lab and field blanks, recoveries
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Assessed factors influences exposures
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Zuraimi, M. S.,Tham, K. W.. 2008. Effects of chifd care center ventifation strategies on vofatife organic compounds of indoor
and outdoor origins. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 632758
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
co
CO
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Medium
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Sampling methodology discussed. For each CCC, an indoor
(main classroom) and an outdoor sampling point were ran-
domly selected for simultaneous air sampling. Indoor sam-
plings were performed in the middle of the classroom near
the breathing zone of children (approximately 0.5"0.7 m). De-
signed to evaluate the "typical" levels of VOCs to which the
preschool children in each CCC are exposed, samplings were
conducted in the middle of the week and during the day from 8
am to 5 pm (sampling interval of 9 h). For noncarbonyls, VOCs
were actively sampled using a sampling pump (AP Buck Inc.)
onto preconditioned Tenax TA sorbent tubes. Duplicate flow
rates were set at 5 and 10 mLmin-1. For carbonyls, duplicate
air samples were pumped through DNPH cartridges (Supelco)
using another sampling pump at flow rates of 0.5 and 1 L min-
1. Flow rates were measured before and after sampling using
the mini Buck airflow calibrator (AP Buck Inc.). Details of
the sample collection, analysis and QA/QC can be found in
the Supporting Information.
Analytical methodology discussed. The sampled VOCs on
Tenax tubes were desorbed using an automated thermal des-
orber (Perkin-Elmer), separated using a gas chromatograph
(Agilent) and analyzed using a mass selective detector (Agi-
lent). For carbonyls, the analytes were eluted using acetoni-
trile and analyzed using a high performance liquid chromatog-
raphy equipped with a diode array detector (Agilent). For
every CCC, a field and laboratory blank is employed. VOCs
with measured values lower than their method detection limit
(MDL) were assigned to a value half of the MDL. Details of
the sample collection, analysis and QA/QC can be found in
the Supporting Information.
Biomarker is not used.
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area High 1 Singapore
Metric 5: Currency Medium 2 >5 to 15 years (2007 pub date)
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Zuraimi, M. S.,Tham, K. W.. 2008. Effects of chiid care center ventiiation strategies on vofatife organic compounds of indoor
and outdoor origins. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 632758
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High
o
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
High number of samples, duplicates. Sampling numbers pro-
vided for each ventilation strategy. In this study, ACMV CCCs
(N=5) are defined as those with a dedicated or shared air han-
dling unit, filtration and fresh air provision (typically about
10 percent of total air change), HB CCCs (N=21), those that
incorporate air conditioning for a portion of the day (typically
2 h) and relying on natural ventilation at other times, NV
CCCs (N=59), those that rely on open windows only for ven-
tilation and AC CCCs (N=19), those that incorporate split
unit air-conditioners without any provision of fresh air. Dur-
ing inspections, it was found that there were rooms in some NV
CCCs which were air conditioned. For these CCCs (N=19), an
indoor air location in the NV room and another in the AC
room were measured simultaneously making it a total of 123
samples. Supporting Information (SI) Table SI provides a de-
scriptive summary of the CCCs characteristics.
Singapore is a tropical city, where the ventilation strategies
adopted by the child care centers (CCCs) can be classified as
naturally ventilated (NV), hybrid (combination of natural ven-
tilation and air conditioning) ventilated (HB), air-conditioned
and mechanically ventilated (ACMV), and air-conditioned but
without ventilation (AC). In this article, we present the expo-
sures and risk of indoor VOCs, their sources, and the impact
of ventilation strategies in a nationwide study involving 104
representative CCCs in Singapore.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
Supplementary Info available but not provided; requested for
extraction. Table 1 reports indoor air concentrations of TCE
and PERC in CCCs with different ventilation strategies.
For every CCC, a field and laboratory blank is employed.
VOCs with measured values lower than their method detec-
tion limit (MDL) were assigned to a value half of the MDL.
Details of the sample collection, analysis and QA/QC can be
found in the Supporting Information.
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Zuraimi, M. S.,Tham, K. W.. 2008. Effects of chiid care center ventiiation strategies on vofatife organic compounds of indoor
and outdoor origins. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 632758
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
Because regulatory decisions are based on risk evaluations,
it is important to know how CCC ventilation strategies give
rise to differing risks estimates of VOC exposures. However,
given the large uncertainties in risk calculations, it is difficult
to ascertain significant differences between estimated cancer
risks. Assumptions used by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment such as standard body weight and average breath-
ing rate may not reflect the variability of the population at
large and specific differences between adults and children and
between Caucasians and Asians. Also, toxicity information ob-
tained from studies using animals have uncertainty related to
extrapolations from high doses for animals to low human ex-
posures. Indeed, information providing confidence intervals for
cancer potency estimates are still not available. Despite these
assumptions which may bias the estimates, the median values
provide a good indication of the relative risk levels among at-
tending children in CCCs with different ventilation strategies.
Also, analyses of risk assessment used in this study can provide
insight not only about the high-risk VOCs, but also about the
dominant sources of their exposures, which can allow proper
mitigation strategies for more effective means of exposure re-
duction.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.7
Extracted
Yes
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Dewulf, J. P.,Van Langenhove, H. R.,Der Auwera, L. F.. 1998. Air/water exchange dynamics of 13 volatile chlorinated CI- and
C2-hydrocarbons and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the southern North Sea and the Scheldt estuary. Environmental
Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 644857
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High 1 Sampling equipment, procedures and storage are given
Medium 2 Analytical procedure and equipment described, including de-
tection limit but not calibration.
N/A N/A No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
Map is given with North Sea sampling locations
Data collected in 1995-1996 (15+ years ago)
38 total samples in duplicate from six locations
Surface water inc. from oceans is a scenario of interest, ambient
air is not
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2
High 1
Data summarized in Table 1
Quality control charts and standard addition tests
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
Some discussion of variability with regards to sources of PERC
in water samples
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.7
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Yamamoto, K.,Fukushima, M.,Kakutani, N.,Kuroda, K.. 1997. Volatile organic compounds in urban rivers and their estuaries
in Osaka, Japan. Environmental Pollution.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 645789
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
Sampling method discussed, but does not indicate if it is a
standard method. Samples stored refrigerated until analysis.
GC/MS. EPA Method 524.2 Mean accuracy, the precision &
method detection limits
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High
Currency Low
Spatial and Temporal Variability High
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
>20 years (1993-1995)
Large sample size; 30 water samples collected from 30 sites;
sampled different months & years
Site description and sampling sites provided
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low 3 No supplemental or raw data reported; levels are reported in
Figure 1
Medium 2 Mean accuracy, precision and method detection limits cited.
No control samples?
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
Discussion on reasons for distribution patterns of DCM. TCE
and PERC have similar distribution patterns.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.8
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Abrahamsson, K.,Dyrssen, D.,Jogebrant, G.,Krysell, M.. 1989. Halocarbon concentrations in Askerofjorden related to the
water exchange and inputs from the petrochemical site at Stenungsund. Vatten.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 658636
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
sampling method is well described, but no calibration, storage
conditions.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
analytical method is well discussed and recovery is provided.
but no calibration is provided.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
> 15 yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
13 stations, no discussion of replicates.
. Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
media interest, but not US.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low 3 no raw data, only mean and SD. and no data for each depth
(5 - 10m).
Medium 2 recoveries in the 90s for PERC. Not well discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
SD is provided. Not well discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.1
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Amaral, O. C.,Otero, R.,Grimalt, J. 0.,Albaiges, J.. 1996. Volatile and semi-volatile organochlorine compounds in tap and
riverine waters in the area of influence of a chlorinated organic solvent factory. Water Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 658643
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Cn
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Unacceptable
Medium
1
3
4
2
>15tys
sample size of SW is not discribed.
The scenario of surface water is discribed.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
not raw data, and some detailed information of statistics are
missed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
uncertainty and variability are not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.0.
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Martinez, E.,Llobet, I.,Lacorte, S.,Viana, P.,Barcelo, D.. 2002. Patterns and levels of halogenated volatile compounds in
Portuguese surface waters. Journal of Environmental Monitoring.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 659075
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
<35
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
glass vials, portable freezer, analyzed within 15 days of col-
lection. Used analytical method EPA Method 502 so assumed
used a preservative.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
EPA Method 502
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1999-2000
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
644 samples
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
surface water in scope - sea, estuarine, river water and indus-
trial effluents - however not in US and older.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
no standard deviation . Mean in figure only. No raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Recovery of 93-95 percent, R2 = 0.99.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No SD, did not discus any uncertainities.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Huybrechts, T.,Dewulf, J.,Van Langenhove, H.. 2005. Priority volatile organic compounds in surface waters of the southern
North Sea. Environmental Pollution.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 660096
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
- 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Gulyas, H.,Hemmerling, L.. 1990. Tetrachloroethene air pollution originating from coin-operated dry cleaning establishments.
Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 713690
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium 2 Sampling equipment and procedures described, but no mention
of sample storage.
Medium 2 Analytical methods described
N/A N/A No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
"0
m
m
73
ZJ
m
<
m
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Low
High
1
3
3
1
Hamburg, Germany ^
Data collected in 1987 and 1989 (15+ years ago)
One sample at multiple intervals in only one car. ^
Only the dry cleaned clothes in vehicle is applicable. |H
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
Low
1
3
D
O
Raw data given in Table 1 q
Quality control and assurance not specifically discussed —1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
o
H
m
Variability and uncertainty regarding different types of dry Q
cleaning equipment discussed
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
o
c
o
Extracted
Yes
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Sexton, K.,Mongin, S. J.,Adgate, J. L.,Pratt, G. C.,Ramachandran, G.,Stock, T. H.,Morandi, M. T.. 2007. Estimating volatile
organic compound concentrations in selected microenvironments using time-activity and personal exposure data. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 730121
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
3M model 3500 organic vapor monitors (3500 OVMs), which
are charcoal-based passive air samplers.A more detailed de-
scription of the study design and results was published previ-
ously (Sexton et al., 2004a, 2004b; Pratt et al., 2004, 2005).
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
GC with an HP 5972 MS detector, Analytical and internal
standards were prepared, and VOC concentrations were calcu-
lated as described previously
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1999
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
333 samples, some dups
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Inddor air, but not consumer specific
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
Good summary statistics; however, no raw/supplementary
data available.
Duplicate O, I, and P badges were collected periodically during
the study (total n = 80), and correlation coefficients were >.94
for all individual VOC.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Not random sample, one area, are has known low VOC out-
doors
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Sexton, K.,Mongin, S. J.,Adgate, J. L.,Pratt, G. C.,Ramachandran, G.,Stock, T. H.,Morandi, M. T.. 2007. Estimating volatile
organic compound concentrations in selected microenvironments using time-activity and personal exposure data. Journal of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A: Current Issues.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 730121
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Billionnet, C.,Gay, E.,Kirchner, S.,Leynaert, B.,Annesi-Maesano, I.. 2011. Quantitative assessments of indoor air pollution
and respiratory health in a population-based sample of French dwellings. Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 733119
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium 2
Medium 2
N/A N/A
Passive samplers. Only limited details provided, but more info
in companion doc (Ramalho etal.,2006).
GC with FID/MS.. Few details provided, but more info in
companion doc (Ramalho etal.,2006). LOD is provided.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
2003-2005
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
490 samples
Cn
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air of households, not specific to a consumer product.
i—1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no raw data, no SD/CV.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
Implied, no details provided.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Limitations reported, characteristics of population reported.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.8
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Su, F. C.,Mukherjee, B.,Batterman, S.. 2011. Trends of VOC exposures among a nationally representative sample: Analysis
of the NHANES 1988 through 2004 data sets. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 784280
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
Medium
Only brief description of blood samples in the article, but doc-
umented thoroughly here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/
nhanes/nhanes_09_10/lab.pdf
Analyses used purge and trap extraction or headspace
solid phase microextraction (SPME), and capillary gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry. Consistent quality
control and quality assurance protocols were maintained
(NCHS, 2010e). https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/
nhanes_09_10/lab.pdf
approximate nature of these biomarkers was indicated by only
modest correlation with air samples and the rapid clearance in
the blood
Cn
to
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Geographic Area High
Currency Medium
Spatial and Temporal Variability High
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
1998-2004
Participants were selected to be nationally representative us-
ing a stratified, multistage, probabilityebased sampling design,
e.g., elderly and minorities were overesampled. VOCs were
measured for a subsample of adults aged 20e59 years for each
cohort studied between 1988 and 2004, with sample sizes from
605 to 1489
US population but multiple exposures
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 No access to raw data, but summary stats available.
Medium 2 Consistent quality control and quality assurance protocols were
maintained (NCHS, 2010e). However, results such as chemical
recoveries and blanks were not provided in the article to access
the quality.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Limitations mentioned throughout article. SE provided in supp
materials. Multiple years compared.
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Su, F. C.,Mukherjee, B.,Batterman, S.. 2011. Trends of VOC exposures among a nationally representative sample: Analysis
of the NHANES 1988 through 2004 data sets. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 784280
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Overall Quality Determination
High 1.6
Extracted
Yes
Cn
CO
"0
m
m
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. jyj
§
D
XJ
>
~n
H
D
o
Z
O
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Chao, C. Y.,Chan, G. Y.. 2001. Quantification of indoor VOCs in twenty mechanicaiiy ventiiated buiidings in Hong Kong.
Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 824555
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Cn
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
N/A
1
2
N/A
no recoveries, EPA method
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Medium
Medium
1
3
2
2
>15 yrs
10 samples, 4 hr samples
foreign country, not directly linked to consumer products
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
No raw data
Didn't discuss QC, but used standard methods
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
SD provided, compared results between locations
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
Extracted
Yes
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Cn
Cn
Study Citation: Wang, T.,Wong, C. H.,Cheung, T. F.,Blake, D. R.,Arimoto, R.,Baumann, K.,Tang, J.,Ding, G. A.,Yu, X. M.,Li, Y. S.,Streets,
D. G.,Simpson, I. J.. 2004. Relationships of trace gases and aerosols and the emission characteristics at Lin'an, a rural site in
eastern China, during spring 2001. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1014392
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Sampling equipment and procedures are described, but cali-
bration, DT are not described.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
calibration, DT, replicates are not described
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Data collected in 2001 (>15 yrs old)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
sample size is 30. but no replicates.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Low
3
ambient air
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no raw data
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No discussion of quality assurance
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Some discussion of uncertainty in correlation between presence
of different gases
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Kostopoulou, M. N.,Golfinopoulos, S. K.,Nikolaou, A. D.,Xilourgidis, N. K.,Lekkas, T. D.. 2000. Volatile organic compounds
in the surface waters of northern Greece. Chemosphere.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1024859
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Cn
<35
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5
Currency
Low
3
Samples collected >15 years ago
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Water samples were collected from four rivers and five lakes in
the region of Northern Greece, seasonally, four times per year.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Closely represents relevant exposure scenario, except it's not
the US population.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
Summary data reported with statistics; raw data not reported
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
Limited discussion of uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: X. M. Wu, M. G. Apte, R. Maddalena, D. H. Bennett. 2011. Volatile organic compounds in small- and medium-sized
commercial buildings in California. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1062239
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
N/A
EPA method TO-17; GC-MSConcentrations below MDL were
replaced with 1/2 MDL, while for samples between the MDL
and the analytical limit of quantification (LOQ), determined
as 10 times the standard deviation of low-level spikes, were
reported as the value determined in the laboratory.
Biomarker is not used.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Cn
-5yrs old (2011 pub)
indoor air study, but not cosumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
the result of concentration for each chemicals is summarized.
But no raw data.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
discussion of variability is limited.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.4
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
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
Cn
GO
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
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Dodson, R. E.,Levy, J. I.,Spengler, J. D.,Shine, J. P.,Bennett, D. H.. 2008. Influence of basements, garages, and common
hallways on indoor residential volatile organic compound concentrations. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1065844
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Cn
CO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium 2 Storage conditions and calibration not discussed, but did use
a published method. BEAM study.
