# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

1 

# Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

Contract No: EP-W-11-063

Task Order No: 2

Statistical Support for Technical Directive #3

Data Analysis Support fo r Invertebrate Tier 2 Te st and Generation of

Integrated Summary Report

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

May 21, 2013



# BATTELLE

505 King Avenue

Columbus, Ohio 43201

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data – 3-8-2013

i Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... .. 1

2. Questions to be addressed. Locations of answers ...................................................... 1

3. Study data ................................................................................................................. .. 3

4. Inter-laborat ory analyses ............................................................................................. 4

5. Comparisons of selected study ch aracteristics across endpoints and across

generations .................................................................................................................. 5

6. Results .................................................................................................................... ... 20

7. Summary of Control Results for Key Endpoints ...................................................... 22

Tables

Table I.1. Ranges of F0 and F1 CV% across Laboratories and Studies. By Category. ............. 6

Table I.2 F0 and F1 CV% and Significance Levels across Laboratories and Studies.

Growth Endpoints. ...................................................................................................... 7

Table I.3 F0 and F1 CV% and Significance Levels across Laboratories and Studies.

Reproductive Endpoints. ............................................................................................. 8

Table I.4 F0 and F1 CV% and Significance Levels across Laboratories and Studies.

Survival Endpoints. .................................................................................................... 8

Table I.5 Mysid 2-Generation Study Reproductio n, Growth, and Survival Endpoints with

Endpoint Codes ......................................................................................................... 13

Table I.6 Mysid 2-Generation Study. Per cent Deviations from the Corresponding Group

Means for Detection with 80% Power in the F0 and F1 Generations Based on

Average within Stud y Variability. ............................................................................ 14

Table I.7 LOEC for Comparisons between Test Groups and Control within

Generations and between Generations . Lindane and Octylphenol. ......................... 19

Table I.8. Summary of Survival to Termination ....................................................................... 22

Table I.9 Summary of Time to Maturity .................................................................................. 23

Table I.10. Summary of Time to First and Second Brood Release ............................................. 24

Table I.11. Summary of Number of Offspring per Female ......................................................... 25

Table 1A. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: Means and

Standard Errors for Control with Random Laboratory and Study for

Reproduction Endpoints an d F0 Generation ............................................................. 26

Table 1B. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: Variance

Component Analysis with Random La boratory and Study for Reproduction

Endpoints and F0 Generation .................................................................................... 27

Table 1C. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: Means and

Standard Errors for Control with Random Laboratory and Study for

Reproduction Endpoints an d F1 Generation ............................................................. 28

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

ii Table 1D. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: Variance

Component Analysis with Random La boratory and Study for Reproduction

Endpoints and F1 Generation .................................................................................... 29

Table 2A. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: Means and

Standard Errors for Control with Ra ndom Laboratory and Study for Growth

Endpoints and F0 Generation .................................................................................... 30

Table 2B. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: Variance

Component Analysis with Random Laboratory and Study for Growth

Endpoints and F0 Generation .................................................................................... 31

Table 2C. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: Means and

Standard Errors for Control with Ra ndom Laboratory and Study for Growth

Endpoints and F1 Generation .................................................................................... 32

Table 2D. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: Variance

Component Analysis with Random Laboratory and Study for Growth

Endpoints and F1 Generation .................................................................................... 33

Table 3A. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: Means and

Standard Errors for Control with Ra ndom Laboratory and Study for Survival

Endpoints and F0 Generation .................................................................................... 34

Table 3B. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: Variance

Component Analysis with Random Laboratory and Study for Survival

Endpoints and F0 Generation .................................................................................... 35

Table 3C. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: Means and

Standard Errors for Control with Random Laboratory and Study for

Survival Endpoints and F1 Generation ..................................................................... 36

Table 3D. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: Variance

Component Analysis with Random La boratory and Study for Reproduction

Endpoints and F1 Generation .................................................................................... 37

Table 4A. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction

Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in a Laboratory, and Between

