Draft Risk Evaluation for Perchloroethylene (Ethene, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro) CASRN: 127-18-4 Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation for Data Sources on Consumer and Environmental Exposure April 2020,


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 DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE.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

>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

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.4

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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:

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

Sampling protocol is described in detail.

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

High

Analytical methods are described, and calibration and detec-

tion limits are given.

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

Biomarker not used for alveolar/breath sampling

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Presumed to be Modena, Italy

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

Data collected prior to publication in 1994 (15+ years)

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

Breath samples from both exposed and control populations,

replicate indoor air samples from 30 households

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

High

Consumer indoor air exposure measured by indoor air concen-

trations and breath samples

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Medium

Summary statistics only

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Low

Quality assurance is not directly discussed

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Medium

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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

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

>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

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.4

Extracted

Yes

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
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.

-------
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

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

O
73

O
c
o

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

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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

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

O
73

O
c
o

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

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
73

O
c
o

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

Sampling methodology is described with some details; no men-

tion of sample storage.

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

Low

Analysis methods only briefly described

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

No biomarker

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Nine homes in New Jersey

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

Study conducted prior to 1991 (15+ years ago)

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

Replicate samples, appropriate timing for biomonitoring

(breath) samples, repeated sampling over scenario time

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

High

Consumer inhalation exposure via dry-cleaned clothes, mea-

sured by indoor air/breath concentrations

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Medium

Results reported in summary/chart form, not raw data

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

High

Quality control and assurance discussed; field blanks, two in-

dependent labs for analysis

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

High

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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

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

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

No dicsussion for variability/uncertainty.

Overall Quality Determination

Low

2.3

Extracted

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
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.

-------
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

O
73

O
c
o

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

Sampling methods and equipment are described.

Metric 2

Analytical Methodology

Medium

A GC-MS method was described with detection lmits provided.

Metric 3

Biomarker Selection

High

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5

Currency

Low

Data collected >15 years old

Metric 6

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Medium

No replicates.

Metric 7

Exposure Scenario

Medium

Indoor air measured in children's bedrooms.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Low

Summary statistics provided with description of data set, range

of concentrations, and number of samples in data set only.

Metric 9

Quality Assurance

Low

Quality assurance is not directly discussed

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Low

No discussion on variability but limitations were discussed.

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

2.2

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

Sampling described in very general terms

Metric 2

Analytical Methodology

Low

Analysis done in field

Metric 3

Biomarker Selection

N/A

No biomarker

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4

Geographic Area

High

Three sites: Los Angeles, Phoenix, Oakland

Metric 5

Currency

Low

Data collected prior to 1980 (15+ years ago)

Metric 6

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Low

"Large amount of data", but number of samples not specified

Metric 7

Exposure Scenario

Low

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

Summary data only

No specific discussion of quality control/assurance

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty

Low

No specific discussion of uncertainty/variability with regards
to PERC

Overall Quality Determination

Low

2.7

Extracted

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
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.

-------
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

Sampling methods not described

Metric 2

Analytical Methodology

N/A

Unacceptable for other metrics

Metric 3

Biomarker Selection

N/A

Unacceptable for other metrics

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4

Geographic Area

N/A

Unacceptable for other metrics

Metric 5

Currency

N/A

Unacceptable for other metrics

Metric 6

Spatial and Temporal Variability

N/A

Unacceptable for other metrics

Metric 7

Exposure Scenario

Unacceptable

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

Unacceptable for other metrics
Unacceptable for other metrics

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty

N/A

Unacceptable for other metrics

Overall Quality Determination

Unacceptable

4.0

Metric mean score**: 4.0.

Extracted

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
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, 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.

-------
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^

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.

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
m
<
m

D
73
>

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8: Reporting of Results
Metric 9: Quality Assurance

Medium
High

2 No raw, missing minimum

D
O
Z

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

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.