High 1 Standard TO 17 method was used.
N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Medium 2
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
2005
Large sample size.
Indoor air, but not ties to a specific consumer product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
No raw data. Mean and SD in the main report. Other stats
may be in supplemental.
Average recovery of 65 percent. Additional info in supp mate-
rials.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: S. N. Sax, D. H. Bennett, S. N. Chillrud, P. L. Kinney, J. D. Spengler. 2004. Differences in source emission rates of
vofatife organic compounds in inner-city residences of New York City and Los Angeles. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1066049
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
N/A
The sampling and analytical methods are described in US
EPA"s Compendium Method TO-17. Sampling methodology
discussed. See Study Design.
The sampling and analytical methods are described in US
EPA"s Compendium Method TO-17. GC-MSD. LODs re-
ported.
Biomarker is not used.
O*
o
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
High
Low
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability High
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario Medium
1 NYC , NY (Harlem) and Los Angeles, CA (South Central, LA)
3 >15 years ( NYC: winterand summer 1999 and Los Angeles:
fall and winter 2000)
1 large sample size (36 samples); duplicate samples
2 Measurements were conducted in about 40 homes in each of
the two cities across two seasons.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Summary stats for indoor air
Medium 2 No supplemental or raw data.
provided in Table 3.
Medium 2 Field and laboratory blanks were collected, with each totaling
at least 10 percent of the number of samples. Field blanks
were transported and handled like regular samples, but were
not attached to pumps . Field blanks were used to determine
background contamination and for calculation of method limits
of detection (LODs).
m
o
73
O
C
o
H
m
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: S. N. Sax, D. H. Bennett, S. N. Chillrud, P. L. Kinney, J. D. Spengler. 2004. Differences in source emission rates of
vofatife organic compounds in inner-city residences of New York City and Los Angeles. Journal of Exposure Analysis and
Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1066049
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High 1 Indoor" outdoor relationships as well as SERs were calculated
for each home and sources of variability in the data were ex- -q
amined. Between homes, variability may be due to differences |T|
in housing characteristics, building materials, use and storage |TI
of household products, and AERs. Between cities, variability ^
can be associated with differences in ambient emission sources
and meteorological patterns. Also, seasonal variability within |TI
each city can be due to different meteorological patterns in dif- ^
ferent seasons, which in turn affect AER, environmental chem- m
istry, emission rates, and environmental dispersion rates. By ^
determining the variability in both indoor"outdoor relation- ^
ships and SERs, we can gain a better understanding of indoor
contributions to human exposures. The degree of uncertainty ^
associated with measurement error was also calculated for the "T|
estimated emission rates and this uncertainty was compared
to the inherent variability. We discuss the implication of this ^
uncertainty on predicting emission rates of VOCs in homes. Q
Overall Quality Determination* High 1.6 ^
O
Extracted Yes zj
m
O
' 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. Q
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale: CI
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. O
m
-------
<35
to
Study Citation: Roose, P.,Van Thuyne, G.,Belpaire, C.,Raemaekers, M.,Brinkman, U. A.. 2003. Determination of VOCs in yellow eel from
various inland water bodies in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Environmental Monitoring.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1066543
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Sample collection and storage are described. Sampling loca-
tions are given and characterized.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Extraction methods and analytical instrumentation and pro-
cedures are given. Detection limit calculation method is de-
scribed.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Study looks at VOC levels (inc PERC) in eel tissue; no
biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Sampling locations are listed (Belgium)
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Sampling done prior to 2003 (15 years ago)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
Twenty samples collected from variety of locations (river/
pond/canal) throughout Belgium. No replicates mentioned
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Surface water through fish tissue samples. Not in US waters
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
High
1
Raw data is given for the 20 eels sampled
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No discussion of quality assurance methods
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Some discussion of variation in PERC levels and connection
with water concentration
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
<35
co
Study Citation: Rule, K. L.,Comber, S. D.,Ross, D.,Thornton, A.,Makropoulos, C. K.,Rautiu, R.. 2006. Sources of priority substances entering
an urban wastewater catchment-trace organic chemicals. Chemosphere.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1250702
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
sampling method, instument is described, but calibration and
storage condition and not mentioned.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
Analysis methods and LODs are given, but calibration and
recovery are not described.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
Samples were collected in 2005 (>5 yrs old)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
no replicates is mentioned
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Unacceptable
4
no exact result of PERC in any figures or tables, it's just
mentioned too simply in 3.1.2.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
variability is discussed between VOC levels in residential vs.
commercial and industrial samples, uncertainty is not dis-
cussed.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable 4.0 Metric mean score**: 1.9.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Robinson, K. W.,Flanagan, S. M.,Ayotte, J. D.,Campo, K. W.,Chalmers, A.. 2004. Water Quality in the New England
Coastal Basins, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, 1999-2001.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1391354
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
<35
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
NAWQA protocols for fixed-site sampling are designed to as-
sess the spatial and temporal distribution of water quality in
relation to various streamflow conditions and consist of water-
quality sample collection at each fixed site monthly or more
frequently (Gilliom and others, 1995).
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
USGS lab, but no details in this report on the insstruments.
"All other water-quality samples were shipped to the USGS
National Water-Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Denver, Colo.,
for analysis."
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Samples collected >15 years ago
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
TCE and PERC measured and median concentrations pre-
sented in graphs (Fig 14, 19); so, difficult to extract. Raw
data may be available in referenced reports, or appendix 3.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Limited discussion of uncertainty
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.8
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: van de Meent, D.,Den Hollander, H. A.,Pool, W. G.,Vredenbregt, M. J.,van Oers, H. A. M.,de Greef, E.,Luijten, J. a. 1986.
Organic micropollutants in Dutch coastal waters. Water Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1441544
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
<35
Cn
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
calibration, storage conditions are missed.
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
Unacceptable
4
The analytical method for PERC and TCE is not provided.
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5
Currency
Low
3
1986, >15 yrs old
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Metric 7
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
study of Dutch coastal water, not US.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no raw data, detection frequency not reported.
Metric 9
Quality Assurance
Low
3
QA/QC is not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
uncertainty is few discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.2.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: James, K. J.,Stack, M. A.. 1997. The impact of leachate collection on air quality in landfills. Chemosphere.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1486815
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
<35
<35
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Unacceptable
1
3
1
4
1996 (>15 yrs old)
study of ambient air concentration from landfill leaching, off-
PECO.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
no raw data
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
uncertainty is not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 1.8.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Jia, C.,Batterman, S.,Godwin, C.. 2008. VOCs in industrial, urban and suburban neighborhoods, Part 1: Indoor and outdoor
concentrations, variation, and risk drivers. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1488206
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
<35
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
sampling sites and methods are well described, but sampler
calibration is not described.
Medium 2 instrument calibration is not described.
N/A N/A not biomarker study
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
Samples were collected in 2004 and 2005(>5yrs old)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
indoor air study, but no description of consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no raw data for TCE or perc.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
QA/QC is not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.8
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Duboudin, C.. 2009. Pollution inside the home: descriptive analyses Part I: Analysis of the statistical correlations between
pollutants inside homes. Environnement, Risques & Sante.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1657000
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
<35
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
sampling methodology points to 3 references (one is "Measure-
ment protocols and Quality Control").
Sampling analysis points to 3 references. Assumes it's a na-
tionally recognized standard used in France.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Geographic Area High
Currency Medium
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
October 2003 - December 2005
567 Total Participants, representing a 74 municipalities in 55
departments and 19 regions of France. Although there's a com-
ment in the text about misrepresenting the seasonality.
High
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
Supplemental data are clearly referenced.; however, summary
statistics aren't fully reported.
Quality Assurance wasn't directly discussed.
o
H
O
H
m
o
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
73
O
c
o
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
H
m
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.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Bouhamra, W. S.,Elkilani, A. S.. 1999. Investigation and modeling of surface sorption-desorption behavior of volatile organic
compounds for indoor air quality analysis. Environmental Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1744157
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
<35
CO
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Samples assumed to have been collected prior to 1999 (date of
publication)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
12 samples taken per house (20 houses sampled); it doesn't
seem that replicates were used.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor concentrations not associated with a specific consumer
product
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
No raw data; only minimum values and percent frequency re-
ported in tables. Mean cone presented in graphical form (not
extractable)
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
Minimal discussion of QC/QA measures; only the use of stan-
dards before and after each set of samples is mentioned.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Limited discussion of variability in indoor concentrations
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: He, Z.,Yang, G. P.,Lu, X. L.. 2013. Distributions and sea-to-air fluxes of volatile halocarbons in the East China Sea in early
winter. Chemosphere.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1940132
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
-
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
o
H
no raw data, range and mean reported, but no SD. Q
Storage stability assessed. Use of blanks for LOQ determina- |TI
tion. No recovery results provided.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
7)
O
Described reasons for variability, but no SD provided,
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.4
H
m
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.
-------
Study Citation: McDonald, T. J.,Kennicutt M C, I. I.,Brooks, J. M.. 1988. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AT A COASTAL GULF
OF MEXICO SITE. Chemosphere.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1946098
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Low
sampling equipment is described(Glass containers), descrip-
tion of storage duration, sampling method, and calibration is
limited.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
analytical conditions are described. No information of recovery
or calibration is served.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
> 15yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
single sample
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
the meaning of dash in table 3 is unclear.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
QA/QC is not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Valuability/Uncertainty is not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.4
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Stefaniak, A. B.,Breysse, P. N.,Murray, M. P. M.,Rooney, B. C.,Schaefer, J.. 2000. An evaluation of employee exposure to
volatile organic compounds in three photocopy centers. Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 1953674
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
- 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: He, Z.,Yang, G.,Lu, X.,Zhang, H.. 2013. Distributions and sea-to-air fluxes of chloroform, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethy-
lene, chlorodibromomethane and bromoform in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea during spring. Environmental Pollution.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2128010
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
-
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Su, F. C.,Mukherjee, B.,Batterman, S.. 2013. Determinants of personal, indoor and outdoor VOC concentrations: An analysis
of the RIOPA data. Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2128575
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
-15 yrs (1999 to 2001)
310 households
Indoor air, but not directly related to consumer product use.
convenience sample may have over samples outdoor emission
sources. 3 US cities
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 no raw data provided
Medium 2 calibration, blanks etc not mentioned. But they did indicate
which chemicals had low recoveries , and TCE and PERC were
not mentioned.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High
robust strengths, liiations
o
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.8
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Roda, C.,Kousignian, I.,Ramond, A.,Momas, I.. 2013. Indoor tetrachloroethylene levels and determinants in Paris dwellings.
Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2128839
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
- 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Zoccolillo, L.,Abete, C.,Amendola, L.,Ruocco, R.,Sbrilli, A.,Termine, M.. 2004. Halocarbons in aqueous matrices from the
Rennick Glacier and the Ross Sea (Antarctica). International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2189687
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
N/A
New method that uses large volume of water. Analyzed under
"extreme" conditions in Antarctica.
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High
Currency Low
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium
-
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 No summary provided, need to calculate the stats.
Low 3 TCE had low extraction recoveries (50-60 percent). Study did
not discuss if they corrected the concentrations for the low
recoveries. PERC recoveries were acceptable.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
variations due to microclimates.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.0
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Jia, C.,Batterman, S.,Godwin, C.,Charles, S.,Chin, J. Y.. 2010. Sources and migration of volatile organic compounds in
mixed-use buildings. Indoor Air.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2214330
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
-5yrs old)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
indoor air study, but not consumer products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
data is summarized as a table, but no raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Medium
2
Some discussion of QA/QC measures and issues.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.7
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Bravo-Linares, C. M.,Mudge, S. M. ,Loyola-Sepulveda, R. H.. 2007. Occurrence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
Liverpool Bay, Irish Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2277377
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
-10 years)
Source of exposure was not discussed.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
Low
3
3
Range of data provided only, (no raw data)
Some QA discussion with regards to sampling.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
There are some discussion on uncertainties and variability.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
Extracted
Yes
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Yamamoto, K.,Fukushima, M.,Kakutani, N.,Tsuruho, K.. 2001. Contamination of vinyl chloride in shallow urban rivers in
Osaka, Japan. Water Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2310570
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
-15 years
Unknown if replicate sampling was done.
SW samples collected.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
Raw data not provided; summary of PERC and TCE concen-
tration data in samples given as charts (Fig 3)
Quality assurance implied through standard protocols
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No variability; some dicussion on uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: D'Souza, J. C.,Jia, C.,Mukherjee, B.,Batterman, S.. 2009. Ethnicity, housing and personal factors as determinants of VOC
exposures. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2331366
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
NHANES is well documented, passive exposure monitors
NHANES is well documented. Used a standard method.. GC/
MS and selected-ion-monitoring mode (CDC,2006b), a sec-
ond laboratory used GC/MS in scan mode (Weisel et al.,
2005 b). http://www. nber.org/nhanes/1999-2000/downloads/
lab21_doc.pdf
N/A
GO
O
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
1999-2000 data,
over 600 samples
Indoor air in homes, but not directly related to a specific con-
sumer product.
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 range, percentiles, det freq. missing SD . no raw data.
High 1 NHANES.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
No SD provided
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
Study Citation: Loh, M. M.,Houseman, E. A.,Gray, G. M.,Levy, J. I.,Spengler, J. D.,Bennett, D. H.. 2006. Measured concentrations of VOCs
in several non-residential microenvironments in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2442846
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High 1 Personal samplers, VOC sorbent. Sample volume of 10L or
2.5L Samples stored 1 week in refrigerator..
High 1 EPA Method T017
N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
High
Medium
2003-2005
3 to 17 stores per store type, 5 to 28 samples per store type.
Table 1
Indoor air, but not for a particular product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 No raw data. Range, mean, CV reported in supp and sum-
maries match the limited stats in main text.
High 1 Pilot testing, storage stability, 15 percent duplicate samples,
field blanks on 11 percent of samples, correction for blanks if
significantly above the mean,
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High
Considered in sample collection and analysis. Range of store
types.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Chin, J. Y.,Godwin, C.,Parker, E.,Robins, T.,Lewis, T.,Harbin, P.,Batterman, S.. 2014. Levels and sources of volatile organic
compounds in homes of children with asthma. Indoor Air.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2443355
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
High
High
1
2
1
1
2010
7 day samples, large sample size
Source identification using factor analysis
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
No raw data
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Quack, B.,Suess, E.. 1999. Volatile halogenated hydrocarbons over the western Pacific between 43 degrees and 4 degrees N.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2468900
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
GO
co
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
N/A
N/A
N/A
Unacceptable
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
Ambient air from western Pacific Ocean; no relevannce to con-
sumer exposure.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 4.0.
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Plummer, L. N.,Sibrell, P. L.,Casile, G. C.,Busenberg, E.,Hunt, A. G.,Schlosser, P.. 2013. Tracing groundwater with low-level
detections of halogenated VOCs in a fractured carbonate-rock aquifer, Leetown Science Center, West Virginia, USA. Applied
Geochemistry.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2532571
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Sampling equipment, procedures and storage are given
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Analytical methods and equipment are given, including detec-
tion limits and calibration
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
West Virginia
Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
Samples collected in 2008-2010 (5-15 years ago)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
Samples collected at 47 sites, some have replicate samples
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Surface water and spring water (relevant) and groundwater
(not currently of interest)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
High
1
Raw data given in Table 1
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No specific discussion of quality control/assurance
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Uncertainties are discussed; variability between different water
sources
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: W. R. Chan, S. Cohn, M. Sidheswaran, D. P. Sullivan, W. J. Fisk. 2014. Contaminant levels, source strengths, and ventilation
rates in California retail stores. Indoor Air.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2535652
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
GO
Cn
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
2
1
N/A
No info on sample storage and duration conditions.
