PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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PEER REVIEW DRAFT DOCUMENT - DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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


-------