Studies and Laboratories for Reproductiv e Endpoints and F0 Generation ............... 38

Table 4B. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction

Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in a Laboratory, and Between

Studies and Laboratories for Reproductiv e Endpoints and F1 Generation ............... 39

Table 5A. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction

Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in a Laboratory, and Between

Studies and Laboratories for Growth Endpoints and F0 Generation ........................ 40

Table 5B. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction

Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in a Laboratory, and Between

Studies and Laboratories for Growth Endpoints and F1 Generation ........................ 41

Table 6A. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction

Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in a Laboratory, and Between

Studies and Laboratories for Survival Endpoints and F0 Generation ....................... 42

Table 6B. Interlab Analysis for Control My sid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction

Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in a Laboratory, and Between

Studies and Laboratories for Survival Endpoints and F1 Generation ....................... 43

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

iii Table 7A. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Power at the 5% (Two-Sided)

Significance Level. Mysid Study, F0 Generation, Reproduction Endpoints ........... 44

Table 7B. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Power at the 5% (Two-Sided)

Significance Level. Mysid Study, F1 Generation, Reproduction Endpoints ........... 45

Table 8A. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Power at the 5% (Two-Sided)

Significance Level. Mysid Study, F0 Generation, Growth Endpoints ..................... 46

Table 8B. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Power at the 5% (Two-Sided)

Significance Level. Mysid Study, F1 Generation, Growth Endpoints ..................... 47

Table 9A. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Power at the 5% (Two-Sided)

Significance Level. Mysid Study, F0 Generation, Survival Endpoints ................... 48

Table 9B. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Power at the 5% (Two-Sided)

Significance Level. Mysid Study, F1 Generation, Survival Endpoints ................... 49

Table 10A. Summary of Intra-Laboratory and Inter-Laboratory Analysis Results for

Reproduction Endpoints, Comparisons be tween Control and Test Chemicals,

Generation: F0 a,b,c 

# ...................................................................................................... 50

Table 10B. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by

Generation for Reproduction Endpoints, Comparisons between Control

and Test Chemicals, Generation: F1 a,b,c 

# ................................................................... 51

Table 11A. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by

Generation for Growth Endpoints, Co mparisons between Control and

Test Chemicals, Generation: F0 a,b,c 

# .......................................................................... 52

Table 11B. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by

Generation for Growth Endpoints, Co mparisons between Control and

Test Chemicals, Generation: F1 a,b,c 

# .......................................................................... 53

Table 12A. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by

Generation for Survival Endpoints, Comparisons between Control and Test

Chemicals, Generation: F0 a,b,c 

# .................................................................................. 54

Table 12B. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by

Generation for Survival Endpoints, Comparisons between Control and Test

Chemicals, Generation: F1 a,b,c 

# .................................................................................. 55

Table 13. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results

between Generations for Reproductio n Endpoints, Comparison between

Two Generations ....................................................................................................... 56

Table 14. Statistical Analysis and Inter-L aboratory Results between Generations for

Growth Endpoints, Compar ison between Two Generations a,b,c 

# ............................... 57

Table 15. Statistical Analysis and Inter-La boratory Results between Generations for

Survival Endpoints, Comparison between Two Generations a,b,c 

# .............................. 58

Table 16A. Mean and Standard Errors and Comp arisons of Mysid Lindane Concentrations

to Control Across Laboratories, F0 Ge neration, Reproductive Endpoints. .............. 59

Table 16B. Mean and Standard Errors and Comp arisons of Mysid Lindane Concentrations

to Control Across Laboratories, F1 Ge neration, Reproductive Endpoints. .............. 61

Table 17A. Mean and Standard Errors and Comp arisons of Mysid Lindane Concentrations

to Control Across Laboratories, F0 Ge neration, Growth Endpoints. ........................ 63

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

iv Table 17B. Mean and Standard Errors and Comp arisons of Mysid Lindane Concentrations

to Control Across Laboratories, F1 Ge neration, Growth Endpoints. ........................ 64