-------
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

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

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

Overall Quality Determination

Unacceptable

4.0

Metric mean score**: 2.3.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

Sampling procedures are given, though more detail for ambient

air than surface water samples

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

High

Analytical methods and equipment are given in detail

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

No biomarker

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Field studies conducted in California

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

Article published in 1977 (40+ years ago)

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Medium

Sampling at two sites, one week each. Not clear how many

samples were taken

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

Medium

A concentration is given for PERC in ocean water

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Medium

Summary data only

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Medium

Some indications of quality control procedures in analysis de-

scription

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Medium

Study examined variability between more and less urban loca-

tions

Overall Quality Determination

Medium 1.9

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

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.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

-------
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

Sampling protocol is described in detail.

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

High

Analytical methods are described, and calibration and detec-

tion limits are given.

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

Biomarker not used for alveolar/breath sampling

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Modena, Italy

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

Data collected prior to publication in 1994 (15+ years)

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

Breath samples from both exposed and control populations,

replicate indoor air samples from 30+ households

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

High

Consumer indoor air exposure measured by indoor air concen-

trations and breath samples

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Medium

Summary statistics only

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Low

Quality assurance is not directly discussed

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

High

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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^

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:

Sampling Methodology

High

Sampling information is provided.

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

Medium

Analytical methods are described (gas stripping, chromatogra-

phy) but instrument calibration not discussed

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

Study looks at PERC levels in surface water; no biomarker

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Lake Zurich, Switzerland

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

Sampling done in 1977-78 (15+ years)

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Medium

Samples collected in different months throughout year to com-

pare different lake conditions. Some replicate samples.

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

High

Surface water in lake; sources identified as sewage treatment

plants

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Medium

Raw data not provided; summary of PERC concentration data

in samples given as charts (Fig 2)

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Low

Quality assurance implied through standard protocols

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Medium

Variability is characterized for some but not all samples; un-

certainties are identified

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

Sampling methodology is described and discussed, besides,

some infomation of equipments or sampling strage conditions

are missed.

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

Medium

Analytical methodology is described and discussed, besides,

some information of instruments or recovery samples are

missed.

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

>15yrs

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Medium

less discuss an use of replicate samples.

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

Medium

The information of surface water is discribed.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Medium

raw data, less information of summary of data

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Low

no discussion

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Medium

uncertainty is discussed.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

collected by trained phlebotimist

Metric 2

Analytical Methodology

Medium

analyzed at CDC using GS MS. Few details provided.

Metric 3

Biomarker Selection

N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5

Currency

Low

Samples in 2000

Metric 6

Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

Large sample size

Metric 7

Exposure Scenario

Medium

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

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4: Geographic Area

High

japan

Metric 5: Currency

Low

>15 yrs

Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

24 hr samples, large sample size

Metric 7: Exposure Scenario

High

Questionairre on Selected sociodemographic characteristics

and exposure- related attributes

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8: Reporting of Results

Medium

No individual samples.

Metric 9: Quality Assurance

High

lab and field blanks, recoveries

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty

High

Assessed factors influences exposures

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.6

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

O
73

O
c
o

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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^

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

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

>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

uncertainty and variability are not discussed.

Overall Quality Determination

Unacceptable

4.0

Metric mean score**: 2.0.

Extracted

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
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
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.

-------
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^

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

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

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

Variability and uncertainty regarding different types of dry Q
cleaning equipment discussed

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

2.0

o
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

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

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

1999

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

333 samples, some dups

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

Medium

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

Not random sample, one area, are has known low VOC out-
doors

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

1.7

Extracted

Yes

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O

O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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

Metric 2

Analytical Methodology

High

Metric 3

Biomarker Selection

N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5

Currency

Low

Samples collected >15 years ago

Metric 6

Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

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

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

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
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.

-------
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

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.

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.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
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).

O
C

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

sampling method, instument is described, but calibration and

storage condition and not mentioned.

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

Medium

Analysis methods and LODs are given, but calibration and

recovery are not described.