EPA method. LOQ provided in supp materials. No recoveries.
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
High
Medium
1
2
1
2
California
2011-2013
over 20 samples were store type, at least 5 stores per type,
indoor air, but not directly linked to a consumer product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
raw provided in supp.
standard methods used, but calibration and recovery results
not provied.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
variability discussed, but no CV provided.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Insogna, S.,Frison, S.,Marconi, E.,Bacaloni, A.. 2014. Trends of volatile chlorinated hydrocarbons and trihalomethanes in
Antarctica. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2800175
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
<35
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Clean glass bottles, no headspace, stored at 4C until analysis
within one year.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Purge and trap with GC-MS. operating conditions provided,
standards provided, calibration described.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
High
1
2011-2012
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
triplicate samples, at only nine sites.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
surface water on scope, but not US study
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
no raw data
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
analysis performed in triplicate. R2 >0.998. Recoveries from
75 to 95 percent. Samples stored for up to a year and no
mention of storage stability.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
compared results to past cruises, No discussion of uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Ofstad, E. B.,Drangsholt, H.,Carlberg, G. E.. 1981. Analysis of volatile halogenated organic compounds in fish. Science of
the Total Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2801663
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
GO
-15 yrs old
Pooled samples of 3-5 fish.
media and organisms interest, but not US.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
No raw data.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
No range of data is shown.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9
Extracted
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Rogers, H. R.,Crathorne, B.,Watts, C. D.. 1992. Sources and fate of organic contaminants in the Mersey estuary: Volatile
organohalogen compounds. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2802879
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Samples collected without headspace. Stored cool until analy-
sis within 24 hours. Extracted and analyzed within 24 hrs.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
GC-ECD. HMSO 1995 (british standard method), however
lacked many details actually used, internal standards,
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1987-89
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
Single samples on 4 sampling dates for each of 4 waterbodies.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
surface water on topic, but not in US
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
missing range., SD no raw darta.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
used a standard analytical method, but no discussion of meth-
ods used or recoveries.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.1
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Dawes, V. J.,Waldock, M. J.. 1994. Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds at UK National Monitoring Plan Stations.
Marine Pollution Bulletin.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2803418
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
CO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High 1
Medium 2
N/A N/A
UK National monitoring program
purge and trap with gc-MS.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
1992
about 70 samples overall
surface water, but not in US
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
Medium
3
2
individual values, but no overall stats
Precision assessed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
variation reflects amounts of industrial activity.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9
Extracted
Yes
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Brown, T.,Dassonville, C.,Derbez, M.,Ramalho, 0.,Kirchner, S.,Crump, D.,Mandin, C.. 2015. Relationships between socioe-
conomic and lifestyle factors and indoor air quality in French dwellings. Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2855333
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology
Medium
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Medium
CO
o
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Sampling methodology discussed briefly. Volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs) were measured in the main bedroom over
seven days with passive radial samplers(Radiellos, Sigma-
AldrichCo.) (Ramalho et al.,2006). VOCs were adsorbed on
Carbograph 4 sorbent then thermally desorbed and analyzed
by gas phase chromatography equipped with a flame ionization
detector and/or mass spectro- meter. VOCs were adsorbed on
Carbograph 4 sorbent then thermally desorbed.
Analytical methodology discussed briefly. VOCs were analyzed
by gas phase chromatography equipped with a flame ionization
detector and/or mass spectrometer. Statistical analysis: For
any measurement below the limit of detection (LOD) a value
equal to the LOD/2 was assigned. For measurements below
the limit of quantification (LOQ)a value equal to the LOQ/2
was assigned.
Biomarker is not used.
¦0
m
m
ZJ
ZJ
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Medium 2
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
France
>5 to 15 years (September 2003 and December 2005)
Indoor air concentration were measured one week in a sam-
ple of 567 dwellings representative of the French housing stock
between September 2003 and December 2005. Sample size de-
pendent on socioeconomic factors and by selected occupant ac-
tivities/building characteristics.
The pollutants measured were selected on the basis of a classi-
fication of indoor air pollutants developed by the Observatory
on IAQ that applied criteria for short and long-term toxicity as
well as the frequency of their presence in dwellings reported in
the scientific literature (Mosqueronetal.,2003). The sources of
these pollutants include building materials and furniture, heat-
ing and cooking systems, stored solvents, attached garages, and
various human activities including cleaning, painting, use of
consumer products, and smoking. Microenvironments, indoor
climate of the dwellings was also considered
o
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Brown, T.,Dassonville, C.,Derbez, M.,Ramalho, 0.,Kirchner, S.,Crump, D.,Mandin, C.. 2015. Relationships between socioe-
conomic and lifestyle factors and indoor air quality in French dwellings. Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 2855333
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
Supplementary materials provided. Tables 3 and 4 report con-
centrations for PERC in dwellings by selected socioeconomic
status factors and occupant activities/building characteristics,
respectively.
Quality assurance/quality control techniques and results were
not directly discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Strengths and limitations of the study discussed under Section
4.4. Week-long samples (averages for the week) take away the
ability to see peak exposures, and to relate those peak expo-
sures to certain activities.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Wallace, L. A.. 1987. The total exposure assessment methodology (TEAM) study: Summary and analysis: Volume I.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3004792
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High 1
High 1
N/A N/A
A lot of detail is given, refer to companion source for full de-
tails.
A lot of detail is given, refer to companion source for full de-
tails.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5: Currency
Low
3
1984
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
use of replicate samples, large sample size.
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Summary statistics of phases of the study are presented. No/
limited supplemental data available.
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
1
Recoveries and control samples are discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Limited characterization of variability.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.4
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
Study Citation: Jain, R. B.. 2015. Levels of selected urinary metabolites of volatile organic compounds among children aged 6-11 years.
Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3042164
Domain
Metric
Rating"^" Score
Comments^-
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
High
High
Medium
CO
NHANES sampling. Detailed description at https:/
/ wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/ContinuousNhanes/
Default.aspx?BeginYear=2011
The laboratory methods used to measure VOCs in urine, as
previously mentioned are provided in Alwis et al. (2012) and
at https: / / wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/ContinuousNhanes/
Default.aspx?BeginYear=2011.
According to the ATSDR Toxicological Profile for 1-
Bromopropane, dated August 2017, "Biological exposure to
the general population and workers can be assessed by mea-
surement of bromide ion, 1-bromopropane, and its metabo-
lite, N-acetyl-S-(n-propyl)-L-cysteine (AcPrCys) in urine or
blood (NTP 2013). N-Acetyl-S-(n-propyl)-L-cysteine is ex-
pected to be more specific to 1-bromopropane than bromide
due to the presence of the bromide ion in foods; however,
there have also been concerns regarding the specificity of N-
acetyl-S-(n-propyl)-L-cysteine. The ubiquitous nature of N-
acetylS-(n-propyl)-L-cysteine in the urine of the general pop-
ulation suggests that it may not be a specific biomarker for
1-bromopropane, as general population exposure is expected
to be limited. It is unknown if other chemicals and/or endoge-
nous metabolism contributed to the observed urinary levels
of N-acetylS-(n-propyl)-L-cysteine in biomonitoring studies".
The document is available at: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
ToxProfiles/tp.asp?id=1471&tid=285. NTP. 2013. Report on
carcinogens. Monograph on 1-bromopropane. National Toxi-
cology Program, U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices.
¦0
m
m
ZJ
ZJ
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Medium 2
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium 2
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2011-2012 samples
Large sample size, but appears to be spot samples collected (vs
24 hr or first morning voids)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Jain, R. B.. 2015. Levels of selected urinary metabolites of volatile organic compounds among children aged 6-11 years.
Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3042164
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
No raw data, but raw data are available from NHANES. Mean
and 95 percent Confidence Interval (CI) provided. No Standard
Deviation (SD).
Study provided creatinine levels to assess completeness of urine
samples.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
No SD, but discussed age,gender,race/ethnicity,and exposure-
toenvironmentaltobaccosmoke.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Hartwell, T. D.,Pellizzari, E. D.,Perritt, R. L.,Whitmore, R. W.,Zelon, H. S.,Wallace, L.. 1987. Comparison of volatile organic
levels between sites and seasons for the total exposure assessment methodology (team) study. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3052900
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
Cn
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
High
breath
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3 80s
1
2 not consumer specific
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
Medium
3 no raw, no range or sd
2
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Christof, 0.,Seifert, R.,Michaelis, W.. 2002. Volatile halogenated organic compounds in European estuaries. Biogeochemistry.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3242836
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
<35
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
N/A
niskan sampler, glass bottles, stored cool and dark, until purg-
ing, purged with 12 hours.
purge and trap with gc-ms. Detailed operating conditions pro-
vided.. No authoritative method used.
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
1997-1999
14-15 samples per data set
surface water, but not US.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
Only range. No mean, median, sd.
Duplicate sample analysis in general. Purge efficiency = 90-93
percent
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Mentioned that other studies said water traps can cause GC
problems, but they said that diverse tests showed that their
water traps worked.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
Extracted
Yes
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Wiedmann, T. 0.,Guthner, B.,Class, T. J.,Ballschmiter, K.. 1994. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF TETRA-
CHLOROETHENE IN THE TROPOSPHERE - MEASUREMENTS AND MODELING. Environmental Science and Tech-
nology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3246559
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
CO
-
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Kiurski, J. S.,Oros, I. B.,Kecic, V. S.,Kovacevic, I. M.,Aksentijevic, S. M.. 2016. The temporal variation of indoor pollutants
in photocopying shop. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3371701
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Low
3
Indoor concentrations were measured using gas sensitive semi-
conductor (GSS) sensor technology (with exchangeable sensor
heads for each target gas). There was no discussion on instru-
ment calibration or performance
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
Indoor concentrations were measured using gas sensitive semi-
conductor (GSS) sensor technology (with exchangeable sensor
heads for each target gas). There was no discussion on valida-
tion, or instrument sensitivity or performance
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Sampling assumed to have been conducted prior to 2016 (date
of publication)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Study measured concentrations of PCE in a photocopy-
ing shop; data may be surrogate for consumer exposure to
printshop emissioons.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Individual data points reported; no summary statistics pro-
vided.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No discussion of QA/QC measures
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Limited discussion on temporal trends;; no discussion on data
gaps, uncertainties, or limitations.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.3
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Kiurski, J. S.,Oros, I. B.,Kecic, V. S.,Kovacevic, I. M.,Aksentijevic, S. M.. 2016. The temporal variation of indoor pollutants
in photocopying shop. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3371701
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
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.
-------
Study Citation: K. W. Tham, M. S. Zuraimi, S. C. Sekhar. 2004. Emission modelling and validation of VOCs' source strengths in air-
conditioned office premises. Environment International.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3393192
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
o
o
Domain f: Reliability
Metric f:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Low
N/A
2
3
N/A
Provided info on tubes, liters collected, range of flow rates,
sample stored in cooler, analyzed on same day.
Did not mention a standard method. Used GC and described
column, use of calibration. Did not provide operating condi-
tions. Did not reference another article for more details.
Domain 2: Representativeness
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
ZJ
m
<
m
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
High
Low
1
3
<2004. Exact date not mentioned.
ZJ
>
~n
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Low
Low
3
3
Only one building. Duplicate samples collected.
No linkage to a source. Singapore.
D
o
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Medium
2
No raw data.
z
o
H
O
H
m
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
3
Mentioned that quality control was conducted. 5 point calibra-
tion curve for each analyte. But no actual QC results provided.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
O
73
O
c
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.4
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
-------
Study Citation: T. Hoang, R. Castorina, F. Caspar, R. Maddalena, P. L. Jenkins, Q. Zhang, T. E. Mckone, E. Benfenati, A. Y. Shi, A.
Bradman. 2016. VOC exposures in California early childhood education environments. Indoor Air.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3453092
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Sampling methodology discussed though, calibration of sam-
pler for indoor air is not described.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Biomarker is not used.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
>5 to 15 yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
lack of the information of emission source
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
the summary of results are well described. But no raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
uncertainty for sampling is discussed simply.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Dai, H.,Jing, S.,Wang, H.,Ma, Y.,Li, L.,Song, W.,Kan, H.. 2017. VOC characteristics and inhalation health risks in newly
renovated residences in Shanghai, China. Science of the Total Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3453725
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
o
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High 1
Medium 2
Analytical methodology is described and discussed; MDL for
DCM not listed.
N/A
N/A indoor air samples
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High
Currency High
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
8 residences; three sampling sites at each residence: living
room, bedoom, and study. No mention of replicate sampling.
Indoor air samples; not specifically associated with a consumer
product
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 Results reported in summary/chart form, not raw data. How-
ever, raw data may be provided in Supplementary Info.
Low 3 QA is implied.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Ma, H.,Zhang, H.,Wang, L.,Wang, J.,Chen, J.. 2014. Comprehensive screening and priority ranking of volatile organic
compounds in Daliao River, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3488897
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
o
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High 1 Sampling methods and storage are described.
Medium 2 Analytical methods and instrumentation are given. Detection
limits mentioned, but calibration not described.
N/A N/A No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
High
High
1
2
1
1
Map with sampling locations along Daliao River (China)
Samples collected in 2011 (5-15 years ago)
Duplicate and triplicate samples taken from 20 locations.
Surface water concentration for VOCs including PERC
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
Summary results only.
Quality assurance described in sampling/analytical procedures
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Variability assessed with replicate samples
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.4
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Bianchi, E.,Lessing, G.,Brina, K. R.,Angeli, L.,Andriguetti, N. B.,Peruzzo, J. R.,Do Nascimento, C. A.,Spilki, F. R.,Ziulkoski,
A. L.,da Silva, L. B.. 2017. Monitoring the Genotoxic and Cytotoxic Potential and the Presence of Pesticides and Hydrocarbons
in Water of the Sinos River Basin, Southern Brazil. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3489827
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
o
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
sw samples
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5
Currency
Medium
2
>5 yrs.
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Medium
2
" 60 samples during 9 collections" no mention of replicate sam-
pling.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
sw samples, not in the US.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
Raw data not provided; summary of PERC and DCM concen-
tration data on page 325 (Table 1).
QA is implied.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Study provided some discussion on uncertainties; no variabil-
ity.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
o
Cn
Study Citation: Wittlingerova, Z.,Machackova, J.,Petruzelkova, A.,Zimova, M.. 2016. Occurrence of perchloroethylene in surface water and
fish in a river ecosystem affected by groundwater contamination. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3489953
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Clear methodology for collecting fish samples
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Analytical methods based on EPA 601 & 624 standard methods
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
PCE is concentrated in the fish tissues being sampled
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Geographic location is clearly listed - SAP factory in Mimon,
Czech Republic
Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
Samples taken in two batches: 1998 and 2011/2012 (newest
between 5-15 years)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
"1998: 7 samples, 1 fish species, 2 locations 2011/2012: 17
samples, 4 fish species, 2 locations"
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
BCF - aquatic species are ecological population of interest
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
High
1
Raw data and summary are given, with discussion of outlier
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Medium
2
Quality control for laboratory testing surface water samples
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Interspecies variability discussed
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
o
<35
Study Citation: Burton, W. C.,Harte, P. T.. 2013. Bedrock Geology and Outcrop Fracture Trends in the Vicinity of the Savage Municipal
Well Superfund Site, Milford, New Hampshire.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3490995
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
N/A
N/A
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
N/A
N/A
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
N/A
N/A
Metric 5
Currency
N/A
N/A
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
N/A
N/A
Metric 7
Exposure Scenario
Unacceptable
Study is focused on geological properties of an area with
groundwater contamination by PCE. No PCE concentration
data as part of this study, and groundwater intake is not cur-
rently of interest.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
N/A
N/A
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
N/A
N/A
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0 Metric mean score**: 4.0.
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
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.