Table 18A. Mean and Standard Errors and Comp arisons of Mysid Lindane Concentrations

to Control Across Laboratories, F0 Generation, Survival Endpoints. ...................... 66

Table 18B. Mean and Standard Errors and Comp arisons of Mysid Lindane Concentrations

to Control Across Laboratories, F1 Generation, Survival Endpoints. ...................... 67

Table 19A. Mean and Standard Errors a nd Comparisons of Mysid Octylphenol

Concentrations to Control Across Labor atories, F0 Generation, Reproductive

Endpoints. ................................................................................................................. 68

Table 19B. Mean and Standard Errors a nd Comparisons of Mysid Octylphenol

Concentrations to Control Across Labor atories, F1 Generation, Reproductive

Endpoints. ................................................................................................................. 70

Table 20A. Mean and Standard Errors a nd Comparisons of Mysid Octylphenol

Concentrations to Control Across Laboratories, F0 Generation, Growth

Endpoints. ................................................................................................................. 72

Table 20B. Mean and Standard Errors a nd Comparisons of Mysid Octylphenol

Concentrations to Control Across Labor atories, F1 Generation, Growth

Endpoints. ................................................................................................................. 74

Table 21A. Mean and Standard Errors a nd Comparisons of Mysid Octylphenol

Concentrations to Control Across Laboratories, F0 Generation, Survival

Endpoints. ................................................................................................................. 76

Table 21B. Mean and Standard Errors a nd Comparisons of Mysid Octylphenol

Concentrations to Control Across Laboratories, F1 Generation, Survival

Endpoints. ................................................................................................................. 78

Table 22. Differences (F1-F0) between Tw o Generations for Reproduction Endpoints

across Laboratories. Test Chemical: Lindane .......................................................... 79

Table 23. Differences (F1-F0) between Tw o Generations for Growth Endpoints

across Laboratories. Test Chemical: Lindane ........................................................... 81

Table 24. Differences (F1-F0) between Tw o Generations for Survival Endpoints

across Laboratories. Test Chemical: Lindane ........................................................... 82

Table 25. Differences (F1-F0) between Tw o Generations for Reproduction Endpoints

across Laboratories. Test Chemical: Octylphenol ................................................... 83

Table 26. Differences (F1-F0) between Two Generations for Growth Endpoints

across Laboratories. Test Chemical: Octylphenol ................................................... 85

Table 27. Differences (F1-F0) between Two Generations for Survival Endpoints

across Laboratories. Test Chemical: Octylphenol ................................................... 86

Figures

Figure I.1. F0 CV% Vs. F1 CV% for Correspondi ng Parameters. Growth Endpoints. .............. 9

Figure I.2 F0 CV% Vs. F1 CV% for Co rresponding Parameters. Reproduction

Endpoints. ................................................................................................................. 10

Figure I.3 F0 CV% Vs. F1 CV% for Corresponding Parameters. Survival Endpoints. ........... 11

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

v Figure I.4 F0 vs. F1 Percent Deviations from the Control Group Means for the

Corresponding Parameters to Detect Effects with Power 80%. Growth

Parameters. ................................................................................................................ 15

Figure I.5 F0 vs. F1 Percent Deviations from the Control Group Means for the

Corresponding Parameters to Detect Effects with Power 80%.

Reproduction Parameters. ......................................................................................... 16

Figure I.6 F0 vs. F1 Percent Deviations from the Control Group Means for the

Corresponding Parameters to Detect Effects with Power 80%. Survival

Parameters. ................................................................................................................ 17

Figure 1. Control Study, First Brood Sizes, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. ............................................................ 87

Figure 2. Control Study, Second Brood Sizes, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. ............................................................ 88

Figure 3. Control Study, Brood Sizes for First Two Broods, F0 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................... 89

Figure 4. Control Study, Days to First Brood, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. ............................................................ 90

Figure 5. Control Study, Days to Second Br ood, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. ............................................................ 91

Figure 6. Control Study, Days to Between first Two Broods, F0 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Ac ross Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................... 92

Figure 7. Control Study, Mature Days, F0 Ge neration: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for

Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to

the Average Acro ss Studies. ..................................................................................... 93

Figure 8. Control Study, Total Reproductiv e Days for the First Two Broods, F0

Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies.

