PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Draft Risk Evaluation for Carbon Tetrachloride Systematic Review Supplemental File: Data Quality Evaluation of Environmental Fate and Transport Studies xvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention CASRN: 56-23-5 CI CI December 2019 1 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Table of Contents Walton, BT; Hendricks, MS; Anderson, TA; Griest, WH; Merriweather, R; Beauchamp, JJ; Francis, CW. (1992). Soil sorption of volatile and semivolatile organic compounds in a mixture. J Environ Qual 21: 552-558. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeql992.00472425002100040005x HERO ID: 1010287 6 Walton, BT; Hendricks, MS; Anderson, TA; Griest, WH; Merriweather, R; Beauchamp, JJ; Francis, CW. (1992). Soil sorption of volatile and semivolatile organic compounds in a mixture. J Environ Qual 21: 552-558. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeql992.00472425002100040005x HERO ID: 1010287 9 Peng, DL; Dural, NH. (1998). Multicomponent adsorption of chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane on soils. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 43: 283-288. HERO ID: 1184160 12 Peng, DL; Dural, NH. (1998). Multicomponent adsorption of chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane on soils. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 43: 283-288. HERO ID: 1184160 15 Peng, DL; Dural, NH. (1998). Multicomponent adsorption of chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane on soils. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 43: 283-288. HERO ID: 1184160 18 Larsen, T; Kjeldsen, P; Christensen, TH. (1992). Sorption of hydrophobic hydrocarbons on three aquifer materials in a flow through system. Chemosphere 24: 439-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(92)90419-R HERO ID: 1487000 21 Roose, P; Dewulf, J; Brinkman, UAT; Van Langenhove, H. (2001). Measurement of volatile organic compounds in sediments of the Scheldt Estuary and the Southern North Sea. Water Res 35: 1478-1488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043- 1354(00)00410- 3 HERO ID: 1937708 23 Riley, RG; Szecsody, JE; Sklarew, DS; Mitroshkov, AV; Gent, PM; Brown, CF; Thompson, CJ. (2010). Desorption behavior of carbon tetrachloride and chloroform in contaminated low organic carbon aquifer sediments. Chemosphere 79: 807-813. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.03.005 HERO ID: 1940761 26 Harmon, TC; Semprini, L; Roberts, PV. (1992). SIMULATING SOLUTE TRANSPORT USING LABORATORY-BASED SORPTION PARAMETERS. J Environ Eng 118: 666-689. HERO ID: 1960618 28 Tognotti, L; Flytzani-Stephanopoulos, M; Sarofim, AF; Kopsinis, H; Stoukides, M. (1991). STUDY OF ADSORPTION DESORPTION OF CONTAMINANTS ON SINGLE SOIL PARTICLES USING THE ELECTRODYNAMIC THERMOGRAVIMETRIC ANALYZER. Environ Sci Technol 25: 104-109. HERO ID: 1970421 30 Urano, K; Murata, C. (1985). ADSORPTION OF PRINCIPAL CHLORINATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ON SOIL. Chemosphere 14: 3-4. HERO ID: 2801350 33 Rutherford, DW; Chiou, CT. (1992). Effect of water saturation in soil organic matter on the partition of organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 26: 965-970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00029a015 HERO ID: 2802904 35 2 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Endo, S; Grathwohl, P; Haderlein, SB; Schmidt, TC. (2008). Compound-specific factors influencing sorption nonlinearity in natural organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 42: 5897-5903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es8001426 HERO ID: 2881208 38 Happell, JD; Mendoza, Y; Goodwin, K. (2014). A reassessment of the soil sink for atmospheric carbon tetrachloride based upon static flux chamber measurements. J Atmos Chem 71: 113-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0874-014-9285-x HERO ID: 3075144 40 Happell, JD; Roche, MP. (2003). Soils: A global sink of atmospheric carbon tetrachloride. Geophys Res Lett 30: 1088. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015957 HERO ID: 3291288 42 Mackay, DM; Bianchi-Mosquera, G; Kopania, AA; Kianjah, H; Thorbjarnarson, KW. (1994). A forced-gradient experiment on solute transport in the Borden aquifer: 1. Experimental methods and moment analyses of results. Water Resour Res 30: 369- 383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/93WR02651 HERO ID: 3561703 44 Rutherford, DW; Chiou, CT; Kile, DE. (1992). Influence of soil organic matter composition on the partition of organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 26: 336-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00026a014 HERO ID: 3566467 47 Cabbar, HC. (1999). Effects of humidity and soil organic matter on the sorption of chlorinated methanes in synthetic humic-clay complexes. J Hazard Mater 68: 217- 226. HERO ID: 3568131 49 Cabbar, HC; Varol, N; McCoy, BJ. (1998). Sorption and diffusion of chlorinated methanes in moist clay. AIChE J 44: 1351-1355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690440613 HERO ID: 3568132 51 Duffy, CC; McCallister, DL; Renken, RR. (1997). Carbon tetrachloride retention by modern and buried soil A horizons. J Environ Qual 26: 1123-1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeql997.00472425002600040025x HERO ID: 3568766 54 Zhao, XD; Szafranski, MJ; Maraqa, MA; Voice, TC. (1999). Sorption and bioavailability of carbon tetrachloride in a low organic content sandy soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 18: 1755-1762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620180821 HERO ID: 3568897 56 Kile, DE; Chiou, CT; Zhou, HD; Li, H; Xu, OY. (1995). PARTITION OF NONPOLAR ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM WATER TO SOIL AND SEDIMENT ORGANIC MATTERS. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1401-1406. HERO ID: 3569765 58 Kile, DE; Chiou, CT; Zhou, HD; Li, H; Xu, OY. (1995). PARTITION OF NONPOLAR ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM WATER TO SOIL AND SEDIMENT ORGANIC MATTERS. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1401-1406. HERO ID: 3569765 60 Kile, DE; Chiou, CT; Zhou, HD; Li, H; Xu, OY. (1995). PARTITION OF NONPOLAR ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM WATER TO SOIL AND SEDIMENT ORGANIC MATTERS. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1401-1406. HERO ID: 3569765 62 Kile, DE; Chiou, CT; Zhou, HD; Li, H; Xu, OY. (1995). PARTITION OF NONPOLAR ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM WATER TO SOIL AND SEDIMENT ORGANIC MATTERS. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1401-1406. HERO ID: 3569765 64 Rogers, RD; McFarlane, JC. (1981). Sorption of carbon tetrachloride, ethylene dibromide and trichloroethylene in soil and clay. Environ Monit Assess 1: 155-158. HERO ID: 3 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 4140493 66 Dobbs, RA; Wang, L; Govind, R. (1989). Sorption of toxic organic compounds on wastewater solids: Correlation with fundamental properties. Environ Sci Technol 23: 1092-1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00067a004 HERO ID: 4140494 69 Zhao, X; Wallace, RB; Hyndman, DW; Dybas, MJ; Voice, TC. (2005). Heterogeneity of chlorinated hydrocarbon sorption properties in a sandy aquifer. J Contam Hydrol 78: 327-342. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2005.06.002 HERO ID: 540061 71 Ptacek, CJ; Gillham, RW. (1992). Laboratory and field measurements of non- equilibrium transport in the Borden aquifer, Ontario, Canada. J Contam Hydrol 10: 119- 158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-7722(92)90026-B HERO ID: 658777 73 Thibaud, C; Erkey, C; Akgerman, A. (1992). Investigation of adsorption equilibria of volatile organics on soil by frontal analysis chromatography. Environ Sci Technol 26: 1159-1164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es50002a603 HERO ID: 660571 75 Anderson, TA; Beauchamp, JJ; Walton, BT. (1991). FATE OF VOLATILE AND SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC-CHEMICALS IN SOILS - ABIOTIC VERSUS BIOTIC LOSSES. J Environ Qual 20: 420-424. HERO ID: 1982231 77 Bouwer, EJ; McCarty, PL. (1983). Transformations of 1- and 2-carbon halogenated aliphatic organic compounds under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 45: 1286-1294. HERO ID: 18060 80 Bouwer, EJ; McCarty, PL. (1983). Transformations of 1- and 2-carbon halogenated aliphatic organic compounds under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 45: 1286-1294. HERO ID: 18060 83 de Best, JH; Salminen, E; Doddema, HJ; Janssen, DB; Harder, W. (1997). Transformation of carbon tetrachloride under sulfate reducing conditions. Biodegradation 8: 429-436. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1023/A:1008262225760 HERO ID: 1943390 86 Van Eekert, MHA; Schroder, TJ; Stams, AJM; Schraa, G; Field, JA. (1998). Degradation and fate of carbon tetrachloride in unadapted methanogenic granular sludge. Appl Environ Microbiol 64: 2350-2356. HERO ID: 2531116 89 Tabak, HH; Quave, SA; Mashni, CI; Barth, EF. (1981). Biodegradability studies with organic priority pollutant compounds. J Water Pollut Control Fed 53: 1503-1518. HERO ID: 9861 92 Mabey, W; Mill, T. (1978). Critical review of hydrolysis of organic compounds in water under environmental conditions [Review]. J Phys Chem Ref Data 7: 383-415. HERO ID: 9848 95 Walton, BT; Anderson, TA; Hendricks, MS; Talmage, SS. (1989). Physicochemical properties as predictors of organic chemical effects on soil microbial respiration. Environ Toxicol Chem 8: 53-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620080107 HERO ID: 1010979 99 U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Estimation Programs Interface Suite™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11 [Computer Program]. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation- program- interface. HERO ID: 2347246 102 4 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Chen, WH; Yang, WB; Yuan, CS; Yang, JC; Zhao, QL. (2014). Fates of chlorinated volatile organic compounds in aerobic biological treatment processes: the effects of aeration and sludge addition. Chemosphere 103: 92-98. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.ll.039 HERO ID: 2799543 105 Ma, X; Burken, JG. (2002). VOCs fate and partitioning in vegetation: Use of tree cores in groundwater analysis. Environ Sci Technol 36: 4663-4668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es025795j HERO ID: 36471 108 Kriegman-King, MR; Reinhard, M. (1991). Abiotic transformation of carbon tetrachloride in the presence of sulfide and mineral surfaces. (EPA/600/R-94/018). Kriegman-King, MR; Reinhard, M. HERO ID: 4140338 110 Molina, MJ; Rowland, FS. (1974). Predicted present stratospheric abundances of chlorine species from photodissociation of carbon tetrachloride. Geophys Res Lett 1: 309-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/GL001i007p00309 HERO ID: 194521 113 Hubrich, C; Stuhl, F. (1980). The ultraviolet absorption of some halogenated methanes and ethanes of atmospheric interest. J Photochem 12: 93-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2670(80)85031-3 HERO ID: 4140305 115 Cox, RA; Derwent, RG; Eggleton, AEJ; Lovelock, JE. (1976). Photochemical oxidation of halocarbons in the troposphere. Atmos Environ 10: 305-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(76)90170-0 HERO ID: 9830 117 Doong, RA; Wu, SC. (1992). Reductive dechlorination of chlorinated hydrocarbons in aqueous solutions containing ferrous and sulfide ions. Chemosphere 24: 1063-1075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(92)90197-Y HERO ID: 3561878 119 5 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Walton, BT; Hendricks, MS; Anderson, TA; Griest, WH; Merriweather, R; Beauchamp, JJ; Francis, CW. (1992). Soil sorption of volatile and semivolatile organic compounds in a mixture. J Environ Qual 21: 552-558. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeql992.00472425002100040005x HERO ID: 1010287 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name and CASRN. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Not rated The test substance source and purity were cited to another reference. NR NR NR Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated A concurrent control was not needed for the adsorption experiment. NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability was accounted for and appropriate for the study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance; the target chemical was tested at concentrations below its aqueous solubility. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Temperature was not reported. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High Test conditions were consistent across samples and study groups. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design Medium Equilibrium was reported but without supporting details. 2 1 2 6 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment methodology addressed soil adsorption. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Discrepancies noted between sample collection and sample loss. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium Loss of volatile product was discussed; implications of studying a mixture instead of each chemical individually was not discussed. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Percent recovery and mass balance information were reported. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High Statistical calculations were performed and discussed. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 16 15 20 7 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.33 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High1 1 Study also reported inECHA (HERO ID 3970701, ECHA. Adsorption/desorption: Carbon tetrachloride. 2017.) 8 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Walton, BT; Hendricks, MS; Anderson, TA; Griest, WH; Merriweather, R; Beauchamp, JJ; Francis, CW. (1992). Soil sorption of volatile and semivolatile organic compounds in a mixture. J Environ Qual 21: 552-558. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeql992.00472425002100040005x HERO ID: 1010287 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name and CASRN. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Not rated The test substance source and purity were cited to another reference. NR NR NR Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated A concurrent control was not needed for this adsorption experiment. NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability was accounted for and appropriate for the study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance; the target chemical was tested at concentrations below its aqueous solubility. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Temperature was not reported. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High Test conditions were consistent across samples and study groups. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design Medium Equilibrium was reported but without supporting details. 2 1 2 9 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment methodology addressed soil adsorption. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Discrepancies were noted between sample collection and sample loss. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium Loss of volatile product was discussed; implications of studying a mixture instead of each chemical individually was not discussed. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Percent recovery and mass balance information were reported. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High Statistical calculations were performed and discussed. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 16 15 20 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.33 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 10 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High1 1 Study also reported inECHA (HERO ID 3970701, ECHA. Adsorption/desorption: Carbon tetrachloride. 2017.) 11 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Peng, DL; Dural, NH. (1998). Multicomponent adsorption of chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane on soils. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 43: 283-288. HERO ID: 1184160 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Data for study controls was not reported. 3 2 6 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability and preparation were reported. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High Testing conditions were reported and appropriate for the method. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High Duplicates were tested; no inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 12. Sampling Methods Medium Some details were limited; however, this did not limit the interpretation of the results. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements and between study groups were reported in the study and were considered or accounted for in data evaluation. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low Loss due to other processes was not strictly ruled out (volatilization mass balance; biotic control not included) and analytical details were not reported in this study. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High The analysis of data was clearly described, and the standard error was reported. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium The study results were reasonable data; however, due to limited information evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results for competitive adsorption was not possible. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 21 18 29 13 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.61 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: No controls or analytical details were reported. 14 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Peng, DL; Dural, NH. (1998). Multicomponent adsorption of chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane on soils. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 43: 283-288. HERO ID: 1184160 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Data for study controls was not reported. 3 2 6 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability and preparation were reported. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High Testing conditions were reported and appropriate for the method. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High Duplicates were tested; no inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 15 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 12. Sampling Methods Medium Some details were limited; however, this did not limit the interpretation of the results. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements and between study groups were reported in the study and were considered or accounted for in data evaluation. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low Loss due to other processes was not strictly ruled out (volatilization, mass balance; biotic control not included) and analytical details were not reported in this study. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High The analysis of data was clearly described, and the standard error was reported. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium The study results were reasonable data; however, due to limited information evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results for competitive adsorption was not possible. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 21 18 29 16 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.61 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: No controls or analytical details were reported. 17 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Peng, DL; Dural, NH. (1998). Multicomponent adsorption of chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane on soils. Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data 43: 283-288. HERO ID: 1184160 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Data for study controls was not reported. 3 2 6 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability and preparation were reported. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High Testing conditions were reported and appropriate for the method. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High Duplicates were tested; no inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 18 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 12. Sampling Methods Medium Some details were limited; however, this did not limit the interpretation of the results. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements and between study groups were reported in the study and were considered or accounted for in data evaluation. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low Loss due to other processes was not strictly ruled out (volatilization, mass balance; biotic control not included) and analytical details were not reported in this study. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High The analysis of data was clearly described, and the standard error was reported. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium Due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results for competitive adsorption was not possible. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 19 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Sum of scores: 21 18 29 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.61 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: No controls or analytical details were reported. 20 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Larsen, T; Kjeldsen, P; Christensen, TH. (1992). Sorption of hydrophobic hydrocarbons on three aquifer materials in a flow through system. Chemosphere 24: 439-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(92)90419-R HERO ID: 1487000 Domain Metric Qualitative Comments Metric Metric Weighted Determination Score Weighting Score [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Factor Unacceptable, or Not rated] Test 1. Test High The test substance 1 2 2 Substance Substance Identity was identified by chemical name. 2. Test High The test substance 1 1 1 Substance Purity purity was reported (analytical grade); source not provided. Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated The study did not require concurrent control groups. NR NR NR 4. Test Medium The test substance 2 1 2 Substance Stability preparation and storage conditions were not reported but their omission was unlikely to have impacted the study results. Test 5. Test Method High The test method 1 1 1 Conditions Suitability was suitable for the test substance. 6. Testing Conditions High Testing conditions were reported and appropriate for the method. 1 2 2 7. Testing Medium Sample inlet 2 1 2 Consistency concentrations were reported with a coefficient of variation of 10%. 8. System Type and Design Medium Some system design details were not provided; however, references cited may contain more information. 2 1 2 Test 9. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organisms Organism Degradation applicable to this study type. 10. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organism Partitioning applicable to this study type. Outcome 11. Outcome Medium The Kd specific to 2 1 2 Assessment Assessment Methodology carbon tetrachloride was not reported. 21 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ 13. Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Variable Control Confounding Variables applicable to this study type. 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to applicable to this Exposure study type. Data 15. Data Medium Quantitative Kd 2 2 4 Presentation Reporting data for carbon and Analysis tetrachloride were not reported; however, Rf was reported. 16. Statistical High The analysis of data 1 1 1 Methods and was clearly Kinetic described. Calculations Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study since results (Kd) were not reported. NR NR NR 18. QSAR Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Models applicable to this study type. Sum of scores: 16 14 20 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.43 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High1 Quantitative Kd data for carbon tetrachloride was not reported; however, the Rf was reported. 22 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Roose, P; Dewulf, J; Brinkman, UAT; Van Langenhove, H. (2001). Measurement of volatile organic compounds in sediments of the Scheldt Estuary and the Southern North Sea. Water Res 35: 1478-1488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043- 1354(00)00410-3 HERO ID: 1937708 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls High A blank control group was included. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability and preparation were reported. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Medium The study method reported was for collecting monitoring samples and analytical method development. 2 1 2 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing conditions (soil details) were not provided; however, the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 23 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Log Koc data were reported. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High The analysis of data was clearly described. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High The study results were reasonable; noted that upon comparison of calculation of mass fractions in situ partitioning into the sediment layer and the water column was higher than expected from equilibrium partitioning calculations from measured monitoring data. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 16 18 21 24 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.17 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.2 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 25 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Riley, RG; Szecsody, JE; Sklarew, DS; Mitroshkov, AV; Gent, PM; Brown, CF; Thompson, CJ. (2010). Desorption behavior of carbon tetrachloride and chloroform in contaminated low organic carbon aquifer sediments. Chemosphere 79: 807-813. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.03.005 HERO ID: 1940761 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium Source was from contaminated site; no CC14 reference standard was indicated. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Data for study controls was not reported. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability was considered in this study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High Testing conditions were reported and appropriate for the method. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 26 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Data were reported for site (specific) contaminated sediments after an extended contact time. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High The analysis of data was clearly described. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium Due to limited information (no CC14 reference standard), evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 18 18 24 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.33 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 27 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Harmon, TC; Semprini, L; Roberts, PV. (1992). SIMULATING SOLUTE TRANSPORT USING LABORATORY-BASED SORPTION PARAMETERS. J Environ Eng 118: 666- 689. HERO ID: 1960618 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Low Source and purity were not reported or verified by analytical means. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls High Sterilized soil was used in this study. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability Medium The test substance preparation details may be available in referenced sources but were not reported. Their omission is unlikely to have impacted the study results. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Low Details for testing conditions were not specified in this study. 3 2 6 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 28 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Some details were limited; however, this did not limit the interpretation of the results. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Analytical details were omitted; concentrations of test material and mass balance were not reported. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Some information on data analysis was omitted and the lack of information may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium Due to limited information evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 23 17 30 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.76 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.8 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Medium 29 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Tognotti, L; Flytzani-Stephanopoulos, M; Sarofim, AF; Kopsinis, H; Stoukides, M. (1991). STUDY OF ADSORPTION DESORPTION OF CONTAMINANTS ON SINGLE SOIL PARTICLES USING THE ELECTRODYNAMIC THERMOGRAVIMETRIC ANALYZER Environ Sci Technol 25: 104-109. HERO ID: 1970421 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Low Source and purity were not reported or verified. 3k 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Data for study controls was not reported. 3 2 6 4. Test Substance Stability Low The test substance stability, preparation and storage conditions were not reported, and these factors may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Unacceptable The test method was not relevant to conceptual model for this compound. 4 1 4 6. Testing Conditions Low Details for testing conditions were not specified in this study. 3 2 6 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design Unacceptable The system type and design were not relevant to conceptual model for this compound. 4 1 4 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 30 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Unacceptable This outcome is not relevant to the conceptual model for this compound. 4 1 4 12. Sampling Methods Low Details regarding sampling methods were not fully reported, and the omissions were likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low Some analytical details were not provided in this study. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Statistical analysis or kinetic calculations were not fully described, and the omissions may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 38 17 48 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.82 Overall Score (Rounded): 4 31 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Unacceptable1 'This study is not relevant to the conceptual model for carbon tetrachloride. Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk 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, three of the metrics were rated as unacceptable. As such, the study is considered unacceptable and the score is presented solely to increase transparency. 32 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Urano, K; Murata, C. (1985). ADSORPTION OF PRINCIPAL CHLORINATED ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ON SOIL. Chemosphere 14: 3-4. HERO ID: 2801350 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Low Source and purity of chemicals used in this study were not reported. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Data for study controls were not reported; use of sterile soil was not reported. 3 2 6 4. Test Substance Stability Medium The test substance preparation and storage conditions were not reported; however, these factors were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Low Details for testing conditions, soil characteristics and sources were not specified in this study. 3 2 6 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Not rated The metric is not applicable to this NR NR NR 33 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Partitioning study type. Outcome 11. Outcome High The outcome 1 1 1 Assessment Assessment Methodology assessment was appropriate for this study. 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ 13. Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Variable Control Confounding Variables applicable to this study type. 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to applicable to this Exposure study type. Data 15. Data Low Reporting details 3 2 6 Presentation Reporting were omitted from and Analysis this study (e.g., mass balance, analytical LOD, soil sources). 16. Statistical Low Statistical analysis or 3 1 3 Methods and kinetic calculations Kinetic were not fully Calculations described, and the omissions may have had a substantial impact on the study results. Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Omitted details hindered the evaluation of the validity of the results. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Models applicable to this study type. Sum of scores: 26 17 36 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.12 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.1 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Medium 34 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Rutherford, DW; Chiou, CT. (1992). Effect of water saturation in soil organic matter on the partition of organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 26: 965-970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00029a015 HERO ID: 2802904 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Sterile controls groups were not reported; however, lack of data was not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance preparation was reported and appropriate for the study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing conditions were not provided; however, the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 35 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Quantitative results were not reported; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2i 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Some details were omitted; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 18 18 25 36 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.39 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High1 ^previous study was cited for several details, HERO ID 3566467, Rutherford, D. W., et al. (1992). "Influence of soil organic matter composition on the partition of organic compounds." Enviromnental Science and Technology. 26(2): 336-340. 37 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Endo, S; Grathwohl, P; Haderlein, SB; Schmidt, TC. (2008). Compound-specific factors influencing sorption nonlinearity in natural organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 42: 5897- 5903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es8001426 HERO ID: 2881208 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance purity was reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls High Controls with CT but no sorbent was included in the study. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance preparation was reported in this study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing conditions were not provided; however, the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 38 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Medium This study was not specifically an adsorption/desorption study. 2 1 2 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Limited details were reported; Koc only reported for one 'high' concentration in one soil (concentrations not specified). 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High The analysis of data was clearly described. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 17 18 23 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.28 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 39 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Happell, JD; Mendoza, Y; Goodwin, K. (2014). A reassessment of the soil sink for atmospheric carbon tetrachloride based upon static flux chamber measurements. J Atmos Chem 71: 113-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0874-014-9285-x. HERO II): 3075144 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Low Source and purity of chemicals used in this study were not reported. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Controls groups were not reported; however, lack of data was not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability was considered in this study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Limited details were provided on ambient conditions and soil characteristics, although the report indicated that they were measured. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 40 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Medium This study was not specifically an adsorption/desorption study. 2 1 2 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Limited details were reported about the sampling sites and analytical method. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Statistical analysis or kinetic calculations were not fully described, and the omissions may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 22 18 29 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.61 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.6 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 41 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Happell, JD; Roche, MP. (2003). Soils: A global sink of atmospheric carbon tetrachloride. Geophys Res Lett 30: 1088. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015957. HERO ID: 3291288 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Low Source and purity of chemicals used in this study were not reported. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls High Appropriate controls were included. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability was considered in this study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Low Limited details on ambient conditions and soil characteristics were reported. 3 2 6 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Medium This study was not specifically an adsorption/desorption study. 2 1 2 42 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Appropriate; limitations of representative constant k and effective diffusion coefficient were discussed in this study. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Limited details were reported about the sampling sites and analytical method. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Limited calculation details were reported (analytical error ±2%), but this was not likely to have impacted the study results. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium Partial lifetime calculation was based on 2 weeks of monitoring data from several different regions. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 22 18 29 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.61 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.6 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High1 Partial lifetime calculation based on 2 weeks monitoring data from several different regions. 43 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Mackay, DM; Bianchi-Mosquera, G; Kopania, AA; Kianjah, H; Thorbjarnarson, KW. (1994). A forced-gradient experiment on solute transport in the Borden aquifer: 1. Experimental methods and moment analyses of results. Water Resour Res 30: 369-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/93WR02651. HERO ID: 3561703 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium The test substance source and purity information were general. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Concurrent control group details were not included; however, the lack of data was not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Medium The test substance preparation and storage conditions were not reported; however, these factors were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Limited details were reported; however, this did not limit the interpretation of the results 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 44 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium There were omissions in the aquifer characteristics and analytical details; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Statistical analysis or kinetic calculations were not fully described, and the omissions may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 45 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium Study results were reasonable although results calculated from the retardation factors, assuming that the measured bulk density and porosity were constants throughout the aquifer. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 22 18 29 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.61 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.6 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 46 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Rutherford, DW; Chiou, CT; Kile, DE. (1992). Influence of soil organic matter composition on the partition of organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 26: 336-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00026a014 HERO ID: 3566467 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Sterile controls were not reported. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance preparation was reported and appropriate for the study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing conditions were not provided; however, the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 47 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Some data details were omitted. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Some information on data analysis was omitted and the lack of information may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 18 18 25 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.39 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 48 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Cabbar, HC. (1999). Effects of humidity and soil organic matter on the sorption of chlorinated methanes in synthetic humic-clay complexes. J Hazard Mater 68: 217-226. HERO ID: 3568131 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium The test substance source and purity were not clearly reported. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated The study did not require concurrent control groups. NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability Low Details were not reported. 3 1 3 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Low The test method was not environmentally relevant; the procedure was cited to another source. 3 1 3 6. Testing Conditions Low Details for testing conditions were not specified in this study. 3 2 6 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Low Details regarding sampling methods were not fully reported, and the omissions were likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 49 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to applicable to this Exposure study type. Data 15. Data Low Analytical details 3 2 6 Presentation and Analysis Reporting were not provided; concentration of CT was not reported. 16. Statistical Low Some information on 3 1 3 Methods and data analysis was Kinetic omitted and the lack Calculations of information may have had a substantial impact on the study results. Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium Due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Models applicable to this study type. Sum of scores: 27 16 34 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.12 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Study details were not provided, and results were not environmentally relevant. 50 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Cabbar, HC; Varol, N; McCoy, BJ. (1998). Sorption and diffusion of chlorinated methanes in moist clay. AIChE J 44: 1351-1355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690440613 HERO ID: 3568132 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Low The test substance was not reported or verified by analytical methods. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Data for study controls were not reported. 3 2 6 4. Test Substance Stability Low The test substance preparation and storage conditions were not reported, and these factors may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Medium Some test method details were not provided; however, the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. An apparatus figure was included. 2 1 2 6. Testing Conditions Low Details for testing conditions were not specified in this study. 3 2 6 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 51 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 8. System Type and Design Medium Some system design details were not provided; however, references cited may contain more information. 2 1 2 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Some details were limited; however, this did not limit the interpretation of the results. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low There was insufficient evidence presented to confirm that parent compound disappearance was not likely due to some other process. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Some information on data analysis was omitted and the lack of information may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 52 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Due to limited information evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 31 18 41 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.28 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low 53 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Duffy, CC; McCallister, DL; Renken, RR (1997). Carbon tetrachloride retention by modern and buried soil A horizons. J Environ Qual 26: 1123-1127. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/jeql997.00472425002600040025x HERO ID: 3568766 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance purity was not reported; however, radioactivity was verified by analytical methods. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Data for study controls was not reported. 3 2 6 4. Test Substance Stability High The study considered the potential for volatility. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some details were omitted (pH and temp); however, sufficient data were reported to determine that these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 54 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Kd (whole soil), Kd organic-free, and log Koc were determined and reported for each soil horizon. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High The analysis of data was clearly described. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium The study results were reasonable; however, they were not compared/contrasted to experimental controls. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 18 18 25 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.39 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 55 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Zhao, XD; Szafranski, MJ; Maraqa, MA; Voice, TC. (1999). Sorption and bioavailability of carbon tetrachloride in a low organic content sandy soil. Environ Toxicol Chem 18: 1755- 1762. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620180821 HERO ID: 3568897 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Low The test substance source and purity were not reported. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls High Data results were corrected for sampling and analysis recovery and microbial controls were included. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability Medium The test substance preparation and storage conditions were not reported but their omission was unlikely to had impacted the study results. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some details were omitted for soil characteristics and testing parameters; however, this was not likely to have hindered the interpretation of the results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation High Test organism information was reported. 1 2 2 56 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Effluent and soil- phase CT concentrations were reported over time. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low No statistical methods or kinetic calculations were reported. 3 1 3 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 21 20 27 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.35 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 57 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Kile, DE; Chiou, CT; Zhou, HD Li, H; Xu, OY. (1995). PARTITION OF NONPOLAR Reference: ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM WATER TO SOIL AND SEDIMENT ORGANIC MATTERS. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1401-1406. HERO ID: 3569765 Domain Metric Qualitative Comments Metric Metric Weighted Determination Score Weighting Score [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Factor Unacceptable, or Not rated] Test 1. Test High The test substance 1 2 2 Substance Substance Identity was identified by chemical name. 2. Test High The test substance 1 1 1 Substance source and purity Purity were reported. Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium No controls were included; however, 1,2-dichlorobenzene was analyzed alongside CT with reasonable results. 2 2 4 4. Test Medium Specific 2 1 2 Substance concentrations of test Stability substance were not reported; "various quantities of CT in stock solutions introduced." Test 5. Test High The test method was 1 1 1 Conditions Method Suitability suitable for the test substance. 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing condition details were omitted. Specific soil details other than location and OC were not included such as pH, moisture level, size distribution of particles; however, several types were analyzed with reasonable and comparable results. 2 2 4 7. Testing High No inconsistencies 1 1 1 Consistency were reported or identified. 8. System Type and High System design was reported and 1 1 1 Design appropriate. Test 9. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organisms Organism Degradation applicable to this study type. 58 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organism Partitioning applicable to this study type. Outcome 11. Outcome High The outcome 1 1 1 Assessment Assessment Methodology assessment was appropriate for this study. 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to applicable to this Exposure study type. Data 15. Data Low No details on specific 3 2 6 Presentation Reporting GC methods or and Analysis extraction efficiency were reported and mass balance was not provided. 16. Statistical Medium Detailed statistical 2 1 2 Methods and analysis of results Kinetic Calculations was not provided. Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Omitted details hindered the validity of the results; however, no serious study deficiencies were identified. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Models applicable to this study type. Sum of scores: 21 17 29 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.71 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Limited data was reported; no details on specific GC methods, extraction efficiency, mass balance or controls. 59 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Kile, DE; Chiou, CT; Zhou, HD; Li, H; Xu, OY. (1995). PARTITION OF NONPOLAR Reference: ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM WATER TO SOIL AND SEDIMENT ORGANIC MATTERS. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1401-1406. HERO ID: 3569765 Domain Metric Qualitative Comments Metric Metric Weighted Determination Score Weighting Score [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Factor Unacceptable, or Not rated] Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test High The test substance 1 1 1 Substance source and purity Purity were reported. Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium No controls were included; however, 1,2-dichlorobenzene was analyzed alongside CT with reasonable results. 2 2 4 4. Test Medium Specific 2 1 2 Substance concentrations of test Stability substance were not reported; "various quantities of CT in stock solutions introduced." Test 5. Test High The test method was 1 1 1 Conditions Method Suitability suitable for the test substance. 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing condition details were omitted. Specific soil details other than location and OC were not included such as pH, moisture level, size distribution of particles; however, several types were analyzed with reasonable and comparable results. 2 2 4 7. Testing High No inconsistencies 1 1 1 Consistency were reported or identified. 8. System Type and High System design was reported and 1 1 1 Design appropriate. Test 9. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organisms Organism Degradation applicable to this study type. 10. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR 60 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Organism Partitioning applicable to this study type. Outcome 11. Outcome High The outcome 1 1 1 Assessment Assessment Methodology assessment was appropriate for this study. 