-------
Study Citation: Blanco, S.,Becares, E.. 2010. Are biotic indices sensitive to river toxicants? A comparison of metrics based on diatoms and
macro-invertebrates. Chemosphere.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3501965
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
o
-
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Sidonia, V.,Haydee, K. M.,Ristoiu, D.,Luminita, S. D.. 2009. Chlorinated solvents detection in soil and river water in the
area along the paper factory from Dej Town, Romania. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai. Chemia.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3543217
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
o
GO
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
High
Medium
1
2
1
2
Samples collected <15 years ago
Only one sample point; location
specified; sampled when the plant
relative to paper plant not
was on- and off-line
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
Medium
1
2
Lab quality assumed from detail in
trol for water samples
process description; no con-
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Zoccolillo, L.,Rellori, M.. 1994. Halocarbons in Antarctic surface waters. International Journal of Environmental Analytical
Chemistry.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3544414
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
o
CO
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methodology briefly discussed.
Analytical methodology briefly discussed
Biomarker not used.
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Medium
Medium
1
3
2
2
Antarctica, Italy
>15 years
moderate sample size, no replicate samples.
Exposure scenario of interest: surface water.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
Concentration reported in Table 2.
Procedural recoveries provided, 50 percent for TCE and 75
percent for PERC. Controls not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Not discussed. Authors suggest that the differences in the con-
centrations in various waters can be attributed to sampling site
microclimate and to morphology.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Amagai, T.,01ansandan„Matsushita, H.,Ono, M.,Nakai, S.,Tamura, K.,Maeda, K.. 1999. A survey of indoor pollution by
volatile organohalogen compounds in Katsushika, Tokyo, Japan. Indoor and Built Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3545469
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High 1 calibration, flow rates
Low 3 LOQ not reported.
N/A N/A No biomonitoring.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
> 15 yrs ago
>50 samples
Indoor air, but no direct link to consumer product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Medium
2
2
No raw data.
Used field blanks. Recoveries not mentioned.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Focazio, M. J.,Kolpin, D. W.,Barnes, K. K.,Furlong, E. T.,Meyer, M. T.,Zaugg, S. D.,Barber, L. B.,Thurman, M. E.. 2008.
A national reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United States-II) untreated
drinking water sources. Science of the Total Environment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3559503
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
not baiomarker study
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Unacceptable
1
3
1
4
Samples were collected in 2001 (>15 yrs old)
Reported concentrations do not distinguish between surface
water and groundwater measurements.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
High
3
1
there is not raw data, mean value, and range of value.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
variability is fewly discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 1.9.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Begerow, J.,Jermann, E.,Keles, T.,Ereier, I.,Ranft, U.,Dunemann, L.. 1996. Internal and external tetrachloroethene ex-
posure of persons living in differently polluted areas of Northrhine-Westphalia (Germany). Zentralblatt fuer Hygiene und
Umweltmedizin.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3561656
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium 2 Sampling equipment and procedures given in detail for both
blood and air samples
Medium 2 Analytical equipment and procedures given in detail for both
blood and air samples
N/A N/A Blood samples tested for PCE and not any biomarkers
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High
Currency Medium
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
1 Essen and Borken, Nordrhein-Westfalens
2 Data collected prior to 1996 (15+ years ago)
2 Large number of samples taken, but unclear if replicates were
used.
1 Consumer exposure through blood sample concentration and
indoor air concentration
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 Both blood and air concentrations are given as summary statis-
tics
Medium 2 Quality assurance/cleaning procedures were discussed in sam-
ple collection
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
Variability examined in detail
o
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Kawauchi, T.,Nishiyama, K.. 1989. Residual tetrachloroethylene in dry-cleaned clothes. Environmental Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3563210
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Low
3
Sampling discussion is mostly focused on fabrics, with less dis-
cussion of room air samples. Did not indicate which room
articles were placed, ventilation conditions, etc.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
Analysis methods described. Recovery samples specifically
mentioned. LOD not provided
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Assumed to be Japan
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Study conducted prior to 1988 (15+ years ago)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
Air and breath samples collected only between 2-4pm on week-
days.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Consumer inhalation exposure, measured by room air and ex-
pired air (breath) concentrations
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Summary results only.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No specific discussion of quality control/assurance
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Variability discussed with regards to differences between
drycleaning establishments
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Fielding, M.,Gibson, T. M.,James, H. A.. 1981. Levels of trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and para-dichlorobenzene in
groundwaters. Environmental Technology Letters.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3570809
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
sampling methods and equipments are described, but calibra-
tion is not described.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1980s (>15yrs old)
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
sample size is too small (duplicate sample at one site)
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
No raw data for each sample.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
QA/QC is not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
uncertainty is not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Minsley, B.. 1983. Tetrachloroethylene contamination of groundwater in Kalamazoo. Journal of the American Water Works
Association.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3573107
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Low
Low
N/A
3 Sampling procedures and equipment described in detail, but
only for groundwater well sampling
3 Analysis for samples mentioned only briefly
N/A No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High 1 Kalamazoo, Michigan
Low 3 Data collected prior to 1983 (15+ years ago)
Medium 2 Surface water sampled at eight locations, no mention of repli-
cates
Unacceptable 4 Study focused on groundwater contamination, only briefly
touches on surface water concentration. This involved legacy
contamination (1980) from groundwater and should not be
used.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2 Summary data only
3 No specific discussion of quality control/assurance
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
Variability not discussed with regard to surface water results
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable 4.0 Metric mean score**: 2.7.
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Coffin, R. R.,Witherell, L. E.,Novick, L. F.,Stone, K. M.. 1987. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN EXPOSURE LEVEL TO
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE IN AMBIENT AIR IN VERMONT. Public Health Reports.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3573147
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Unacceptable
N/A
N/A
4 Sampling methodology is not discussed.
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0 Metric mean score**: 4.0.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Lee, W.,Park, S. H.,Kim, J.,Jung, J. Y.. 2015. Occurrence and removal of hazardous chemicals and toxic metals in 27
industrial wastewater treatment plants in Korea. Desalination and Water Treatment.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3580141
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Low 3 No discussion , but assumed to be in the standard analytical
method used.
High 1 Purge and trap with GC. Standard Korean method.
N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
High
High
Medium
1
1
1
2
27 facilities
waste water effluent
but not in the US
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
Low
3
3
No raw data, no SD
No discussion, but
method.
No detection frequency,
assumed because used standard Korean
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No SD
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Duclos, Y.,Blanchard, M.,Chesterikoff, A.,Chevreuil, M.. 2000. Impact of paris waste upon the chlorinated solvent concentra-
tions of the river Seine (France). Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3587944
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
Sampling methodology is described and discussed.
Analytical methodology is described and discussed,
sw samples
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Medium
Medium
1
3
2
2
>15 yrs
3 sampling sessions; 14 stations
sw samples collected, but not in the US.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
Data seems to be raw data.
QA is implied.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Limited discussion on uncertainty; no variability.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Schwarzenbach, R. P.,Giger, W.,Hoehn, E.,Schneider, J. K.. 1983. Behavior of organic compounds during infiltration of river
water to groundwater. Field studies. Environmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3797825
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Low
Low
N/A
3
3
N/A
many details of sampling method is missing like storage dura-
tion, vial, calibration.
equipment and analytcal conditions are described, but many
details are missing like calibration, DT, replicates.
Domain 2: Representativeness
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
Medium
1
3
1
2
> 15yrs old
surface water study, but river is in Switzerland, not US.
D
ZJ
>
~n
H
D
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
average and SD are shown. No raw data,
discussion of QA/QC is quite limited.
o
Z
O
H
O
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
discussion of variability/uncertainty is quite limited..
H
m
O
73
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.3
O
c
o
Extracted
Yes
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Cdc,. 2017. National report on human exposure to environmental chemicals.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3827236
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
o
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;
infor-
mation on sampling methodology readily available.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;
infor-
mation on analytical methodology readily available.
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Medium
2
Blood concentrations for the period 2001-2008
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
High
1
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Blood concentrations for general population
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Medium
2
Raw data, measures of variation not reported.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
High
1
Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;
infor-
mation on QA/QC methodology readily available.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;
infor-
mation on variability/uncertainty readily available.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.3
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Atsdr,. 2007. Public health assessment: Peninsula Boulevard groundwater plume town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New
York: EPA facility ID: NYN000204407.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3970464
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
Government paper so assumed use of appropriate methods.
Metric 2
Analytical Methodology
Unacceptable
4
No method described.
Metric 3
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
sw samples
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5
Currency
Low
3
2007 (>10 years), data collocted >15 years ago
Metric 6
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Unacceptable
4
Sample size is not reported and assumptions cannot be made.
Metric 7
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
SW samples collected.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
Maximum value provided only.
Metric 9
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No discussion on QA.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No variability or discussion on uncertainties.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.8.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, two of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Usgs,. 2006. Recent (2003-05) water quality of Barton Springs, Austin, Texas, with emphasis on factors effecting variability.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3975032
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
to
Domain f: Reliability
Metric f:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium 2 Water sampling procedures only briefly described (pg 14).
Sample storage is mentioned.
Medium 2 "Done by NWQL using published USGS analytical methods"
N/A N/A No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High
Currency Medium
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
1 Barton Spring, TX
2 Data collected 2003-2005 (5-15 years ago)
2 22 samples from each spring orifice over two phases of sample
collection; uncertain if replicates were used
2 Study of contaminants (inc. PERC) in surface springs from
groundwater source
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High I Raw data in Table 9; various summary statistics and figures
throughout
Medium 2 Quality control and assurance data is supposed to be in Ap-
pendix 3, which was not included with this copy
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High
Variability of water quality factors was focus of this study
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Usgs,. 1994. Organic compounds downstream from a treated-wastewater discharge near Dalls, Texas, March 1987.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3975036
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
High
1
Water samples for nutrient, organic, and inorganic determina-
tions were collected and preserved according to standard USGS
procedures (Wells and others, 1990).
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Medium
2
Methods described and cited, but no indication of recoveries.
Tentative compound identification from GC/MS analyses was
based on computer matching of samplemass spectra with the
National Bureau of Standards library. Identification of all com-
pounds extracted by PT and other selected methods, and indi-
cated with a (b) in the data tables, was confirmed by matching
the mass spectrum and retention time of the sample with those
of authentic standards.(1987).
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
March 9 and 10, 1987
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
4 sites, but appears to be one sample per site.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Media of interest. Location well described.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
No summary stats or raw data.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
one upstream control site. QA assumed, but not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Discussed uncertainty of analysis methods
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.0
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Usgs,. 2006. Water-quality conditions of Chester Creek, Anchorage, Alaska, 1998-2001.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3975042
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
to
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Data collection and analysis described in pages 5-7
Data collection and analysis described in pages 5-7
No biomarker
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Medium
High
1
3
2
1
Chester Creek, Alaska
Data collected 1998-2001 (15+ years ago)
11 samples analyzed for VOCs, including PERC
For PCE, only concentration in surface water. Fish tissue anal-
ysis did not include VOCs.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
2
3
Summary data only; Table 3
No specific discussion of quality control/assurance
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No specific discussion of uncertainty/variability
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Usgs,. 2003. A national survey of methyl tert-butyl ether and other volatile organic compounds in drinking-water sources:
Results of the random survey.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3975046
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
N/A
Sampling equipment and procedures described; sampling per-
formed by different community water systems personnel across
country
Analytical methods and equipment discussed including detec-
tion limits
No biomarker used
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
to
Cn
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High
Currency Low
Spatial and Temporal Variability Medium
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
1 United States
3 Data collected between 1999-2000 (15+ years ago)
2 954 samples submitted from across the US, with field blanks
included
2 Data collected on many different chemicals in drinking water
sources; only PERC in surface water is of interest
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 Summary only; PERC is in Appendix 2 on pg 76
High 1 Quality control samples
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty High
Uncertainty discussed extensively
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.7
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
Study Citation: Ak, D. E. C.. 2012. Wendell Avenue (MC cleaners).
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3982325
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
to
<35
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
N/A
4
4
N/A
sampling method is not described,
analytical method is not described,
not biomarker study
Domain 2: Representativen
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
ess
Geographic Area
Currency
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
1
2
4
4
measured in 2010(>5 yrs old)
sample size is not clear
Vapor intrusion, soil, and groundwater - not currently scenarios
of interest.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
no raw data, and any other statistical values,
no discussion
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Unacceptable
4
no discussion
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 3.2.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, five of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency,
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Usgs,. 2009. Organic wastewater compounds, pharmaceuticals, and coliphage in ground water receiving discharge from onsite
wastewater treatment systems near La Pine, Oregon: Occurrence and implications for transport.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 3982442
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
-
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
High
High
1
1
Raw data in Table Bl, B2
Quality control data were collected
o
z
o
H
o
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Variability discussed in Appendix B
H
m
O
73
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2
o
C
o
Extracted
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Helz, G. R.,Hsu, R. Y.. 1978. Volatile chloro- and bromocarbons in coastal waters. Limnology and Oceanography.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 4140523
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
to
GO
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Medium
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Sampling methodology discussed. To obtain data on the char-
acter of volatile halocarbons in waste discharges, we collected
a series of samples from Back River, Maryland (Fig. IB). This
is a shallow, 12 km long tributary estuary to the Chesapeake
Bay, with a salinity range of about 04 g* kg-1. Its mean depth
is about 1 m and it is well mixed vertically. Near its upper
end, Back River receives 1.5- 1.9 x lo8 liter, d-r of wastewa-
ter from Baltimore"s main sewage treatment plant; the waste
discharges often exceed the freshwater flow from the water-
shed by a factor of two (Helz et al. 1975). The plant provides
100 percent secondary treatment, mostly by the trickling fil-
ter process, to wastes of both domestic and commercial origin.
The effluent is chlorinated before discharge. The first series
of samples from Back River (No. 8-12) was collected in early
February 1977, after northern Chesapeake Bay had been cov-
ered with ice for more than a month. The only uncovered area
was a 0.2-km-diameter patch of water immediately above the
underwater diffusers at the discharge point in midriver. The
second set of samples (No. 13-23) was collected in early May
1977, well after the spring thaw.
Analytical methodology discussed. GC equipped with a Hall
electrolytic conductivity detector (TRACOR). In early stages
of the work, some identifications were checked by mass spec-
trometry, but the high selectivity of the method for only
volatile chloro- and bromocarbons minimizes the danger of
misidentification when only GC retention time is used. Limit
of detection not specified.
Biomarker not used.
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic
Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
Metric 6:
Spatial and
Temporal Variability
Low
3
Maryland (Back River estuary)
>15 years (February and May 1977)
The first series of samples from Back River (No. 8-12; 5
samples) was collected in early February 1977, after northern
Chesapeake Bay had been covered with ice for more than a
month. The second set of samples (No. 13-23; 11 samples)
was collected in early May 1977, well after the spring thaw
(open water).
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Helz, G. R.,Hsu, R. Y.. 1978. Volatile chloro- and bromocarbons in coastal waters. Limnology and Oceanography.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 4140523
Domain Metric Ratingt Score ('< >111t r ic111 s
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
Back River: This is a shallow, 12 km long tributary estuary
to the Chesapeake Bay, with a salinity range of about 04 g*
kg-1. Its mean depth is aboutl m and it is well mixed verti-
cally. Near its upper end, Back River receives 1.5-1.9 x lo8
liter, d-r of wastewater from Baltimore"s main sewage treat-
ment plant; the waste discharges often exceed the freshwater
flow from the watershed by a factor of two (Helz et al. 1975).
The plant provides 100 percent secondary treatment, mostly
by the trickling filter process, to wastes of both domestic and
commercial origin. The effluent is chlorinated before discharge.
to
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
Low
No supplemental or raw data. Table 3 lists DCM, TCE, and
PERC concentrations in NM for Back River samples collected
in February 1977 (ice cover) and May 1977 (open water). Some
values are ND, but LOD is not reported.