The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................. 94

Figure 9. Control Study, Number of Offspr ing per Female per Reproductive Day, F0

Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies.

The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................. 95

Figure 10. Control Study, % of Female Reproductively Active, F0 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................. 96

Figure 11. Control Study, Sex Ratio (Males/Females), F0 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................... 97

Figure 12. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day0) (mg), F0 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................... 98

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

vi Figure 13. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day7) (mg), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. ............................................................ 99

Figure 14. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day14) (mg), F0 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 100

Figure 15. Control Study, Dry Weight (Termination) (mg), F0 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies.

The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................ 101

Figure 16. Control Study, Length (Day 0) (m m), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 102

Figure 17. Control Study, Length (Day 7) (m m), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 103

Figure 18. Control Study, Length (Day 14) (m m), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 104

Figure 19. Control Study, Length (Termination) (mm), F0 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 105

Figure 20. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Day 7) (%), F0 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................................ 106

Figure 21. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Day 14) (%), F0 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................................ 107

Figure 22. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Termination) (%), F0 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................................ 108

Figure 23. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Day 7) (%), F0 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 109

Figure 24. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Day 14) (%), F0 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 110

Figure 25. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Termination) (%), F0 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................................ 111

Figure 26. Control Study, First Brood Sizes, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 112

Figure 27. Control Study, Second Brood Sizes, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 113

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

vii Figure 28. Control Study, Brood Sizes fo r First Two Broods, F1 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The

Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ....................... 114

Figure 29. Control Study, Days to First Brood, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 115

Figure 30. Control Study, Days to Second Br ood, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 116

Figure 31. Control Study, Days to Between first Two Broods, F1 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 117

Figure 32. Control Study, Mature Days, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors

for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds

to the Average Ac ross Studies. ............................................................................... 118

Figure 33. Control Study, Total Reproductiv e Days for the First Two Broods, F1

Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies.

The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................ 119

Figure 34. Control Study, Number of Offspr ing per Female per Reproductive Day, F1

Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies.

The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................ 120

Figure 35. Control Study, % of Female Reproductively Active, F1 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................................ 121

Figure 36. Control Study, Sex Ratio, F1 Gene ration: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for

Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to |

the Average Acro ss Studies. ................................................................................... 122

Figure 37. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day0) (mg), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 123

Figure 38. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day7) (mg), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 124

Figure 39. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day14) (mg), F1 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 125

Figure 40. Control Study, Dry Weight (Termination) (mg), F1 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 126

Figure 41. Control Study, Length (Day 0) (m m), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 127

Figure 42. Control Study, Length (Day 7) (m m), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 128

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

viii Figure 43. Control Study, Length (Day 14) (m m), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard

Errors for Each Study and Across St udies. The Solid Reference Line

Corresponds to the Averag e Across Studies. .......................................................... 129

Figure 44. Control Study, Length (Termination) (mm), F1 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 130

Figure 45. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Day 7) (%), F1 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................................ 131

Figure 46. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Day 14) (%), F1 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................................ 132

Figure 47. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Termination) (%), F1 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................................ 133

Figure 48. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Day 7) (%), F1 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 134

Figure 49. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Day 14) (%), F1 Generation: Means ± 2

Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference

Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. .................................................. 135

Figure 50. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Termination) (%), F1 Generation:

Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies. The Solid

Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies. ................................ 136

Figure 51. Mysid, Lindane First Brood Size, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error

Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were

Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ................. 137

Figure 52 Mysid, Lindane, Second Brood Size, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 138

Figure 53. Mysid, Lindane, First Two Brood Si ze, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 139

Figure 54. Mysid, Lindane, Days to First Br ood, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 140

