The overall assessment provides insight into how a full set

of LAL evaluations performs. To evaluate how protocols containing both LAL and UAL SQGs perform, a slightly different decision tree was applied (Fig. 2b). This approach evaluated overall regulatory outcomes for a given protocol. If all constituents under consideration pass the protocol LAL SQGs, then the sample passes the chemistry evaluation, and would be considered for unconfined ocean disposal without further sediment characterization (though it may still be subject to other criteria before a permit for DaS is issued). If one or more chemicals fail the LAL screen but pass the UAL screen, then the sediment BYL719 cell line would be subjected to further analysis, either a consideration of background values and bioavailability or toxicity testing; this is called “Further Interpretation/Tier 2” in the decision tree. If a sample fails both LAL and UAL for any constituent, the sample fails and is not permitted for unconfined ocean disposal, but may be evaluated for alternative management strategies (Tier 3 in Fig. 1). As above, a one out, all out rule is applied.

These evaluations are only examining potential outcomes of changes in the chemistry Pim inhibitor protocols. It is important to note that differences between potential protocols do not necessarily suggest that one is better than the other at identifying potential risk. Chemical evaluation is only one part of an assessment of risk in potentially contaminated sediments. A full evaluation of

which protocol “performs” Clomifene better at predicting toxicity or other hazards such as bioaccumulation or biomagnification requires an evaluation of correlations between various chemical approaches and toxicity assessment results. This assessment, although essential, has yet to be carried out in this project. However, the assessments reported here do provide insights into the relative proportions of samples that might pass or fail without toxicity assessment, or be subjected to further analysis under various chemical protocols (see Fig. 1). Within the database, individual records contained data for 13–49 (41 ± 9) PAHs. It was thus possible to evaluate what proportion of the total PAHs (as reported) the PAH subsets considered in the LAL and UAL sets “captured”. When all the samples are considered, the proportion of the total PAHs in a sample (considering all PAHs reported for that sample) that is included in the sum of the DaS list (see above) is 58.6 ± 18.5%; the proportion using the Long95 list (see above) is 41.5 ± 14.2%.