QA/QC procedures not directly discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
Some discussion of variability due to sampling times, February
(ice cover) and May (open water), and concentration decrease
seaward due to tidal mixing of the effluent. Some uncertainty
regarding the factors causing volatization and its influence on
May samples.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.2
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Aggazzotti, G.,Predieri, G.. 1986. SURVEY OF VOLATILE HALOGENATED ORGANICS (VHO) IN ITALY - LEVELS
OF VHO IN DRINKING WATERS, SURFACE WATERS AND SWIMMING POOLS. Water Research.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 4149721
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
o
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Low
Minimal details for the surface water, collected from 31 sta-
tions
Medium 2 No standard method, but GC-EC conditions described.
N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Geographic Area High
Currency Low
Spatial and Temporal Variability Low
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
Medium
31 stations, collected multiples time per year. But exact num-
ber of samples not reported.
a canal which collects the wastes of the city of Modena
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low 3 no number of samples,, no SD, no raw data
Low 3 Mentions calibration for VHO, but no mention of field blanks,
lab blanks, recoveries
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.4
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Fytianos, K.,Vasilikiotis, G.,Weil, L.. 1985. Identification and determination of some trace organic compounds in coastal
seawater of Northern Greece. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 4149731
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Low
3
Described sample containers and filtration method, no info on
sample storage or duration.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
Low
3
gc-ms-ecd. Standard method not used. Operating conditions
not reported., although may be in Garrison et al. 1978;Shino-
hara et ai.1981).
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
1980s
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
Not explicit. 2 rivers, samples collected twice a month for two
years = 24 samples per station
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Not US, but sites described. The former is situated close to a
large city, Thessaloniki, and a large industrial area, including
a refinery unit. The latter is close to a smaller city, Kavala,
which is rapidly developing due to off-shore oil wells.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
only mean values reported
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Low
3
No recoveries, blanks discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No SD reported.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Hurford, N.,Law, R. J.,Payne, A. P.,Fileman, T. W.. 1989. Concentrations of chemicals in the North Sea arising from
discharges from chemical tankers.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 4149734
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
High
N/A
sampling method is well described, but calibration is not men-
tioned.
1
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Metric 7
Geographic Area High 1
Currency Low 3
Spatial and Temporal Variability High 1
Exposure Scenario Medium 2
> 15yrs old
surface water study, but Samples are collected from the sea
around UK.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 No raw data.
Medium 2 QC is described, no quantitative results for QA/QC.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium 2 no discussion of uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.8
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Sauer, T. C.. 1981. Volatile organic compounds in open ocean and coastal surface waters. Organic Geochemistry.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 4152375
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
co
co
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology
Medium
2
sampling equipments, storage conditions are described, but no
information of calibration, storage duration.
Metric 2:
Analytical Methodology
High
1
Metric 3:
Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Geographic Area
High
1
Metric 5:
Currency
Low
3
> 15yrs old
Metric 6:
Spatial and Temporal Variability
Low
3
<10 samples for open ocean. <5 samples for coast.
Metric 7:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8:
Reporting of Results
Low
3
no raw data, no mean or SD. no discussion of blanks.
Metric 9:
Quality Assurance
Medium
2
discussed extraction efficiency.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10:
Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
discussion of variability/uncertainty is limited.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
Extracted
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Ec,. 2014. SINPHONIE: Schools Indoor Pollution and Health Observatory Network in Europe.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 4440449
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1
Metric 2
Metric 3
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Low
N/A
2
3
N/A
calibration of sampler is not provided.
calibration of instrument ,detection limit are not provided
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4: Geographic Area
Metric 5: Currency
Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability
Metric 7: Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
High
Medium
1
2
1
2
<15yrs old (2010-2011)
not directly related to consumer product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Medium
High
2
1
raw data is not provided
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Wetzel, T. A.. 2014. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Indoor Air: Emission From Consumer Products and the Use of
Plants for Air Sampling.
Data Type Monitoring
Hero ID 4442460
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Low
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Very few details provided on sampling such as where samples
placed. Very unclear as to when the product was introduced
to the house and when samples were collected. No internal
conditions such as temp and RH provided.
Standard EPA method, but no LOQ.
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
co
Cn
Domain 2: Representativeness
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Metric 7:
Geographic Area High 1
Currency High 1
Spatial and Temporal Variability Low 3
Exposure Scenario Low 3
current
only one sample per room per house. 4 houses.
Product chemical content use pattern within house not pro-
vided.
D
73
>
D
o
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance
Low 3 Only one sample per location, but not averages across houses.
Low 3 Quality assurance only briefly discussed, but a standard
method was used.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
Variation across houses not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.6
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
co
<35
Study Citation: Won, D.,Corsi, R. L.,Rynes, M.. 2000. New indoor carpet as an adsorptive reservoir for volatile organic compounds. Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 12793
Domain
Metric
Ratingt
Score
('< niiinoiil s:
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
No standard method mentioned, but methodology well de-
scribed.
method described, but information such as calibration and re-
coveries not provided.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Medium
Low
2
2
3
US sample. Differenct rh tested and different carpets tests.
3 carpet, with and without pads. Only 1 to 9 samples per type,
paper published in 2000 (>15 yrs)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
avg and CV only. No raw.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
limited discussion of uncertainities
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E.,Leaderer, B.,Zelon, H.,Sheldon, L.. 1987. Emissions of volatile organic compounds from building
materials and consumer products. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 23126
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
- 15yrs old study
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
no raw data
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
The uncertainties are discussed. That's because equiribrium is
assumed, the values might be underestimated.
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.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Tichenor, B. A.,Sparks, L. E.,Jackson, M. D.,Guo, Z.,Mason, M. A.,Plunket, C. M.,Rasor, S. A.. 1990. Emissions of per-
chloroethylene from dry cleaned fabrics. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 27401
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
co
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
N/A
Contractor concerned that LOD/LOQ not given, but the au-
thors do clearly state the lower end of their calibration curves,
so we know the minimum concentration without regression.
Authors provide details on methodology, instrumentation set-
tings, and QA/QC processes.
testing on fabric
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
High
Medium
Low
1
2
3
Some samples less than 10 (emissions from fabrics one per ar-
ticle of clothing)
Older study >15 yrs.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.4
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Guo, Z. S.,Tichenor, B. A.,Mason, M. A.,Plunket, C. M.. 1990. The temperature dependence of the emission of perchloroethy-
lene from dry cleaned fabrics. Environmental Research.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 27961
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions High 1
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
High
N/A
N/A
Upgraded to high. The sampling methodology and conditions
are reported in detail. This study is old, but this question
does not cover temporality. Further, these methodologies are
still common practice (small environmental chambers, tenax
sorptive tubes, GC analysis).
Upgraded to high. The analytical methodology and conditions
are reported in detail. This study is old, but this question does
cover temporality. Further, these methodologies are still com-
mon practice (small environmental chambers, tenax sorptive
tubes, GC analysis).
No biomarker
¦0
m
m
ZJ
ZJ
m
<
m
D
73
>
co
CO
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
Medium 2 Scenarios tested for a range of conditions, including some cor-
responding to typical consumer exposure.
Medium 2 Multiple samples taken over period of up to five days.
Low 3 Experiments took place > 15 years ago (published 1989)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 Summary statistics are included but raw data is not.
N/A N/A Quality control was mentioned in experimental design, but not
described in detail.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
Variability and uncertainty are touched on
D
o
o
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.9
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Sack, T. M.,Steele, D. H.,Hammerstrom, K.,Remmers, J.. 1992. A survey of household products for volatile organic com-
pounds. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 28339
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
o
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Low
N/A
1
3
N/A
detection limits, recovery samples are not discribed.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Medium
Low
2
2
3
exposure control is not discussed.
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
N/A
2
N/A
no raw data. Only average is reported.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
uncertainties, limitations are not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.3
Extracted
Yes
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Fernandez, J.,Guberan, E.,Caperos, J.. 1976. Experimental human exposures to tetrachloroethylene vapor and elimination in
breath after inhalation. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 58143
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
Medium
1
2
2
Sampling methods, protocol, and equipment are described
Analytical methods are briefly discussed. Technique (gas chro-
matography) and instrumentation are given,
tee in breath
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Low
Low
2
3
3
Experimental conditions in controlled environment rather than
consumer exposure; biomonitoring
Appropriate sample size, but no mention of replicates
Article published in March 1976 issue of journal, so results are
15+ years old.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Raw data points provided in figures only
No specific discussion of quality assurance/control
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Some discussion of variability/uncertainty particularly with re-
gard to urine sampling
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Opdam, J. J.,Smolders, J. F.. 1987. Alveolar sampling and fast kinetics of tetrachloroethene in man. II. Fast kinetics.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 58314
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Medium
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Low
N/A
sampling described in detail elsewhere, but info such as sam-
pling times, breath holding provided.
analysis described elsewhere, no details provided in report,
could be upgraded upon examination of other report.
N/A
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4
Metric 5
Metric 6
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low 3 testing conditions described elsewhere.
Medium 2 6 volunteers
Low 3 1987 study, although the PERC was not a product, so timing
not as important.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium 2 no raw data
N/A N/A limited QC discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium 2 limited discussion of variability
Overall Quality Determination
Low 2.4
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
Extracted
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Imbriani, M.,Ghittori, S.,Pezzagno, G.,Capodaglio, E.. 1988. Urinary excretion of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) in
experimental and occupational exposure. Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 58324
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
co
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
N/A
1
2
N/A
Sampling method described in detail.
Method discussed, but not in detail. Recoveries provided.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
High
Low
2
1
3
different exposure activities used (rest, biking). Not exposed
to a product, but to PERC.
three groups of 5
>15 yrs
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
no raw data
recoveries provided, calibration of equipment not discussed, or
blanks.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Kreiling, J. A.,Stephens, R. E.,Reinisch, C. L.. 2005. A mixture of environmental contaminants increases cAMP-dependent
protein kinase in Spisula embryos. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 58563
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
Medium
1
1
2
Sampling procedures are given in detail
Analytical methodology given in detail
Biomarker (RII antigen) compared after exposure to PERC
both individually and in combination with other studied chem-
icals
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low
High
Medium
3
1
2
Study looks at Atlantic surf clams; these are sediment-dwelling
and thus excluded from scenario of interest; study is not look-
ing at concentration in body tissues
Large number of samples
Experiments took place prior to publication in 2004 (5-15 years
ago)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Summary only; data provided in figures
Quality Assurance not specifically discussed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Variety of chemical concentrations tested
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Sherlach, K. S.,Gorka, A. P.,Dantzler, A.,Roepe, P. D.. 2011. Quantification of perchioroethyiene residues in dry-cieaned
fabrics. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 1040048
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions High 1
Analytical Methodology Medium 2
Not a standard method, but well described. However, the LOD
was not provided.
EPA: Need supplemental information, reference indicates in-
formation is in supplementary material.
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Cn
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
Multiple fabric types.
samples analyzed in triplicate. Only 7 dry cleaning facilities.
Out-gassing of Perc. Extraction is sealed and frozen within
one day.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
Supplementary and main paper have raw data and summary
statistics
Recoveries not reported; Report what can be recovered, but do
not know what is already in the fabric. Control fabric used.
Calibration curve used.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: 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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
<35
Study Citation: S. Kim, J. A. Kim, J. Y. An, H. J. Kim, S. D. Kim, J. C. Park. 2007. TVOC and formaldehyde emission behaviors from
flooring materials bonded with environmental-friendly MF/PVAc hybrid resins. Indoor Air.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 1512515
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
N/A
1
2
N/A
flooring prep discussed, chamber set up discussed
GC/MS. conditions in table 5. no info on calibration or recov-
eries.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Low
Medium
2
3
2
one set of sampling conditions, table 2. Not sure if resin is con-
sidered an adhesive. Korean study, exact product not known.
number of tests is uncertain.
10 yrs old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
no raw data. Uncertain if the EF is a mean or s
QC not explicitly discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No SD
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
-
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Kowalska, J.,Szewczyriska, M.,Posniak, M.. 2014. Measurements of chlorinated volatile organic compounds emitted from office
printers and photocopiers. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 2534318
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Medium
Medium
N/A
2
2
N/A
No standard method method mentioned, but chamber size,
temp, RH, air volume, duration reported.
Discussed method, calibration curve. For substance identifica-
tion, the mass spectrum library NIST 05 was available.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Medium
Low
2
2
3
Office printers is on PECO for PERC.
7 different office equipment devices. Appears that replicates
were conducted since mean and SD provided for each device.
Test date not specified, although assumed to be recent based
on pub date.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
No raw data, mean and SD provided for each device,
calibration provided, no discussion of controls.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Discussed different equipment types.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: W. R. Chan, S. Cohn, M. Sidheswaran, D. P. Sullivan, W. J. Fisk. 2014. Contaminant levels, source strengths, and ventilation
rates in California retail stores. Indoor Air.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 2535652
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
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
High
High
High
1
1
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.0
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Kowalska, J.,Gierczak, T.. 2013. Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses of the Halogenated Volatile Organic Compounds
Emitted from the Office Equipment Items. Indoor and Built Environment.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 2655630
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Medium 2
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology High 1
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
N/A
N/A
Sampling equipment and methods are described.
Analytical methods are given, including calibration and deter-
mination limits
No biomarker
Cn
O
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
Low
Low
Medium
Agree that the testing scenario relevance is low- The office
items were "disintegrated"(not clear how or to what degree),
and heated to desporb VOCs. Cannot directly compare to
emissions of intact articles at room temperature.
16 different items tested; no mention of replicates
Tests conducted prior to article publication in 2008 (5-15 years
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
Raw data is given (chromatograms); numbers in summary data
No specific discussion of quality assurance/control
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No specific discussions of variability/uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
¦0
m
m
ZJ
ZJ
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: M. Nohr, W. Horn, O. Jann, M. Richter, W. Lorenz. 2015. Development of a multi-VOC reference material for quality
assurance in materials emission testing. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 2718034
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
Development of new method, micro chamber.
No LOQ provided in article. Method described elsewhere.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Medium
Low
High
2
3
1
The emissions is from volatility in a petri dish. The product
was not "applied".
Three batches of same product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
No raw data,
not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
RSD provided, discussed influence on humidity, chamber flow.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Chao, C. Y. H.,Tung, T. C. W.,Niu, J. L.,Pang, S. W.,Lee, R. Y. M.. 1999. Indoor perchloroethylene accumulation from dry
cleaned clothing on residential premises. Building and Environment.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 3559311
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Cn
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions High
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Low
N/A
1 Experimental protocol and sampling methodology are de-
scribed thoroughly.
3 Analysis methods described broadly - gas chromatography/
mass spectroscopy
N/A No biomarker
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
High 1 Test locations are actual homes, chosen from consumer survey;
tests simulate typical drycleaning exposure
Medium 2 7 samples per test, duplicate samples at some test locations.
Low 3 Study done in 1996 (15+ years ago)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High 1 Raw data reported in Tables 2-4
N/A N/A Quality control measures mentioned.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1 Environmental conditions and results of duplicate tests are pro-
vided.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 1.7
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Cheng, W. enHsi,Tsai, D. Y. ,Lu, J. iaYu,Lee, J. en Wei. 2016. Extracting Emissions from Air Fresheners Using Solid Phase
Microextraction Devices. Aerosol and Air Quality Research.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 3587655
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Cn
CO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Medium
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
new sampling method; qualification tests conducted on the
samplers used.
Missing some details, method SOP not reported.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
Low
Low
High
3
3
1
One test condition. No detailed description of product.
No replicate. Single samples of three products,
current (2016; publication date)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
No raw data. No summary across fresheners, although not as
applicable.
Minimal QC. RSD (flow rates) in supp files.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
some discussion of variability between emissions.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: UL Env. 2017. Floor Coating VOC Emissions Research Report.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4440489
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions Medium
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Medium
N/A
N/A
Environmental chamber and chemical emissions were analyt-
ically measured. Sampling conditions reported (temperature,
RH, and air change per hour throughout each test).