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

No biomarker

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5:

Currency

Medium

Samples were collected in 2005 (>5 yrs old)

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Medium

no replicates is mentioned

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

High

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Unacceptable

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

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Medium

variability is discussed between VOC levels in residential vs.

commercial and industrial samples, uncertainty is not dis-

cussed.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

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

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

Samples collected >15 years ago

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

High

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Low

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

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Medium

Limited discussion of uncertainty

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

Supplemental data are clearly referenced.; however, summary
statistics aren't fully reported.

Quality Assurance wasn't directly discussed.

H
O
H

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty

High

O
c
o

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.6

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.

-------
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

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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^

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:

Sampling Methodology

High

Sampling equipment, procedures and storage are given

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

High

Analytical methods and equipment are given, including detec-

tion limits and calibration

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

No biomarker

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

West Virginia

Metric 5:

Currency

Medium

Samples collected in 2008-2010 (5-15 years ago)

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Medium

Samples collected at 47 sites, some have replicate samples

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

Medium

Surface water and spring water (relevant) and groundwater

(not currently of interest)

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

High

Raw data given in Table 1

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Low

No specific discussion of quality control/assurance

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

High

Uncertainties are discussed; variability between different water

sources

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.6

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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^

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

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

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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

Metric 3: Biomarker Selection

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
73

O
c
o

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^

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:

Metric 2:

Metric 3:

Sampling Methodology
Analytical Methodology
Biomarker Selection

High 1

N/A N/A

A lot of detail is given, refer to companion source for full de-
tails.

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4: Geographic Area

High

Metric 5: Currency

Low

1984

Metric 6: Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

use of replicate samples, large sample size.

Metric 7: Exposure Scenario

High

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8: Reporting of Results

Medium

Summary statistics of phases of the study are presented. No/

limited supplemental data available.

Metric 9: Quality Assurance

High

Recoveries and control samples are discussed

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty

Medium

Limited characterization of variability.

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.4

Extracted

Yes

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

O
73

O
c
o

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

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

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.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

-------
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^

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:

Sampling Methodology

Low

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

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

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

Sampling assumed to have been conducted prior to 2016 (date

of publication)

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

Medium

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

Individual data points reported; no summary statistics pro-

vided.

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Low

No discussion of QA/QC measures

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Low

Limited discussion on temporal trends;; no discussion on data

gaps, uncertainties, or limitations.

Overall Quality Determination

Low

2.3

Extracted

Yes

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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^

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

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

Variability assessed with replicate samples

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.4

Extracted

Yes

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
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.

-------
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

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

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

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

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

3
1

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

variability is fewly discussed.

Overall Quality Determination

Unacceptable

4.0

Metric mean score**: 1.9.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

Analysis methods described. Recovery samples specifically

mentioned. LOD not provided

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

No biomarker

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Assumed to be Japan

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

Study conducted prior to 1988 (15+ years ago)

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Low

Air and breath samples collected only between 2-4pm on week-

days.

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

High

Consumer inhalation exposure, measured by room air and ex-

pired air (breath) concentrations

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Medium

Summary results only.

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Low

No specific discussion of quality control/assurance

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

High

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.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

-------
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.

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

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

No SD

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

2.0

Extracted

Yes

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
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.

-------
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

Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;

infor-

mation on sampling methodology readily available.

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

High

Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;

infor-

mation on analytical methodology readily available.

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

N/A

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5:

Currency

Medium

Blood concentrations for the period 2001-2008

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

High

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

Medium

Blood concentrations for general population

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Medium

Raw data, measures of variation not reported.

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

High

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

Biomonitoring data for US population from NHANES;

infor-

mation on variability/uncertainty readily available.

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.3

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

Government paper so assumed use of appropriate methods.

Metric 2

Analytical Methodology

Unacceptable

No method described.