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable 13. Confounding Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR Control Variables 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to Exposure applicable to this study type. Data 15. Data Low No details on specific 3 2 6 Presentation Reporting GC methods or and Analysis extraction efficiency were reported and mass balance was not provided. 16. Statistical Medium Detailed statistical 2 1 2 Methods and analysis of results Kinetic Calculations was not provided. Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Omitted details hindered the validity of the results; however, no serious study deficiencies were identified. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Models applicable to this study type. Sum of scores: 21 17 29 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.71 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Limited data was reported; no details on specific GC methods, extraction efficiency, mass balance or controls. 61 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Kile, DE; Chiou, CT; Zhou, HD; Li, H; Xu, OY. (1995). PARTITION OF NONPOLAR Reference: ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM WATER TO SOIL AND SEDIMENT ORGANIC MATTERS. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1401-1406. HERO ID: 3569765 Domain Metric Qualitative Comments Metric Metric Weighted Determination Score Weighting Score [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Factor Unacceptable, or Not rated] Test 1. Test High The test substance 1 2 2 Substance Substance Identity was identified by chemical name. 2. Test High The test substance 1 1 1 Substance source and purity Purity were reported. Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium No controls were included; however, 1,2-dichlorobenzene was analyzed alongside CT with reasonable results. 2 2 4 4. Test Medium Specific 2 1 2 Substance concentrations of test Stability substance were not reported; "various quantities of CT in stock solutions introduced." Test 5. Test High The test method was 1 1 1 Conditions Method Suitability suitable for the test substance. 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing condition details were omitted. Specific soil details other than location and OC were not included such as pH, moisture level, size distribution of particles; however, several types were analyzed with reasonable and comparable results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and High System design was reported and 1 1 1 Design appropriate. Test 9. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organisms Organism Degradation applicable to this study type. 62 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organism Partitioning applicable to this study type. Outcome 11. Outcome High The outcome 1 1 1 Assessment Assessment Methodology assessment was appropriate for this study. 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to applicable to this Exposure study type. Data 15. Data Low No details on specific 3 2 6 Presentation Reporting GC methods or and Analysis extraction efficiency were reported and mass balance was not provided. 16. Statistical Medium Detailed statistical 2 1 2 Methods and analysis of results Kinetic Calculations was not provided. Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Omitted details hindered the validity of the results; however, no serious study deficiencies were identified. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Models applicable to this study type. Sum of scores: 21 17 29 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.71 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Limited data was reported; no details on specific GC methods, extraction efficiency, mass balance or controls. 63 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Kile, DE; Chiou, CT; Zhou, HD; Li, H; Xu, OY. (1995). PARTITION OF NONPOLAR Reference: ORGANIC POLLUTANTS FROM WATER TO SOIL AND SEDIMENT ORGANIC MATTERS. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1401-1406. HERO ID: 3569765 Domain Metric Qualitative Comments Metric Metric Weighted Determination Score Weighting Score [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Factor Unacceptable, or Not rated] Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test High The test substance 1 1 1 Substance source and purity Purity were reported. Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium No controls were included; however, 1,2-dichlorobenzene was analyzed alongside CT with reasonable results. 2 2 4 4. Test Medium Specific 2 1 2 Substance concentrations of test Stability substance were not reported; "various quantities of CT in stock solutions introduced." Test 5. Test High The test method was 1 1 1 Conditions Method Suitability suitable for the test substance. 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing condition details were omitted. Specific soil details other than location and OC were not included such as pH, moisture level, size distribution of particles; however, several types were analyzed with reasonable and comparable results. 2 2 4 7. Testing High No inconsistencies 1 1 1 Consistency were reported or identified. 8. System Type and High System design was reported and 1 1 1 Design appropriate. Test 9. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organisms Organism Degradation applicable to this study type. 10. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR 64 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Organism Partitioning applicable to this study type. Outcome 11. Outcome High The outcome 1 1 1 Assessment Assessment Methodology assessment was appropriate for this study. 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable 13. Confounding Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR Control Variables 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to applicable to this Exposure study type. Data 15. Data Low No details on specific 3 2 6 Presentation Reporting GC methods or and Analysis extraction efficiency were reported and mass balance was not provided. 16. Statistical Medium Detailed statistical 2 1 2 Methods and analysis of results Kinetic Calculations was not provided. Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Omitted details hindered the validity of the results; however, no serious study deficiencies were identified. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Models applicable to this study type. Sum of scores: 21 17 29 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.71 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Limited data was reported; no details on specific GC methods, extraction efficiency, mass balance or controls. 65 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Rogers, RD; McFarlane, JC. (1981). Sorption of carbon tetrachloride, ethylene dibromide and trichloroethylene in soil and clay. Environ Monit Assess 1: 155-158. HERO ID: 4140493 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and the radiolabel activity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Specific controls were not included; however, sufficient data were presented with regards to other loss processes and additional chemicals were tested. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability High Concentration and preparation of stock test solution were reported. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Medium Some test method details were not provided; however, the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing conditions were not provided; however, the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 66 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 8. System Type and Design Medium Some system design details were not provided; however, references cited may contain more information. 2 1 2 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Low Sampling method details were not described but were unlikely to have impacted the results. 3 1 3 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium Limited data were available (sampling and analytical results) to assess this metric; however, a reasonable R- squared was reported. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Sampling and analytical details and results were not reported. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High The analysis of data was clearly described. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium Sorption was much lower than predicted by mathematical models. 2 1 2 67 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 23 18 30 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.67 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Medium 68 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Dobbs, RA; Wang, L; Govind, R (1989). Sorption of toxic organic compounds on wastewater solids: Correlation with fundamental properties. Environ Sci Technol 23: 1092- 1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es00067a004 HERO ID: 4140494 Domain Metric Qualitative Comments Metric Metric Weighted Determination Score Weighting Score [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Factor Unacceptable, or Not rated] Test 1. Test High The test substance 1 2 2 Substance Substance Identity was identified by chemical name and CASRN. 2. Test Medium The test substance 2 1 2 Substance specific source and Purity purity not clearly reported. Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Minor loss was indicated in concentrations reported for equilibration experiments with standards and whole samples; the discussion indicated that no significant loss was due to volatilization or biodegradation and differences were discussed. 2 2 4 4. Test High The test substance 1 1 1 Substance Stability stability was considered in this study. Test 5. Test High The test method was 1 1 1 Conditions Method Suitability suitable for the test substance. 6. Testing Conditions High Testing conditions were reported and appropriate for the method. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and High System design was reported and 1 1 1 Design appropriate. Test 9. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organisms Organism Degradation applicable to this study type. 69 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organism Partitioning applicable to this study type. Outcome 11. Outcome High The outcome 1 1 1 Assessment Assessment Methodology assessment was appropriate for this study. 12. Sampling Medium Some details were 2 1 2 Methods limited; however, this did not limit the interpretation of the results. Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to applicable to this Exposure study type. Data 15. Data Medium Concentrations for 2 2 4 Presentation Reporting the test substance and Analysis over time were not reported. 16. Statistical High The analysis of data 1 1 1 Methods and was clearly Kinetic described. Calculations Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Models applicable to this study type. Sum of scores: 18 18 24 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.33 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 70 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Zhao, X; Wallace, RB; Hyndman, DW; Dybas, MJ; Voice, TC. (2005). Heterogeneity of chlorinated hydrocarbon sorption properties in a sandy aquifer. J Contam Hydrol 78: 327- 342. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/i.iconhyd.2005.06.002 HERO ID: 540061 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Low The test substance source and purity were not reported. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated The study did not require concurrent control groups. NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability Low The test substance preparation and storage conditions were not reported, and these factors may have had a substantial impact on the study results. 3 1 3 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance and an appropriate ASTM method citied. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some testing conditions were not provided; however, the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High Replicate samples were included and the reported R- squared was acceptable. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 71 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling (headspace analysis) was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Sorption distribution coefficient (Kd) and LOD were reported. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High The analysis of data was clearly described. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 17 15 21 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.4 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 72 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Ptacek, CJ; Gillham, RW. (1992). Laboratory and field measurements of non- equilibrium transport in the Borden aquifer, Ontario, Canada. J Contam Hydrol 10: 119-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-7722(92)90026-8. HERO ID: 658777 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance purity was reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Data for study controls was not reported. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability and preparation were reported. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High Testing conditions were reported and appropriate for the method. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design Medium Loss due to volatilization was noted in this study during sampling. 