VOC measurements were made using gas chromatography with
mass spectrometric detection (GC-MS). Measurements are re-
ported to a quantifiable level of 0.04 "g based on a standard
air volume collection of 18 L. Calibrated.
Biomarker is not used.
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
Domain 2: Representative
Continued on next page
D
73
>
Cn
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: UL Env. 2017. Floor Coating VOC Emissions Research Report.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4440489
Domain
Metric
Ratingt Score
Comments^
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Medium
Cn
Cn
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Medium
Small chamber screening phase: Screening tests were con-
ducted to determine the type and amount of VOCs emitted
from each floor coating. The coatings were applied to solid
wood substrates according to the manufacturers recommended
instructions. Then the samples were immediately placed in a
90 L test chamber that is supplied with purified air at stan-
dard conditions of 23" C, 50 percent relative humidity, and 1
air change per hour. Air samples were collected after a 24-hr
equilibrium period to determine the emission rate of VOCs.
Full scale large chamber application phase: Based on the small
chamber screening data, 3 formulations, a low-emitting coating
(Water Based 7), a high-emitting water-based coating (Water
Based 3), and a solvent based coating (Solvent Based 2) were
identified for more comprehensive testing. The comprehensive
testing was conducted in a room sized environmental chamber
(32 m3) and each test included an application phase (where an
installer entered the chamber and applied the coating) and an
early occupancy phase (where the floor was allowed to equili-
brate normally and air samples were collected over a 7-day pe-
riod in the chamber). The chamber was supplied with purified
air at standard conditions of 23" C, 50 percent relative humid-
ity, and 1 air change per hour throughout the test. Prior to
testing, an 8" x 12" wood floor was assembled in the chamber
to serve as the finish substrate. Background samples were col-
lected to identify potential contaminants from the wood floor
substrate. At the start of the application phase, the techni-
cian (a professional flooring contractor) entered the chamber
with a small container of finish and a standard synthetic lambs
wool applicator. The finish was poured onto small sections of
the flooring and spread evenly over the entire surface, then the
technician opened the door and quickly exited the chamber.
Each coating was applied with the recommended number of
coats (2 or 3) and using the recommended dry time between
coats (2-hrs to 24-hrs). Air samples were collected during the
application of each coat (to capture the maximum breathing
concentration) and over the coating plus drying time (to deter-
mine the average breathing concentration during application).
After the door was closed following application of the final coat,
the early occupancy phase of the test was started. Data from
the application phase is compared to occupational exposure
guidelines.
small sample size; air samples were collected during application
of each coat (to capture the maximum breathing concentration)
and over the coating plus drying time (to determine average
breathing concentration during application.
¦0
m
m
ZJ
ZJ
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: UL Env. 2017. Floor Coating VOC Emissions Research Report.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4440489
Domain Metric Ratingt Score ('< nimioiil s:
Metric 6: Temporality
High
<5 years (2017 pub date)
Cn
a
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
N/A
No supplemental or raw data. Table 4 reports measured cham-
ber concentrations during full-scale large chamber application
phase results.
Measured concentrations from the application phase were com-
pared to occupational exposure guidelines
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.0
Extracted
Yes
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
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.
o
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Wetzel, T. A.. 2014. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) In Indoor Air: Emission From Consumer Products and the Use of
Plants for Air Sampling.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4442460
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
Low
Medium
N/A
3
2
N/A
Some info is described in another report. But missing key
pieces of information such as the exact times samples were
collected from the chamber.
Analytical method described, but no limits reported.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low
Low
High
3
3
1
Chemical content or weight fraction of product not reported.
<5 samples
current
m
§
D
XJ
>
~n
H
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
The report lacked a lot of information and organization, no
raw data, no results per sampling interval.
D
O
Z
o
H
o
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Discussed calibration. Assessed reproducibility and accuracy
of the emission rates generated from the chamber. No recover-
ies mentioned.
=i
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
Study Citation: C. B. Keil, M. Nicas. 2003. Predicting room vapor concentrations due to spills of organic solvents. AIHA Journal.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4532343
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Cn
GO
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
Sampling method well described.
chemical not analyzed, evaporation determined by mass, as
logged by a computer. No calibration was discussed.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low
Low
Low
3
3
3
Spill of chemical, not of formulated product. One set of con-
ditions however the article states that other studies show that
evap rates don't vary much with different conditions,
range and avg provided, but could not find the number of sam-
ples.
2003, > 15 yrs old, but tested using a chemical so not as rele-
vant.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
no raw data and no number of samples.
Did not discuss QC measures.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Conducted a study in a test house with one chemical (not
DCM) to compare lab results.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.6
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
-------
Study Citation: Won, D. Yang W.. 2012. Material emission information from: 105 building materials and consumer products.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4663242
Cn
CO
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
Medium
N/A
1
2
N/A
analytical method is well described, but no recovery samples.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Testing Scenario
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low
Low
Medium
3
3
2
Consumer uses(subcategory in table 2) don't match for use of
interest of EPA very much.
only one sample collected per test
2010 and 2011(>5 yrs old)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
High
N/A
1
N/A
calibration, comparison to past data are described, but recov-
eries is not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9
Extracted
Yes
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: C Solal, C. Rousselle, C. Mandin, J. Manel, F. Maupetit. 2008. VOCs and formaldehyde emissions from cleaning products
and air fresheners. International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate (Indoor Air 2008).
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4683353
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions Medium 2
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Medium 2
N/A N/A
Although it appears that standard methods were used, not
many details were provided.
The emission test chamber method is described in EN ISO
16000-9 (Determination of the emission of volatile organic com-
pounds from building products and furnishing " Emission test
chamber method).
VOCs were sampled on Tenax-TA and analysed using TD/GC/
MSD/FID according to ISO 16000-6.
Although it appears that standard methods were used, not
many details were provided. Samples were analysed using TD/
GC/MSD/FID according to ISO 16000-6.
no biomarkers
O*
o
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
Low
Low
Medium
3
3
2
Not US products. Don't know weight fractions of products.
Only two samples per product type.
10 years
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Only the maximum concentration provided.
Implied through the use of standard methods.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
only limited discussion of variability.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: A. T. Hodgson. 1999. Common indoor sources of volatile organic compounds: Emission rates and techniques for reducing
consumer exposures.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4683358
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
High 1 robust sampling method description
High 1 GC-MS; previously been described (Hodgson and Girman,
1989). This method is a modification of U.S. EPA Method
TO-1 (Winberry et al., 1988a).
N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
Low
Low
Low
3
3
3
Tested products not an exact match to scenarios of interest.
3 experiments: latex paint, vinyl flooring, carpet
>15 yrs old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
No raw data
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Some discussion of uncertainty and variability
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: A. T. Hodgson. 2001. Predicted concentrations in new relocatable classrooms of volatile organic compounds emitted from
standard and alternate interior finish materials.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4683360
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
<35
to
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Metric 3:
Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection
High
High
N/A
1
1
N/A
no biomarkers
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4:
Testing Scenario
Medium
2
kind of products, test substance, testing methods are de-
scribed. But exposure control is not discussed, and temper-
ature/pressure are assumed value for estimation of concentra-
tion.
2-4 products samples per product type.
>15 yrs old
Metric 5:
Metric 6:
Sample Size and Variability
Temporality
Low
Low
3
3
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
Each results are summarized in each tables. The value in each
tables are not raw data though, raw values of concentration
are possibly calculated by equation(l). Statistical discussion
is missed.
QC discussion is quite limited.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Variability/Uncertainty discussion is quite limited.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: A. C. Ortiz. 2010. Identifying sources of volatile organic compounds and aldehydes in a high performance building.
Data Type Experimental
Hero ID 4683366
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
<35
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology and Conditions High 1
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Metric 3: Biomarker Selection
Medium 2
N/A N/A
testing generally followed California Specification 01350 [15]
and ASTM Standard Guide D-6007-02 [16] using small emis-
sion chambers.
USEPA Method TO-17. standard method and LOQ provided,
but not details on recovery or calibration.
no biomarker
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 4: Testing Scenario
Metric 5: Sample Size and Variability
Metric 6: Temporality
Medium
Low
Medium
2
3
2
only one testing condition, did not vary temp, airflow, etc.
one test per product.
8 years old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 7: Reporting of Results
Metric 8: Quality Assurance
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
quality assurance implied but not discussed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
no discussion of limitations
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.1
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Jia, C. R.,D'Souza, J.,Batterman, S.. 2008. Distributions of personal VOC exposures: A population-based analysis. Environ-
ment International.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 484177
Domain
Metric
Ratingt
Score
Comments'
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
High
High
1
1
NHANES
NHANES
"0
m
m
73
73
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Medium
1
3
2
Over 15 years old
Indoor air, but not specifically linked to a consumer use.
m
<
m
§
D
73
>
~n
H
D
o
Z
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
High
Medium
1
2
No raw data, but complete summary stats
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Discussed exposure factors.
O
H
O
H
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.6
m
O
73
Extracted
Yes
O
c
o
H
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
' The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Arif, A. A.,Shah, S. M.. 2007. Association between personal exposure to volatile organic compounds and asthma among US
adult population. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 729385
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
<35
Cn
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
High
High
1
1
NHANES
NHANES. Detailed description of laboratory protocols is avail-
able from the NCHS web site.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
Low
Low
1
3
3
US
>15 yrs
Sample collected for 24-48 hrs. Not specific to indoors or to a
consumer product. Personal activities were investigated.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
High
Medium
1
2
NHANES
no min or max (but 95th CI provided)
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
Extracted
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Staples, C. A.,Werner, A. F.,Hoogheem, T. J.. 1985. Assessment of priority pollutant concentrations in the United States
using STORET database. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 1359400
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
High
High
STORET refers overall to "STORage and RETrieval", an elec-
tronic data system for water quality monitoring data; devel-
oped and approved source by EPA
STORET refers overall to "STORage and RETrieval", an elec-
tronic data system for water quality monitoring data; devel-
oped and approved source by EPA
O*
a
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Geographic Area
Metric 4: Temporal
Metric 5: Exposure Scenario
High
Low
High
1
3
1
>15 yrs
STORET refers overall to "STORage and RETrieval", an elec-
tronic data system for water quality monitoring data; devel-
oped and approved source by EPA
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
High
Medium
1
2
only median and number of samples
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.4
¦o
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
o
z
o
H
o
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
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.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2017. Chemical data reporting: 1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethene.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 3970117
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
High
N/A
1
N/A
Data submitted to EPA by manufacturers.
"0
m
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
High
High
1
1
1
US database.
Data appears to be for 2010-2011 production volumes. 2016
data now available.
Indicates if a consumer use product.
m
73
73
m
<
m
§
D
73
>
~n
H
D
o
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
High
Medium
1
2
Widely accepted. Users Guide.
Data is organized. Typically only provides range or max con-
centration for product category.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Z
O
H
O
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2
H
m
O
Extracted
73
O
c
o
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Oppt Monitoring Database. 2017. Perchloroethylene.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 3970236
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
<35
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Medium
Medium
2
2
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
Low
1
2
3
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
Medium
Low
2
3
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.1
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
I High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. C
^ 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: |TI
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Pubchem,. 2017. PubChem: Tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 3970251
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
<35
CO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology
Low 3 Sampling methodologies were not reported.
N/A N/A no samples were analyzed
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Geographic Area
Metric 4: Temporal
Metric 5: Exposure Scenario
N/A
Low
High
N/A
3
1
no sample analysis
Many sources are older >15 yrs.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
Low
High
3
1
No info on how data was compiled or level of QC provided.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
none discussed
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
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.
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Household Products, Database. 2017. Household products database: Chemical information: Tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 3970268
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Medium
N/A
2
N/A
About Database webpage describes some info on how data was
collected, but not detailed.
"0
m
m
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
High
High
1
1
1
US database.
Products have range of dates including <5 yrs.
Weight fractions in 18,000 various consumer products.
73
m
<
m
§
D
73
>
~n
H
D
o
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
High
High
1
1
Widely accepted US govt database.
Data is organized. No summary provided, so summary stats
not applicable
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Z
O
H
O
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2
H
m
O
Extracted
73
O
c
o
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Consumer Product Information, Database. 2017. What's in it? tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 3981163
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Low
N/A
3
N/A
Webpage provides only very limited info. Brands selected
based on market share.
Shelf survey.
"0
m
m
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Temporal
Exposure Scenario
High
High
High
1
1
1
USA and Canada database
"Date verified" provided, come <5 yrs old.
Weight fractions of consumer products.
73
m
<
m
§
D
73
>
~n
H
D
o
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
Low
High
3
1
No info how data collected or QC provided.
Data is organized. No summary provided, so summary stats
not applicable
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Z
O
H
O
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
H
m
O
Extracted
73
O
c
o
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Bartzis, J.. 2018. Prioritization of building materials as indoor pollution sources (BUMA).
Data Type Databases Not Unique to a Chemical
Hero ID 4663145
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Sampling Methodology N/A N/A
Metric 2: Analytical Methodology N/A N/A
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Geographic Area
Metric 4: Temporal
Metric 5: Exposure Scenario
High
Medium
Medium
1
2
2
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Availability of DB and Supporting Documents
Metric 7: Reporting Results
High
High
1
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.4
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
I High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. C
^ 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: |TI
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
- 111T r i e 111 s
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
2
measurements, approaches are described briefly. But not in
detail.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
surface water study, geography of area is described, but it's
quite old study.(data collected in 1979)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
variability/uncertainty is not discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Ipcs,. 1984. Tetrachloroethylene. Environmental Health Criteria.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 22606
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
- 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Wallace, L. A.,Pellizzari, E.,Leaderer, B.,Zelon, H.,Sheldon, L.. 1987. Emissions of volatile organic compounds from building
materials and consumer products. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 23126
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
Cn
Did not describe why selected the one study to compare vs
others.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air concentrations, but not specific to a product.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Medium
2
secondary data - only the average concentration was reported
for comparison.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
No SD provided for indoor concentrations. They did explain
why chamber vs indoor air concentrations may differ.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
Extracted
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2001. Sources, emission and exposure for trichloroethylene (TCE) and related chemicals.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 35002
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
Government report, but did not describe lit search methods
- 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Fuller, B. B.. 1976. Air pollution assessment of tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 58062
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
No description of literature search method.
- 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Zoeteman, B. C. J.,Harmsen, K.,Linders, J. B. H. J.,Morra, C. F. H.,Slooff, W.. 1980. Persistent organic pollutants in river
water and ground water of the Netherlands. Chemosphere.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 58284
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
GO
persistence is mainly discussed, basically secondary references
are quited.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3 US study, but auite old study (1980) and not much data.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2 Some discussion of uncertainties.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Atsdr,. 1997. Toxicological profile for tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 192111
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology Medium
-
D
O
z
o
H
O
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: O
High: > 1 to < 1.7: Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3: Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ^
o
C
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Fishbein, L.. 1992. Exposure from occupational versus other sources. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and
Health.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 200024
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
GO
O
Few assumption provided. Literature search methods not dis-
cussed.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Over 15 years old. Intakes not specific to indoors.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Low
3
A reference section is provided. But the range provided for
indoor air concentrations was not specifically stated in the text.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No discussion.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
3.0
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Duboudin, C.. 2010. Pollution inside the home: descriptive analyses Part II: Identification of groups of homogenous homes in
terms of pollution. Environnement, Risques & Sante.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 380600
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
Limited discussion of methods, but references provided for
sampling and analytical methodology.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
survey from 2003-2005
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Medium
2
Some references that would be useful to review are in French.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Conducted statistical analysis to group comparable homes. No
CV of concentrations provided.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.0
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Chien, Y. C.. 1997. The influences of exposure pattern and duration on elimination kinetics and exposure assessment of
tetrachloroethylene in humans [PhD].
