Examined together, the combination of the less conservative LALs for many contaminants and the addition of four extra constituents results in a slight decrease (2.4%) in overall failures. However, all added pesticides resulted in

some failures of samples which had passed the DaS protocol (0.4–14.0% “More Conservative” outcomes). The differences in outcomes resulting selleck chemicals llc from different degrees of SQG conservatism vs. differences in analyte lists will be explored in greater depth in the next section. Table 3 illustrates the results, in percent of total samples in each category, for a range of protocols using both LAL and UAL SQGs based upon the decision tree in Fig. 2b. Fig. 4 illustrates overall outcomes of these scenarios. Using the decision tree in Fig. 2b (following the logic proposed in Fig. 1), these assessments examine potential regulatory outcomes of a two-level chemical assessment. In both Table 3 and Fig. 4, the first scenario, the current DaS protocol, is not a LAL/UAL protocol, but, as the current approach, is

included for comparison. Although illustrated PFT�� concentration differently here, the DaS results have been described above and will not be discussed again here. The first two-level test protocol considers the DaS analyte list, but applies the CCME ISQG and CCME PEL values for LAL and UAL SQGs. When compared to the current DaS 1-level protocol, this results in a 13.9% decrease in samples passing LAL (reflecting the more conservative ISQG values), a 2.7% increase in samples being subjected to Tier 2 assessment (in this

discussion further chemical or biological assessment are both termed Tier 2 for simplicity in spite of their tier separation in Fig. 1), and 11.2% of samples failing UAL levels and thus being rejected for unconfined ocean disposal. Interestingly, when only the DaS list of analytes is considered, while Hg and PAH are the primary PLEKHM2 causes of UAL failure, Cd and tPCB are the dominant LAL failures. The addition of the metals and organics included in the CCME ISQG LAL and UAL SQGs results in a 24% reduction in LAL passes and a 13.5% and 10.5% increase in Tier 2 assignment and UAL failures, respectively. The addition of Ni (and the application of TEL and PEL values) further reduces LAL passes by 2.1%, reduces Tier 2 assignments by 1.8%, while increasing UAL failures (Tier 3) by 3.9%. This increase in failures is primarily driven by increases in Ni and tDDT failures, which overwhelm the decreases in tPAH failures that result from the less conservative PAH UAL levels. When TEL and PEL SQGs are applied, but with only metals, and not pesticides, added to the DaS list (i.e., the DaS list plus a full suite of metals, As, Cr, Pb, Cu, Zn and Ni), there are only very slight differences from when pesticides are included.