2 1 2 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The outcome assessment was appropriate for this study. 1 1 1 73 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Kd values and retardation factors were reported. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High R-squared and 95% CI were reported; the analysis of data was clearly described. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 16 18 21 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.17 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.2 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 74 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Thibaud, C; Erkey, C; Akgerman, A. (1992). Investigation of adsorption equilibria of volatile organics on soil by frontal analysis chromatography. Environ Sci Technol 26: 1159- 1164. http://dx.doi.org/KL1021/es50002a603 HERO ID: 660571 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Low Data for study controls was not reported. 3 2 6 4. Test Substance Stability High The test substance stability was considered in this study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High The test method was suitable for the test substance. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High Testing conditions were reported and appropriate for the method. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Medium Adsorption isotherms and the desorption profiles were reported. 2 1 2 75 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the study were considered and accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Mass balance was reported. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Statistical analysis of results not included. 3 1 3 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium The study results were reasonable; however, they were not compared/contrasted to experimental controls. 2 1 2 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 20 18 26 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.44 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 76 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Anderson, TA; Beauchamp, JJ; Walton, BT. (1991). FATE OF VOLATILE AND SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC-CHEMICALS IN SOILS - ABIOTIC VERSUS BIOTIC LOSSES. J Environ Qual 20: 420-424. HERO ID: 1982231 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium The test substance source and purity were not reported; however, the information was referenced and could be obtained from another source. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Sterile controls were used to examine abiotic loss and appeared to be a factor in the half-life calculation, while the results were discussed, the data points were not reported. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Low Loss of material was attributed, in part, to pre-analysis storage conditions; this uncertainty was likely to have had an impact on the results. 3 1 3 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported or identified. 1 1 1 77 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 8. System Type and Design High System design was reported and appropriate. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation High The soil sources were reported, and biological activity was confirmed. 1 2 2 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Medium The half-life appears to be an average of all processes, biotic and abiotic; these processes were tested separately yet the data were not reported. Loss was also attributed to pre- analysis storage conditions (degree that sampling/loss due to volatilization affected the results is not directly accounted for) and/or to irreversible partitioning to soil organic matter. 2 1 2 12. Sampling Methods Low There were problems with sampling and storage conditions that may have had an impact on concentrations measured during sampling and may have interfered with study results; data points and % recovery were not reported. 3 1 3 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Low Lack of recovery was noted and said to have possibly occurred due to pre- analysis storage conditions or to irreversible partitioning to soil organic matter. 3 1 3 78 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low There was insufficient evidence presented to confirm that parent compound disappearance was not likely due to some other process. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Kinetic expression was appropriate; however, it is unclear with respect to individual test results for different soil types and sterile controls. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High Results verification and plausibility were considered, see Metric 3 and 15. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 27 20 34 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.75 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.8 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Medium 79 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Bouwer, EJ; McCarty, PL. (1983). Transformations of 1- and 2-carbon halogenated aliphatic organic compounds under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 45: 1286-1294. HERO ID: 18060 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by common name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported (reagent grade). 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium A blank control was run. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Not reported; however, these factors were not likely to have influenced the test substance. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High Relevant conditions to the test were outlined. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High Substrates in the test were all added to the same apparatus, and therefore, all experienced the same test conditions. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 80 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation High Inoculum source was clearly identified. Organism were not clearly identified but epifluorescence and scanning electron microscopy results were described. 1 2 2 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Concentrations of the starting material and transformation products were reported. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High Specific rates were not calculated, although the capability of the methanogenic column to transform CT over the course of the 2- day retention time was demonstrated. 1 1 1 81 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated Testing conditions were monitored, reported, and appropriate for the method; this study provided a large amount of data to show the capability of a methanogenic mixed culture to transform low- molecular- weight haloaliphatic compounds, including CT, using acetate as the primary substrate. Apparatus diagrams were well explained and greatly helped to support the methodology. Possible transformation mechanisms were also proposed and rationalized based on data from the several tests conducted in this study. NR NR NR 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 16 19 22 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.16 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.2 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 82 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Bouwer, EJ; McCarty, PL. (1983). Transformations of 1- and 2-carbon halogenated aliphatic organic compounds under methanogenic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 45: 1286-1294. HERO ID: 18060 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by common name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity (reagent grade) were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls High Testing conditions were monitored, reported, and appropriate for the method; unseeded sterile controls were used for comparison with each haloalkane tested. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study; samples were kept in the dark, although CT is "generally inert" (HSDB). 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study; tested at 149 ug/L, well below the experimental water solubility of 700 mg/L at 25 °C. 1 1 1 83 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 6. Testing Conditions High Testing conditions details were reported, for example pH was not adjusted and anaerobic conditions were reported. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported across studies. Conditions were well reported. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation High Inoculum source was clearly described. Inoculum concentration was reported (10 mL/L). 1 2 2 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High Concentration of the starting material was measured with GC, which demonstrated the ability (or lack thereof) of the bacteria to transform the test item. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High Degradation rates were not reported for this part of the study, but sampling methods were sufficient for determining the ability of the bacteria to transform the starting material at all. 1 1 1 84 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Medium Uncertainties of one standard deviation were given for concentration measurements for the haloalkanes. No variability between tests was noted in the study. 2 1 2 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Not rated Percent recovery was reported to be 100+/- 3 for CT. Sufficient evidence was provided to confirm sorption to the column was not the reason for the disappearance of the starting material. NR NR NR 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Not rated Kinetic data were not provided for this part of the study (the batch study). NR NR NR Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated This evaluation applied to the batch experiment that studied CT transformation. A second extraction and evaluation will be provided for the continuous-flow fixed-film study. NR NR NR 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 13 16 17 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.06 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 85 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: de Best, JH; Salminen, E; Doddema, HJ; Janssen, DB; Harder, W. (1997). Transformation of carbon tetrachloride under sulfate reducing conditions. Biodegradation 8: 429-436. htti)://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1008262225760 HERO ID: 1943390 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium The test substance source was reported. The test substance purity was not reported. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability Medium The test substance stability, preparation or storage conditions were not reported; however, these factors were not likely to have influenced the test substance or were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 86 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 7. Testing Consistency High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Medium Limited information was given on the microbial culture; the study also indicated that methanogenic microorganisms began to grow in the reactor but there were no details on how this was confirmed. 2 2 4 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods Medium Information was not clearly reported; however, the lack of detail was not likely to have influenced the results. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 87 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low There was insufficient evidence presented to confirm that parent compound disappearance was not likely due to some other process; mass balance was not accounted for and chloride ions were omitted in some analysis. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Not rated Kinetic data were not provided for the study. NR NR NR Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated Due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. NR NR NR 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 19 18 27 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.5 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.5 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 88 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Van Eekert, MHA; Schroder, TJ; Stams, AJM; Schraa, G; Field, JA. (1998). Degradation Reference: and fate of carbon tetrachloride in unadapted methanogenic granular sludge. Appl Environ Microbiol 64: 2350-2356. HERO ID: 2531116 Domain Metric Qualitative Comments Metric Metric Weighted Determination Score Weighting Score [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Factor Unacceptable, or Not rated] Test 1. Test Substance High The test substance 1 2 2 Substance Identity was identified by common name. 2. Test Substance High The test substance 1 1 1 Purity source and purity (pro analysis quality) were reported. Test Design 3. Study Controls High Sterile controls were used without sludge. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability High Preparation of the sludge, medium and co-substrate mixture was clearly reported. Incubation was done in darkness. 1 1 1 Test 5. Test Method High This metric met the 1 1 1 Conditions Suitability criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 6. Testing Conditions High Conditions were reported clearly for each test. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High Any changes in the testing methods were explained. Concentrations were measured at 11 days instead of 6 for the autoclaved sludge but this was clearly indicated in the study. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test 9. Test Organism High Inoculum source. 1 2 2 Organisms Degradation treatment and adaptation were clearly reported. 10. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organism Partitioning applicable to this study type. 89 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Outcome 11. Outcome High The concentrations of 1 1 1 Assessment Assessment Methodology the transformation products and chloride at the end of the incubation period were measured to show that sorption to the column was not playing a major role in lowering CT concentrations. 12. Sampling Methods High Sampling was done frequently enough for the purposes of the data reported. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Triplicate assays were done, which provided standard deviation values to report uncertainty. No unreported sources of uncertainty have been noticed. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to applicable to this Exposure study type. Data 15. Data High Target chemical and 1 2 2 Presentation Reporting transformation and Analysis products were reported. Percent recovery of total chlorine from chlorinated compounds and chloride were reported. 16. Statistical High This metric met the 1 1 1 Methods and criteria for high Kinetic confidence as Calculations expected for this type of study. Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated Due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. NR NR NR 18. QSAR Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Models applicable to this study type. Sum of scores: 14 19 19 90 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1 Overall Score (Rounded): 1 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 91 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Tabak, HH; Quave, SA; Mashni, CI; Earth, EF. (1981). Biodegradability studies with organic priority pollutant compounds. J Water Pollut Control Fed 53: 1503-1518. HERO ID: 9861 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by common name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium The test substance source and purity were not reported; however, the test substance was measured analytically. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High Carbon tetrachloride was tested far below its aqueous solubility. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High No inconsistencies were reported between tests. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation High The inoculum source was reported along with adaptation procedures. 1 2 2 92 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High The concentration of carbon tetrachloride was measured using GC and volatilization loss was measured also. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High The timing and frequency of the sampling methods were clearly reported and adequate for the outcomes of interest. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Replicate samples were tested, recoveries and standards were verified, controls were included, and blanks were monitored. No standard deviations were reported but no uncertainties that would have affected the outcome were reported. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High Target chemical concentrations and volatilization loss % were reported. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Statistical analysis was not clearly reported, although the omission was not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. No kinetic calculations were reported. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated Due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. NR NR NR 93 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 16 19 21 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.11 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 94 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Mabey, W; Mill, T. (1978). Critical review of hydrolysis of organic compounds in water under environmental conditions [Review]. J Phys Chem Ref Data 7: 383-415. HERO ID: 9848 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by a common abbreviation. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium Substance purity was not reported but may be retrievable from referenced article. [Fells, I., and Moelywn-Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc.398 (1959)] 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Control group information was not reported in this study but may be retrievable from referenced article. [Fells, I., and Moelywn-Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc.398 (1959)1 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Storage condition was not reported but may be retrievable from referenced article. [Fells, I., and Moelywn-Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc.398 (1959)] 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Medium The test method was not reported but may be retrievable from the referenced article. [Fells, I., and Moelywn-Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc.398 (1959)] 2 1 2 6. Testing Conditions Medium The testing conditions were not reported but may be retrievable from the referenced article. [Fells, I., and Moelywn-Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc.398 (1959)1 2 2 4 95 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 7. Testing Medium Testing consistency 2 1 2 Consistency could not be determined from this study but may be retrievable from the referenced article. [Fells, I., and Moelywn-Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc.398 (1959)1 8. System Type Not rated System type and NR NR NR and Design design could not be determined from this study but may be retrievable from the referenced article. [Fells, I., and Moelywn-Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc.398 (1959)] Test 9. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organisms Organism Degradation applicable to this study type. 10. Test Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Organism applicable to this Partitioning study type. Outcome 11. Outcome Medium The outcome 2 1 2 Assessment Assessment Methodology assessment could not be evaluated from this study but reviewing the referenced article would most likely provide relevant information. [Fells, I., and Moelywn- Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc. 398(1959)1 12. Sampling Medium Sampling methods 2 1 2 Methods could not be evaluated without reviewing the referenced article in which the hydrolysis rate was reported. [Fells, I., and Moelywn-Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc.398 (1959)] 96 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Confounding/ 13. High Values for Kh 1 1 1 Variable Confounding estimated in section 5 Control Variables at 298K are probably not more accurate than a factor of 2(+/- 100%) or less accurate than a factor of 5 (+/- 250%) owing to uncertainties in pH, temperature coefficients, and, in some cases, solvent effects. 14. Outcomes Not rated The metric is not NR NR NR Unrelated to applicable to this Exposure study type. Data 15. Data High Whether the 1 2 2 Presentation Reporting degradation was due and Analysis to another process could not be evaluated in this study, but review of the referenced article would most likely provide relevant information. [Fells, I., and Moelywn- Hughes, E.A., J. Chem. Soc. 398(1959)] 16. Statistical High Calculations to derive 1 1 1 Methods and the rate constant and Kinetic half- life at 298K and Calculations pH 7 were clearly outlined. 97 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low Hydrolysis rates (and half-lives) at 298K and pH 7 were calculated by extrapolating from measured hydrolysis rates at higher temperatures, which were reported in other articles. This caused information required to evaluate several metrics to be missing since a very minimal amount of methodology was included in this review article. However, the authors of this review article (W. Mabey and T. Mill) are reputable sources and it is likely that they were judicious in their selection of articles to reference and that upon reviewing those articles, many questions would be answered. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 23 17 29 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.71 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.7 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Medium 98 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Walton, BT; Anderson, TA; Hendricks, MS; Talmage, SS. (1989). Physicochemical properties as predictors of organic chemical effects on soil microbial respiration. Environ Toxicol Chem 8: 53-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620080107 HERO ID: 1010979 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium The test substance source was reported; purity was not reported. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study (volatility was considered). 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High Conditions were reported; soil characteristics were evaluated following guideline procedures. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 99 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 8. System Type and Design Medium Laboratory conditions were not representative of enviromnental conditions; results were conservative estimates; duration was 7 days. 2 1 2 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation High Microbial population was not detailed and there was no reference substance; however, 19 different chemicals were evaluated under same conditions; microbial activity can be assumed. 1 2 2 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Low Study results were not relevant to a specific/designated fate endpoint. 3 1 3 12. Sampling Methods High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Analytical methodology was not reported; mass balance was not reported 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 100 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Low No serious study deficiencies were identified; however, the only quantitative value reported was for 1 day (day 4) of the 7- day experiment. 3 1 3 18. QSAR Models Low SAR analysis was qualitative rather than quantitative; overall results indicated that SAR employed here was poor. 3 1 3 Sum of scores: 25 21 32 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.48 Overall Score (Rounded): 2.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Low1 'The study's overall quality rating was downgraded: Study details not reported (i.e.. Analytical methodology) limited study evaluation. Study results not relevant to a specific/designated Fate endpoint. 101 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2012). Estimation Programs Interface Reference: Suite™ for Microsoft® Windows, v 4.11 [Computer Program]. Washington, DC. Retrieved from htti)s://www.ei)a.gov/tsca-screening-tools/ei)i-suitetm-estimation-i)rogram- interface. HERO ID: 2347246 Domain Metric Qualitative Comments Metric Metric Weighted Determination [i.e., Score Weighting Score High, Medium, Low, Factor Unacceptable, or Not rated] Test 1. Test Substance High The test 1 2 2 Substance Identity substance was identified by chemical name. 2. Test Substance Not rated The metric is NR NR NR Purity not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Not rated The metric is NR NR NR Stability not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' Test 5. Test Method Not rated The metric is NR NR NR Conditions Suitability not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' 6. Testing Not rated The metric is NR NR NR Conditions not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' 7. Testing Not rated The metric is NR NR NR Consistency not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' 8. System Type Not rated The metric is NR NR NR and Design not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' Test 9. Test Organism Not rated The metric is NR NR NR Organisms Degradation not applicable to this study type. 10. Test Not rated The metric is NR NR NR Organism Partitioning not applicable to this study type. Outcome 11. Outcome Not rated The metric is NR NR NR Assessment Assessment Methodology not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' 12. Sampling Not rated The metric is NR NR NR Methods not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' 102 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' NR NR NR 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' NR NR NR Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type (SAR). ' NR NR NR 18. QSAR Models High The models in EPI SuiteTM have defined endpoints. Chemical Domain and performance statistics for each model are known, and unambiguous algorithms are available in the EPI SuiteTM documentation and/or cited references to establish their scientific validity. Many EPI SuiteTM models have correlation coefficients >0.7, cross- validated correlation coefficients >0.5, and standard error values <0.3; however, correlation coefficients (r2, q2) for the regressions of some 1 1 1 103 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE environmental fate models (i.e.. BIO WIN) are lower, as expected, compared to regressions which have specific experimental values such as water solubility or log Kow (octanol-water partition coefficient). Sum of scores: 2 3 1 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1 Overall Score (Rounded): 1 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 104 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Chen, WH; Yang, WB; Yuan, CS; Yang, JC; Zhao, QL. (2014). Fates of chlorinated volatile organic compounds in aerobic biological treatment processes: the effects of aeration and sludge addition. Chemosphere 103: 92-98. http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.ll.039 HERO ID: 2799543 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Medium The test substance was identified by analytical means. 