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 630433
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology Medium
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
Extracted
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
m
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:
o
C
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Letkiewicz, F.,Johnston, P.,Macaluso, C.,Elder, R.,Yu, W.. 1982. Occurrence in tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) in
drinking water, food and air.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 630715
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
GO
co
1 Draws on data from previous federal surveys, as well as some
state data
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
High
1
PERC concentrations in drinking water
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
References are documented and appear to be reliable
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Study looks at variability in exposure throughout United
States
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.0
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Nysdoh,. 2005. Improving human risk assessment for tetrachloroethylene by using biomakers and neurobehavioral testing.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 630847
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
1
Technical approach appears reliable, much discussion of meth-
ods and techniques
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
High
1
Assessment of data collected in NYC between 2001-2003; Con-
sumer inhalation exposure through both air concentrations and
blood/breath levels
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
References and reported data are provided in appendix
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Variability characterized for blood/breath perc levels
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.0
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Benignus, V. A.,Boyes, W. K.,Geller, A. M.,Bushnell, P. J.. 2009. Long-term perchloroethylene exposure: A meta-analysis of
neurobehavioral deficits in occupationally and residentially exposed groups. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health,
Part A: Current Issues.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 633I4I
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
Cn
Domain f: Reliability
Metric f: Methodology
High
Assessment techniques appear to be accepted and reliable.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
High
1
All studies included are of consumer inhalation exposure mea-
sured by indoor air quality
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Studies referenced all appear in peer-reviewed publications
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Variability in population/media is explored
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Destaillats, H.,Maddalena, R. L.,Singer, B. C.,Hodgson, A. T.,McKone, T. E.. 2008. Indoor pollutants emitted by office
equipment: A review of reported data and information needs. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 694628
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
<35
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Unacceptable
4
just Literature review.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
The release of PERC from office equipments is described. US
study. HBCD is not mentioned in document, published In
2008.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
no discussion - all secondary data.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.3.
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered D
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. q
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. fl
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: C. J. Weschler. 2009. Changes in indoor pollutants since the 1950s. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 695495
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
Little discussion on methodology.Table 1 provides a sense of
how and why an indoor environment in 2008 is so different
from its counterpart in the early 1950s.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
Article discusses trends in indoor pollutants. Table 2 reports
selected pollutants (includes DCM, Carbon Tet, TCE, and
PERC) and trends in their indoor concentrations since the
1950s. There are no concentration measurement; trends are
broadly summarized by up and down arrows. Figure 4(a) re-
ports median indoor concentrations of Carbon Tet, PERC, and
TCE, but these data are derived from 1981-1984 TEAM Study
and the 1999-2001 RIOPA study (secondary studies will not be
extracted)
00
-I
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References Medium
References are listed
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Medium
The study has limited discussion of key uncertainties and lim-
itations.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium 2.2
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
Extracted
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Gilbert, D.,Goyer, M.,Lyman, W.,Magil, G.,Walker, P.,Wallace, D.,Wechsler, A.,Yee, J.. 1982. An exposure and risk assess-
ment for tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 732615
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
oo
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.0
Extracted
Yes
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
m
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:
o
C
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Dawson, H. E.,McAlary, T.. 2009. A compilation of statistics for VOCs from post-1990 indoor air concentration studies in
North American residences unaffected by subsurface vapor intrusion. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 735303
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
GO
CO
Detailed description of literature evaluated and statistical anal-
ysis.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Most studies are >15 yrs old, and not directly tied to consumer
products.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
robust discussion, discussed variability
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Bogen, K. T.,McKone, T. E.. 1988. Linking indoor air and pharmacokinetic models to assess tetrachloroethylene risk. Risk
Analysis.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 819974
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
o
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
model for inhalation from groundwater, but groundwater is off-
PECO
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
compared to other studies
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
m
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. O
^ 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. q
73
O
C
m
-------
Study Citation: . 1988. Toxic Air Pollutant Emission Factors Compilation For Selected Air Toxic Compounds and Sources.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 1265174
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
mathematical approach is described very simply. But the dis-
cussion of the approach like validity is missed.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
there are tables of emission factors of TCE and perc for indus-
trial process. But data is quite old (>15yrs).
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Low
3
input data is missed, some of un-peer reviewed sources are
cited.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
variability/uncertainty is a bit discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.8
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
CO
to
Study Citation: de Bias, M.,Navazo, M.,Alonso, L.,Durana, N.,Gomez, M. C.,Iza, J.. 2012. Simultaneous indoor and outdoor on-line hourly
monitoring of atmospheric volatile organic compounds in an urban building. The role of inside and outside sources. Science
of the Total Environment.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 1788276
Domain Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
1
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
High
1
The contractor comment downgraded the paper because it does
not link directly to a consumer product, but that is not the pur-
pose of the study. The indoor/outdoor mixing ration measure-
ments can help inform background indoor air concentrations
when considering risk due to use scenarios.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.0
Extracted
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Du, Z.,Mo, J.,Zhang, Y.. 2014. Risk assessment of population inhalation exposure to volatile organic compounds and carbonyls
in urban China. Environment International.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 2536230
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
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
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
m
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:
o
C
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: L. Golsteijn, D. Huizer, M. Hauck, R. van Zelm, M. A. Huijbregts. 2014. Including exposure variability in the life cycle impact
assessment of indoor chemical emissions: the case of metal degreasing. Environment International.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 2537636
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.0
Extracted
Yes
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
m
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:
o
C
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: . 2015. Health Assessment for Groundwater, Surface Water, Soil and Sediment Data Evaluation, Corozal Well Site, Corozal,
Puerto Rico, July 29, 2015. EPA Facility ID: PRN000206452.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3491017
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
Cn
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
1
Assumptions for calculations are well-documented
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Surface water is discussed briefly, only to rule it out. Bulk of
assessment is on groundwater, which is not currently of inter-
est.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Reference are well documented; data from EPA and PRDOH
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Some discussions of uncertainty related to dose calculations
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: McDonald, G. J.,Wertz, W. E.. 2007. PCE, TCE, and TCA vapors in subslab soil gas and indoor air: A case study in upstate
New York. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3543741
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
<35
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 Indoor air study, but not specialized as consumer 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
1.2
Extracted
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
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:
o
C
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Bauer, U.. 1991. OCCURRENCE OF TETRACHLOROETHYLENE IN THE FEDERAL-REPUBLIC-OF-GERMANY.
Chemosphere.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3572966
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
CO
- 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
CO
GO
Study Citation: De Rooij, C.,Boutonnet, J. C.,Garny, V.,Lecloux, A.,Papp, R.,Thompson, R. S.,Van Wijk, D.. 1998. Euro Chlor risk
assessment for the marine environment OSPARCOM region: North sea - Tetrachloroethylene. Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3573238
Domain Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
3
No discussion on methodology.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Older (1998) risk assessment study utilizing data from 1975-
1995 in European surface waters.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No variability and some uncertainties were addressed.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.5
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.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Giger, W. ,Molnarkubica, E.. 1978. TETRACHLOROETHYLENE IN CONTAMINATED GROUND AND DRINKING
WATERS. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3573428
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
No discussion on methodology.
CO
CO
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Study is regarding dw gw. Study cites cone of PERC up to 80
ug/L in sw.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No primary SW cone reported; up to 80 ug/L.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.5
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Nicnas,. 2001. Tetrachloroethylene " Priority existing chemical. Assessment Report No. 15.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3797979
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
to
o
o
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 Australia
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2 Some variability and uncertainties were discussed.
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Oecd,. 2013. Emission scenario document on the industrial use of adhesives for substrate bonding.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3827300
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
to
o
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
1
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3 mostly occupational, not consumer
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2 Some discussion of data gaps for release and exposure estimates
(occupational)
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2011. Background indoor air concentrations of volatile organic compounds in North American residences
(1990-2005): A compilation of statistics for assessment vapor intrusion.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3827392
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
to
o
to
The assessment methods , assumptions are discribed simply for
each studies which are collected by EPA.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
>10 yrs old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Medium
2
References are peer reviewed sources and compiled data are
summarized. But no raw data.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Ecb,. 2005. European Union risk assessment report: Tetrachloroethylene. Part 1 - Environment.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3839195
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
to
o
co
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
media interest, but relatively old report (2005: >5yrs old).
Not US study.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Medium
2
Most references cited and seem to be available publicly. Others
are personal communications.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Australian Government Department of, Health. 2016. Human health tier III assessment for l-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3969286
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
to
o
Used Consexpo to model inhalation and dermal doses. Used
all default parameters with 4 different weight fractions.
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
model;ed multiple weight fractions.
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 2012. Toxicological review of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene).
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970109
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
o
Cn
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
High
1
Methodology (literature search strategy) discussed in detail
and seems complete.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Many studies seem to correlate to occupational and animal
studies, and less on indoor air within households or sw concen-
trations.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
References cited and seem to be available publicly.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
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.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: U.S, E. P. A.. 1998. Cleaner technologies substitutes assessment for professional fabricare processes.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970186
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
to
o
<35
Govt report of secondary exposure data. Limited discussion
on lit search methods, assumptions, extrapolations.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Older report (1998). Consumer exposures and aquatic/surface
water concentrations are provided.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Uncertainties discussed; limited characterization of variability
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
o
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: ToxNet Hazardous Substances Data, Bank. 2017. HSDB: Tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970279
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
No discussion on methodology.
to
O
-15 years
old.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Variability is n/a; Uncertainties not identified.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Echa,. 2014. Substance evaluation report - Tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970790
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
o
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology Medium 2 lit search method is missed.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Unacceptable
4
just occupational exposure is disscussed. consumer, aquatic
exposure is not described.
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
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.0.
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable m
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered O
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. ^
I High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. D
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High. q
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. fl
-------
Study Citation: Echa,. 2008. Annex XV restriction report: Tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970791
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
to
o
CO
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Govt 2008 report. Consumer exposures (back-in-use materi-
als).
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Low
3
Many references cited seem to be personal communications.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Some variability, uncertainties were 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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Spolana, a s. 2014. Chemical safety report: Trichloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970807
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
EUSES. Annex 1 has assumptions
to
i—1
O
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 EU, <5 yrs
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3 Multiple scenarios, but no discussion of uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Domo Caproleuna GmbH. 2014. Chemical safety report: Industrial use as an extractive solvent for the purification of capro-
lactam from caprolactam oil.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970809
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
Used EUSES to model PECs. Assumptions provided.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Industrial release, but not US.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Low
3
Only one reference ,assumed to be the source of the fate prop-
erties.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
not discussed
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: D. O. W. Deutschland. 2014. Chemical safety report: Industrial use as process chemical (enclosed systems) in Alcantara
material production.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970811
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
EUSES is an accepted model, not sure all inputs provided.
to
i—1
to
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 Applicable scenario, but not US
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Vlisco Netherlands, B. V.. 2014. Chemical safety report Part A: Use of trichloroethylene as a solvent for the removal and
recovery of resin from dyed cloth.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970833
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
1 EUSES
to
I—1
CO
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
High
1
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3 No discussion of uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Parker Hannifin, Manufacturing. 2014. Chemicaf safety report: Use of trichloroethylene as a process solvent for the manufac-
turing of hollow fibre gas separation membranes out of polyphenylene oxide (PPO).
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970838
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
EUSES
to
I—1
4^
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 EU. <5 ytrs old
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Medium
2
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2 No direct discussion, but evaluated multiple scenarios.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: . 2014. Exposure assessment: Trichloroethylene, Part 3.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970842
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
Used EUSES but didn't describe inputs
to
l—1
Cn
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
based on industrial releases, but in EU
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Low
3
this is just a chapter and no references included.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
No discussion of variability and uncertainty
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.8
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Iarc,. 2014. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: Trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, and
some other chlorinated agents.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3970844
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
to
I—1
a
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 Some exposure data are quite old.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2 uncertainty of exposure data is not discussed
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
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.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Atsdr,. 2006. Health consultation: Evaluation of tetrachloroethylene vapor intrusion into buildings located above a contami-
nated aquifer: Schlage Lock Company Security, El Paso County, Colorado: EPA facility ID: COD082657420.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3978056
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
i—1
- 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Atsdr,. 2005. Health consultation: Walden"s Ridge utility district: Signal Mountain, Hamilton County, Tennessee.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3978068
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
to
i—1
GO
exposure pathway is simply described though, no details are
shown.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Unacceptable
4
Human exposure for drinking water is discussed.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
discussion is quite limited.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.5.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
to
I—1
CO
Study Citation: Atsdr,. 2008. Health consultation: Public comment release: Indoor and outdoor air data evaluation for Chillum perc
site: Chillum perc site (aka Chillum perchloroethylene): Chillum, Prince George County, Maryland: EPA facility ID:
MDN000305887.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3978081
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Methodology
Medium
2
concept of exposure assessment is described, but no details.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2:
Exposure Scenario
Unacceptable
4
Vapor intrusion study.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
no discussion.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.5.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Carex, Canada. 2017. Tetrachloroethylene- Environmental estimate.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3978375
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
No discussion on methodology.
to
to
o
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 Canadian and US sources >5 years.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3 No variability; Uncertainties not identified.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Carex, Canada. 2017. Tetrachloroethylene- Environmental estimate: Indoor air.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3978377
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
High
to
to
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 Studies >10 years old in US, Canada, Japan.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3 No variability; Uncertainties not identified.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Who,. 2006. WHO IRIS: Tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3978390
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
to
to
to
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3 references are old (>15 yrs old), not US study.
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
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
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: O
High: > 1 to < 1.7: Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3: Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ^
o
C
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Atsdr,. 2011. Case studies in environmental medicine: tetrachloroethylene toxicity.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3980994
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Unacceptable 4 no assessment is conducted, no concentration data.
to
to
co
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
consumer exposure is fewly refered. it's quite old (>15 yrs
old).
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
no discussion
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 2.8.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Environment Canada, Health Canada. 1993. Canadian Environmental protection act priority substances list assessment
report tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3981152
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Govt study from 1993. Wastewater effluent, indoor air, aquatic
species, sw.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Variability seems to have been met. Uncertainty has been dis-
cussed regarding some articles.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.8
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
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. D
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.
m
-------
Study Citation: European Chlorinated Solvents, Association. 2011. Health profile on perchloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3982134
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
Not much discussion on the "available data.'
to
to
Cn
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Some data for indoor air and aquatic species but missing de-
tails.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Unacceptable
4
Secondary sources were not cited and the study did not provide
a list of references.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Limited variability and no discussion on uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0
Metric mean score**: 3.2.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Oehha,. 2001. Public health goal for tetrachloroethylene in drinking water.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3982310
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
to
to
<35
2 Govt report of secondary exposure data. Medium score since
does not describe lit search method.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
Govt report from 2001. Indoor air concentrations and con-
sumer (dry cleaned clothes).
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Some variability. Uncertainty was described for developed
models.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
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.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Arb,. 1991. Proposed identification of perchioroethyiene as a toxic air contaminant.
Data Type Compieted Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3982312
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
to
to
-15 yrs old)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Low
3
It's not clear that references are peer reviewed.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
uncertainties and data gaps are discussed quite limitedly.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.5
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Carb,. 1991. Technical support document part A: Proposed identification of perchloroethylene as a toxic air contaminant.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3986480
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
to
GO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Medium
Govt report of secondary exposure data,
does not describe lit search method.
Med
mm score since
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3 Older study (1991). Building materials and consumer prod-
ucts. Indoor air conc.
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
Medium
1.8
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
o
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Carb,. 1991. Technical support document part B: Proposed identification of perchloroethylene as a toxic air contaminant.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 3986481
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
to
CO
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology Low 3 description of lit search method and exposure is missed.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
§
D
73
>
~n
H
D
o
Z
O
H
O
H
m
unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. O
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: q
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3. —I
m
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Unacceptable
4 no media interests.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3 no discussion.