Metric 3

Biomarker Selection

N/A

sw samples

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5

Currency

Low

2007 (>10 years), data collocted >15 years ago

Metric 6

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Unacceptable

Sample size is not reported and assumptions cannot be made.

Metric 7

Exposure Scenario

Medium

SW samples collected.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Low

Maximum value provided only.

Metric 9

Quality Assurance

Low

No discussion on QA.

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Low

No variability or discussion on uncertainties.

Overall Quality Determination

Unacceptable

4.0

Metric mean score**: 2.8.

Extracted

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

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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

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

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

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

March 9 and 10, 1987

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Low

4 sites, but appears to be one sample per site.

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

High

Media of interest. Location well described.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 8:

Reporting of Results

Low

No summary stats or raw data.

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Low

one upstream control site. QA assumed, but not discussed.

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

High

Discussed uncertainty of analysis methods

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

Summary data only; Table 3

No specific discussion of quality control/assurance

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10: Variability and Uncertainty

Low

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.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

-------
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

Metric 2: Analytical Methodology

Medium

Metric 3:

Biomarker Selection

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

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

Metric 6:

Spatial and

Temporal Variability

Low

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).

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O

O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O

O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

Described sample containers and filtration method, no info on

sample storage or duration.

Metric 2:

Analytical Methodology

Low

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

Domain 2: Representativeness

Metric 4:

Geographic Area

High

Metric 5:

Currency

Low

1980s

Metric 6:

Spatial and Temporal Variability

Low

Not explicit. 2 rivers, samples collected twice a month for two

years = 24 samples per station

Metric 7:

Exposure Scenario

Medium

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

only mean values reported

Metric 9:

Quality Assurance

Low

No recoveries, blanks discussed.

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 10:

Variability and Uncertainty

Low

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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

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
>

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

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

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

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

Some discussion of variability/uncertainty particularly with re-
gard to urine sampling

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

2.1

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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^

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

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O

O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

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

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.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

-------
<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^

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

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

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

Discussed different equipment types.

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

2.1

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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^

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

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O

O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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.

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

N/A

The report lacked a lot of information and organization, no
raw data, no results per sampling interval.

D
O
Z

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 9: Variability and Uncertainty

Medium

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

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.

-------
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^

Domain 1: Reliability

Metric 1:
Metric 2:

Metric 3:

Sampling Methodology and Conditions
Analytical Methodology

Biomarker Selection

High
Medium

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

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

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

Conducted a study in a test house with one chemical (not
DCM) to compare lab results.

Overall Quality Determination

Low

2.6

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

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

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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

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

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

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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

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

only median and number of samples

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty

N/A

Overall Quality Determination

High

1.4

¦o
m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

o
z
o

O
73

O
c
o

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.

-------
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

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

Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2: Exposure Scenario

High

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

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 4: Variability and Uncertainty

High

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.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
73

O
c
o

-------
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

Domain 2: Representative

Metric 2: Exposure Scenario

Low

Some data for indoor air and aquatic species but missing de-
tails.

Domain 3: Accessibility/Clarity

Metric 3: Documentation of References

Unacceptable

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

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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.

m
m
73

73
m
<
m

D
73
>

D
O

O
H

O
73

O
c
o

-------
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.

m
m
73
73

Domain 2: Representative
Metric 3:
Metric 4:
Metric 5:

Geographic Area
Sampling / Sampling Size
Response Rate

High
High
Medium

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

No discussion of QC

¦n
H

D
O
z

Domain 4: Variability and Uncertainty

Metric 8: Variability and Uncertainty

N/A

limited discussion

H
O
—1

Overall Quality Determination

Medium

1.7

O
73

Extracted

Yes

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.

-------
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

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

O
73

O
c
o

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

O
73

O
c
o

-------
— 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

O
73

O
c
o

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

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

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.

m
m
XJ

XJ
m
<
m

D
XJ
>

D
O
z
o

H
O
H

O
XJ

O
c
o

-------
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.

-------