2 1 2 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium Analytical blanks were included; biodegradation controls were not included. Source and purity of analytical standard were not included. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some details were omitted; however, sufficient data were reported to determine that the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 105 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 8. System Type and Design High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Medium There was incomplete reporting of measured concentrations in the media analyzed. 2 1 2 12. Sampling Methods High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High None identified 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Concentrations of the target chemical were not reported. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Statistical methods and kinetic calculations were not reported; however, their omission was not likely to have impacted the study results. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Medium There was incomplete reporting of measured concentrations in the media analyzed; mass distributions were reported, no serious study deficiencies were identified, and 2 1 2 106 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE the value was plausible. 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 22 20 30 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.5 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.5 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 107 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Ma, X; Burken, JG. (2002). VOCs fate and partitioning in vegetation: Use of tree cores in groundwater analysis. Environ Sci Technol 36: 4663-4668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es025795j HERO ID: 36471 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance was identified by analytical means. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Limited detail was provided; precaution was taken regarding volatility. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Medium Non-standard test method; however, it was suitable to the test substance. 2 1 2 6. Testing Conditions Medium Some details were limited; however, this did not limit the interpretation of the results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High Replicate samples were included; R- squared was acceptable. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Medium The test organism was not routinely used for similar study types. 2 2 4 108 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study; headspace analysis 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Low Analytical method details were not reported. 3 2 6 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 19 17 27 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.59 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.6 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 109 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Kriegman-King, MR; Reinhard, M. (1991). Abiotic transformation of carbon tetrachloride in the presence of sulfide and mineral surfaces. (EPA/600/R-94/018). Kriegman-King, MR; Reinhard, M. HERO ID: 4140338 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Low The source and purity of the test substance were not reported. Limited information about the analytical method (for verification) was reported. 3 1 3 Test Design 3. Study Controls Medium The study mentioned the setup of controls, but no data were presented in this report. 2 2 4 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Test substance preparation and storage conditions were not reported but their omission was unlikely to have impacted the study results. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Unacceptable Testing conditions were not reported, and data provided were insufficient to interpret results. 4 2 8 110 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 7. Testing Consistency Medium Critical exposure details across samples or study groups were not reported and these omissions resulted in serious flaws that had a substantial impact on overall confidence. 2 1 2 8. System Type and Design Medium There was limited information reported regarding the test system and design, but these omissions were not likely to have impacted the study result. 2 1 2 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR. NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR. NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Low The rate constant was not determined: the dependency on sulfide for transformation was not determined. 3 1 3 12. Sampling Methods Medium Some details were limited; however, this did not limit the interpretation of the results. 2 1 2 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Unacceptable Figures in the paragraphs were not presented in the paper. 4 2 8 111 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Low Data used for the calculation were not presented. 3 1 3 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated Due to limited information, evaluation of the reasonableness of the study results was not possible. NR NR NR 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 29 16 40 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 2.5 Overall Score (Rounded): 4 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: Unacceptable1 testing conditions were not reported and data provided were insufficient to interpret results. Figures referenced in the text were not provided. Consistent with our Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk 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. 112 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Molina, MJ; Rowland, FS. (1974). Predicted present stratospheric abundances of chlorine species from photodissociation of carbon tetrachloride. Geophys Res Lett 1: 309-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/GL001i007p00309 HERO ID: 194521 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR 6. Testing Conditions Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR 7. Testing Consistency Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR 8. System Type and Design Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR 12. Sampling Methods Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR 113 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Medium Values were calculated based on referenced models and methods. 2 1 2 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR 18. QSAR Models Not rated Not applicable; this study reported a calculation. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 3 3 4 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.33 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 114 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Hubrich, C; Stuhl, F. (1980). The ultraviolet absorption of some halogenated methanes and ethanes of atmospheric interest. J Photochem 12: 93-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2670(80)85031-3 HERO ID: 4140305 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls Not rated Study controls were not reported but not required. A series of chemicals were tested in this study for comparison. NR NR NR 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Details regarding this metric were not reported. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency Medium Multiple samples were not run. 2 1 2 8. System Type and Design Medium Some system design details were not provided; however, references cited may contain more information. 2 1 2 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 115 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium Some information was not reported (referenced to another source); however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated Omitted details, which may be available in referenced sources, hindered the evaluation of the validity of the results. NR NR NR 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 15 14 19 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.36 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.4 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 116 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Cox, RA; Derwent, RG; Eggleton, AEJ; Lovelock, JE. (1976). Photochemical oxidation of halocarbons in the troposphere. Atmos Environ 10: 305-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0004- 6981(76)90170-0 HERO ID: 9830 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance purity was reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions Medium There were omissions in test conditions reporting (temp, cone, duration); however, sufficient data were reported in figures to determine that the omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 7. Testing Consistency High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 117 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology Medium Analytical method details were limited or referenced; investigation of sources may alleviate uncertainty of omissions. 2 1 2 12. Sampling Methods Not rated Sampling methods were not reported. NR NR NR Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables Not rated No confounding variables were noted. NR NR NR 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting Medium The target chemical concentrations were not reported; however, these omissions were not likely to have had a substantial impact on the study results. 2 2 4 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results Not rated Omitted details, which may be available in referenced sources, hindered the evaluation of the validity of the results. NR NR NR 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 14 15 20 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.33 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.3 1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 118 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Study Reference: Doong, RA; Wu, SC. (1992). Reductive dechlorination of chlorinated hydrocarbons in aqueous solutions containing ferrous and sulfide ions. Chemosphere 24: 1063-1075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(92)90197-Y HERO ID: 3561878 Domain Metric Qualitative Determination [i.e., High, Medium, Low, Unacceptable, or Not rated] Comments Metric Score Metric Weighting Factor Weighted Score Test Substance 1. Test Substance Identity High The test substance was identified by chemical name. 1 2 2 2. Test Substance Purity High The test substance source and purity were reported. 1 1 1 Test Design 3. Study Controls High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 4. Test Substance Stability Medium Details regarding this metric were not reported but this did not limit the interpretation of the results. 2 1 2 Test Conditions 5. Test Method Suitability High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 6. Testing Conditions High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 7. Testing Consistency High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 8. System Type and Design High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Test Organisms 9. Test Organism Degradation Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 10. Test Organism Partitioning Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR 119 ------- PEER REVIEW DRAFT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE Outcome Assessment 11. Outcome Assessment Methodology High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 12. Sampling Methods High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 1 1 Confounding/ Variable Control 13. Confounding Variables High Sources of variability and uncertainty in the measurements were accounted for in data evaluation. 1 1 1 14. Outcomes Unrelated to Exposure Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Data Presentation and Analysis 15. Data Reporting High This metric met the criteria for high confidence as expected for this type of study. 1 2 2 16. Statistical Methods and Kinetic Calculations Not rated Not reported; concentration over time graphs and results presented. NR NR NR Other 17. Verification or Plausibility of Results High Not specifically an aqueous photolysis experiment; however, abiotic processes were examined and discussed. 1 1 1 18. QSAR Models Not rated The metric is not applicable to this study type. NR NR NR Sum of scores: 14 17 18 High Medium Low Overall Score = Sum of Weighted Scores/Sum of Metric Weighting Factors: 1.06 Overall Score (Rounded): 1.1 >1 and <1.7 >1.7 and <2.3 >2.3 and <3 Overall Quality Level: High 120 ------- |