Overall Quality Determination
Unacceptable
4.0 Metric mean score**: 2.8.
Extracted
** Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCARisk Evaluations document, if a metric for a data source receives a score of Unacceptable
(score = 4), EPA will determine the study to be unacceptable. In this case, one of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered
-------
Study Citation: P. E. I. Associates. 1985. Asbestos dust control in brake maintenance. Draft.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 4151966
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
to
co
o
Because this monitoring was done under a variety of sampling
times and conditions, with variable amounts of brake drum
dust, and variable asbestos concentrations in the dust, and by
different test methods, the results should be viewed only as
rough estimates of worker exposure.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
High
1
very relevant: dust control for brake maintenance workers
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
Low
3
A mix of old agency reports and publications, industry papers,
and also some personal communications and workshops; but
well documented
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Variability described and uncertainty addressed; ultimately a
comparison of dust control methods relative to each other.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Ec,. 2004. European Union risk assessment report: Tetrachloroethylene.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 4152094
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
to
co
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2 media interest, but in EU and a bit old (in 2004).
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
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
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: O
High: > 1 to < 1.7: Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3: Low: => 2.3 to < 3. ^
o
C
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Wu„et al.,. 2001. Sources, emissions and exposures for trichloroethylene (TCE) and related chemicals.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 4152270
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology High
to
co
to
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3 US study, but surface water or consumer exposure is described
too simly. and quite old study (>15 yrs old)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
Extracted
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value. ITI
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High. O
* 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. Q
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Herbert, P.,Charbonnier, P.,Rivolta, L.,Servais, M.,Van Mensch, F.,Campbell, I.. 1986. The occurrence of chlorinated solvents
in the environment. Prepared by a workshop of the European Chemical Industry Federation (CEFIC). Chemistry and Industry.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 4152304
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
There is no actual description of assessment.
to
co
co
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
3
The data of surface water is shown, but not US (Europe), and
quite old (> 15 yrs)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References
High
1
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
several scenarios are shown, no discussion for uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
2.2
Extracted
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
Study Citation: Delmaar, J. E.. Emission of chemical substances from solid matrices: a method for consumer exposure assessment.
Data Type Completed Exposure Assessment
Hero ID 4663189
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Methodology
Low
The report discusses the literature review, assumptions, and
limitations of the model. The discussion on data and extrapo-
lations from the model are limited due to data availability and
lack of tested data.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 2: Exposure Scenario
Low
The study models volatile substances using summarized data
and does not specifically model 1-BP. Sample and surrogate
data used may be similar, but the emphasis on building mate-
rials is not in alignment with IBP uses.
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 3: Documentation of References Low
Numerous studies are referenced, but their use is not always
clear or directly related to the text and/or data.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty Low
Variabilities and uncertainties are addressed, but not as they
apply to 1-BP or its specific exposure environments. Models
are built on surrogate paramater values which introduces large
degrees of uncertainty.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
3.0
Extracted
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.
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
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
to
co
Cn
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
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Abt. 1992. Methylene chloride consumer use study survey findings.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 1065590
Domain
Metric
Rating^
Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Data Collection Methodology
Data Analysis Methodology
Medium
Medium
2
2
Data collection instrument was described. The protocols for
field personnel was not.
Weighted summary stats provided, and unweighted counts pro-
vided in appendix. Could not find a discussion on sampling and
non sampling errors.
"0
m
m
73
73
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:
Geographic Area
Sampling / Sampling Size
Response Rate
High
High
Medium
1
1
2
for the questionaire, response rate was about 40 percent.
m
<
m
§
D
73
>
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Reporting of Results
Metric 7: Quality Assurance
High
Low
1
3
No discussion of QC
¦n
H
D
O
z
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
limited discussion
o
H
O
—1
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.7
m
O
73
Extracted
Yes
O
c
o
H
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Wang, S.,Majeed, M. A.,Chu, P.,Lin, H.. 2009. Characterizing relationships between personal exposures to VOCs and
socioeconomic, demographic, behavioral variables. Atmospheric Environment.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 2331429
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
co
- 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study. 2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related
to total volatile organic compounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 2443306
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Data Collection Methodology Medium 2
to
co
GO
Data collection methodology discussed. The Avon Longitudi-
nal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a population-
based study of children born to women who resided in Avon
(United Kingdom) during their pregnancy and who had an
expected delivery date between April 1, 1991, and December
31, 1992. There were 14,541 pregnant women enrolled in this
study, and a cohort of 13,971 of their children was still being
followed at age 12 mo. The goal of the ALSPAC is to evalu-
ate environmental, genetic, and social factors that can influ-
ence the health of infants and their mothers. Information was
collected from mothers through self-report questionnaires at
different times during their pregnancy, as well as after the in-
fant" s birth, to ascertain family and household characteristics,
parental occupations, and other socioeconomic factors. The
purpose of this study within the ALSPAC was (a) to determine
indoor levels of VOCs relative to the use of specific household
products and (b) to identify households in which total VOC
(TVOC) levels were high. Investigation of the entire cohort
of children and their parents further identified common health
effects at different points of data collection. We asked subjects
to complete a questionnaire that had questions about the fre-
quency of use of 9 common household products that contain
high proportions of VOCs. A total of 13,164 women completed
the 1st questionnaire when they were 8 wk pregnant. Of these
women, 10,976 completed a 2nd questionnaire 8 mo after birth,
and 10,119 completed a 3rd questionnaire when their child was
21 mo of age. We assumed that information about household
product use during early pregnancy reflected routine use of
these products" rather than later uses which might include
cleaning that occurred because the infant was now a mem-
ber of the household (e.g., use of products to ensure special
cleanliness in the infant"s environment). The types of house-
hold products examined were window cleaners, carpet cleaners,
dry-cleaning fluids, turpentine or white spirit, paint stripper,
house paints or varnishes, pesticides, other aerosols or sprays,
and air fresheners. The categories of use were (a) never or less
than once per week, (b) once per week, and (c) daily on most
days.
¦0
m
m
ZJ
ZJ
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study. 2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related
to total volatile organic compounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 2443306
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 2: Data Analysis Methodology Medium
to
co
CO
Statistical analyses. Mean TVOC levels were calculated on
the basis of the monthly values from the living rooms and
main bedrooms of the homes monitored in the BRE indoor air
study (N = 170). Households with less than 5 TVOC readings
for the year were excluded from the analysis. TVOC levels
were dichotomized into 2 percentiles: < 75th percentile and
" 75th percentile. Use of each of the 9 household products
during early pregnancy was dichotomized to < 1/wk and "
1/wk. We used Pearson" s chi-square and Fisher" s Exact test
(crosstabs) to evaluate the relationships between VOC levels in
the homes and product use during early pregnancy. We then
used products that were statistically significantly associated
with higher TVOC levels in the analysis of the entire cohort to
determine if use of these products was associated with report-
ing of symptoms for infants or mothers. For the total cohort,
we applied logistic-regression analysis to obtain adjusted odds
ratios (ORs) for each symptom with use of a specific product
for different frequencies of use, to determine if the odds of expe-
riencing a symptom increased as use of the product increased.
Adjustments were made for education, mother"s age, housing
tenure, number of children in the home, number of smokers in
the home, paid job subsequent to birth of the child, dampness
or condensation in the home, mold in the home, type of winter
heating fuel, and month the questionnaire was completed. The
first 6 variables controlled for socioeconomic status; the latter
4 controlled for seasonal ventilation differences that might have
influenced the build-up of VOCs (from indoor sources).
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Geographic Area
High 1 United Kingdom
Continued on next page
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study. 2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related
to total volatile organic compounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 2443306
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
Metric 4: Sampling / Sampling Size
Medium
to
o
Metric 5: Response Rate
Medium
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children
(ALSPAC) is a population-based study of children born to
women who resided in Avon (United Kingdom) during their
pregnancy and who had an expected delivery date between
April 1, 1991, and December 31, 1992. There were 14,541
pregnant women enrolled in this study, and a cohort of 13,971
of their children was still being followed at age 12 mo. The
goal of the ALSPAC is to evaluate environmental, genetic,
and social factors that can influence the health of infants and
their mothers. Information was collected from mothers through
self-report questionnaires at different times during their preg-
nancy, as well as after the infant" s birth, to ascertain family
and household characteristics, parental occupations, and other
socioeconomic factors. We asked subjects to complete a ques-
tionnaire that had questions about the frequency of use of 9
common household products that contain high proportions of
VOCs.
We asked subjects to complete a questionnaire that had ques-
tions about the frequency of use of 9 common household prod-
ucts that contain high proportions of VOCs. A total of 13,164
women completed the 1st questionnaire when they were 8 wk
pregnant. Of these women, 10,976 completed a 2nd question-
naire 8 mo after birth, and 10,119 completed a 3rd question-
naire when their child was 21 mo of age. Of the 170 total
homes included in this focused study, at least 10 samples were
returned from each of 109 households, and at least 5 samples
were returned from each of 148 households. The 3,339 total
samples represented 73 percent of the number of potential sam-
ples. The highest and lowest TVOC concentrations from indi-
vidual samples were 11.4 mg/m3 (in a living room) and 0.02
mg/m3 (in a main bedroom), respectively. The highest and
lowest geometric mean concentrations of TVOCs in the liv-
ing room and bedroom, from a total of 12 samples from any
house, were 1.559 mg/m3 and 0.063 mg/m3, respectively. The
percentiles of mean TVOC concentrations in the living rooms
and bedrooms are contained in the Notes in Table 1.
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 6: Reporting of Results
Medium
No supporting information or raw data available. Table 1 re-
ports products used during pregnancy that were associated
significantly with greater than/equal to 75th percentile geo-
metric mean of measured Total Volatile Organic Compounds
(TVOCs). No data reported specifically for TCE.
Continued on next page
-------
— continued from previous page
Study Citation: Farrow, A.,Taylor, H.,Northstone, K.,Golding, J.,Avon Longitudinal, Study. 2003. Symptoms of mothers and infants related
to total volatile organic compounds in household products. Archives of Environmental Health.
Data Type Survey
Hero ID 2443306
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
Metric 7: Quality Assurance Medium 2 No quality control issues were identified
to
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty
N/A
N/A
For example, in 33 homes all readings in both the living room
and the main bedroom were less than 0.4 mg/m3. In 5 homes,
the TVOC concentrations for both rooms always exceeded the
stated value. Caution is required when our data are compared
with results reported by others and with recommended guide-
lines, which may be based on a different definition of TVOC.
Overall Quality Determination
Medium
1.9
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
$ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
m
-------
to
to
Study Citation: Serrano-Trespalacios, P. I.,Ryan, L.,Spengler, J. D.. 2004. Ambient, indoor and personal exposure relationships of volatile
organic compounds in Mexico City metropolitan area. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Modeling
Hero ID 56224
Domain
Metric
Ratingt
Score
('< minion! s:
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Mathematicl Equations
Model Evaluation
Low
Low
3
3
Not provided in source. Provided in Hamlett, 2003.
Model described in supplemental source Hamlett, 2003. Mon-
itoring results also provided to compare.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Indoor air
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
Low
Medium
3
2
Model described in supplemental source Hamlett, 2003.
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
2
Monitoring results also provided.
Overall Quality Determination
Low
2.5
Extracted
Yes
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Park, J. H.,Spengler, J. D.,Yoon, D. W.,Dumyahn, T.,Lee, K.,Ozkaynak, H.. 1998. Measurement of air exchange rate of
stationary vehicles and estimation of in-vehicle exposure. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.
Data Type Modeling
Hero ID 85812
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
co
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Mathematicl Equations
Metric 2: Model Evaluation
Medium
Medium
IAQ model by EPA, but Beta version
Model has been validated, but unsure if specifically for indoor
car scenarios.
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Exposure Scenario
High
1
Contractor comments were based on age of data (date of publi-
cation), however the exposure scenario is highly representative
of a scenario of interest
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
High
High
1
1
Model documention available
Inputs provided
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
3
Compared to another study, but limited discussion of uncer-
tainties.
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation: Akita, Y.,Carter, G.,Serre, M. L.. 2007. Spatiotemporal nonattainment assessment of surface water tetrachloroethylene in
New Jersey. Journal of Environmental Quality.
Data Type Modeling
Hero ID 2494965
Domain
Metric
Rating^ Score
Comments^
to
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1:
Metric 2:
Mathematicl Equations
Model Evaluation
Higll 1 Model seems scientifically sound
High 1 Model is corroborated with relevant monitoring data (PCE
concentration in surface water streams)
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Exposure Scenario
Low
Model is based on data collected from monitoring stations be-
tween 1999 and 2003 (15+ years)
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability High 1
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults High 1
Model is based on equations that are given in the article.
Model inputs are PCE concentrations recorded at the locations
of established monitoring stations
¦0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
Medium
Variability and impact of potential sampling error are discussed
briefly
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.5
O
H
m
O
73
O
c
o
H
m
Extracted
t High = 1; Medium = 2; Low = 3; Unacceptable = 4; N/A has no value.
^ The overall rating is calculated as necessary. EPA may not always provide a comment for a metric that has been categorized as High.
If any individual metrics are deemed Unacceptable, then the overall rating is also unacceptable. Otherwise, the overall rating is based on the following scale:
High: > 1 to < 1.7; Medium: => 1.7 to < 2.3; Low: => 2.3 to < 3.
-------
Study Citation: Olie, J. D.,Bessems, J. G.,Clewell, H. J.,Meulenbelt, J.,Hunault, C. C.. 2015. Evaluation of semi-generic PBTK modeling for
emergency risk assessment after acute inhalation exposure to volatile hazardous chemicals. Chemosphere.
Data Type Modeling
Hero ID 3001596
Domain Metric Rating^ Score Comments^
to
Cn
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Mathematicl Equations
Metric 2: Model Evaluation
High
High
1 compared against monitoring data
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Exposure Scenario
Medium
2
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults
High
High
1 models freely available
1 available in supplement
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
High
1
Overall Quality Determination
High
1.2
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.
"0
m
m
XJ
XJ
m
<
m
D
XJ
>
D
O
z
o
H
O
H
m
O
XJ
O
c
o
H
m
-------
Study Citation:
UL Env. 2017. Floor Coating VOC Emissions Research Report.
Data Type
Modeling
Hero ID
4440489
Domain
Metric Rating^ Score
Comments^
Domain 1: Reliability
Metric 1: Mathematicl Equations
Metric 2: Model Evaluation
Medium
Medium
Emission rates of TVOC were used in a computer model tode-
termine potential air concentrations of the pollutants. The
computer model used the measured emission rate changes over
the one-week time period to determine the change in air con-
centrations that would accordingly occur. The emission factor
can be modeled according to a first-order decay.
The emission rates calculated from these samples were used in
a mathematical model to predict the concentration that would
occur in an office environment. The model parameters were
11.1 m2 of flooring in a 30.6 m3 room with an outdoor air
change rate of 0.68/hr.
to
a
Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3: Exposure Scenario
High
<5 years (2017 pub date) Table 5 reports predicted concentra-
tions of NMP from time of application to one week for floor
coatings W7 and W3 (floor loading in office)
"0
m
m
73
73
m
<
m
D
73
>
D
O
Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity
Metric 4: Model and Model Documentation Availability High 1
Metric 5: Model Inputs and Defaults Medium 2
There is sufficient documentation in the data source
Data quality acceptance criteria are not discussed but inputs
appear appropriate. The emission factor can be modeled ac-
cording to a first-order decay: EFm = EFO e-kt where, EFm
= modeled emission factor ("g/m"hr) or ("g/unit"hr) EFO =
initial emission factor ("g/m"hr) or ("g/unit"hr) k = rate con-
stant (hr-1) t = time (hr)
o
H
m
o
73
O
C
o
H
m
Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty
Metric 6: Variability and Uncertainty
Low
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.
------- |