Figure 55. Mysid, Lindane, Days to Second Br ood, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 141

Figure 56. Mysid, Lindane, Days between the First Two Broods, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 142

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

ix Figure 57. Mysid, Lindane, Mature Days, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error

Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were

Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ................. 143

Figure 58. Mysid, Lindane, Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods, F0

Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Ba rs for Each Concentration Group ........... 144

Figure 59. Mysid, Lindane, Total Reproductiv e Number of Offspring Per Reproductive

Day Per Female for the First Two Broods, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Group. ............................................................. 145

Figure 60. Mysid, Lindane, % of Female Reproductively Active, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 146

Figure 61. Mysid, Lindane, Sex Ratio (mal es/females), F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 147

Figure 62. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Day 7, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 148

Figure 63. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Day14, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 149

Figure 64. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Termination, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 150

Figure 65. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 7, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 151

Figure 66. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 14, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 152

Figure 67. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Te rmination, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 153

Figure 68. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Surviv al Rate (%) Day 7, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 154

Figure 69. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Surviv al Rate (%) Day 14, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 155

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

x Figure 70. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Survival Rate (%) Termination, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 156

Figure 71. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 7, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 157

Figure 72. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 14, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model). .......................................................................................... 158

Figure 73. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate (%) Termination, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group ............................... 159

Figure 74. Mysid, Lindane, First Brood Size, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error

Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were

Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ................. 160

Figure 75. Mysid, Lindane, Second Brood Size, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 161

Figure 76. Mysid, Lindane, First Two Broods Si ze, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 162

Figure 77. Mysid, Lindane, Days to First Br ood, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 163

Figure 78. Mysid, Lindane Days to Second Brood Size, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 164

Figure 79. Mysid, Lindane Days between Fi rst Two Broods, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 165

Figure 80. Mysid, Lindane, Mature Day, F1 Ge neration. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars

for Each Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least

Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........................... 166

Figure 81. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group ............................... 167

Figure 82. Mysid, Lindane, Number of Offs pring Per Day Per Female for First Two

Broods, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each

Concentration Group ............................................................................................... 168

Figure 83. Mysid, Lindane, % of Females Productively Active, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

xi across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 169

Figure 84. Mysid, Lindane, Sex Ratio (Males/Females), F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 170

Figure 85. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Da y 0, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 171

Figure 86. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Day 7, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 172

Figure 87. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Day 14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 173

Figure 88. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Termination, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 174

Figure 89. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 0, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 175

Figure 90. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 7, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 176

Figure 91. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 177

Figure 92. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Te rmination, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 178

Figure 93. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Survival Rate Day 7, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 179

Figure 94. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Survival Rate Day 14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 180

Figure 95. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Surviv al Rate Termination, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

xii across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 181

Figure 96. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate Day 7, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 182

Figure 97. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate Day 14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 183

Figure 98. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate Termination, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 184

Figure 99. Mysid, Octylphenol, First Brood Size, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Grou p (the Average across Laboratories Were

Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ................. 185

Figure 100. Mysid, Octylphenol, Second Brood Size, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 186

Figure 101. Mysid, Octylphenol, Numbers of Offspring of the First Two Broods, F0

Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group

(the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated

Based on a Random Effect Model) ......................................................................... 187

Figure 102. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days to First Brood, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 188

Figure 103. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days to the Second Brood, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 189

Figure 104. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days betw een the First Two Broods, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 190

Figure 105. Mysid, Octylphenol, Mature Da ys, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 191

Figure 106. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Re productive Days for the First Two Broods,

F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group. ..... 192

Figure 107. Mysid, Octylphenol, Numbers of Offspring Per Day Per Female, F0

Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Ba rs for Each Concentration Group. .......... 193

Figure 108. Mysid, Octylphenol, % of Females Productively Active, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

xiii across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 194

Figure 109. Mysid, Octylphenol, Sex Ratio (Males/Females), F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 195

Figure 110. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 7, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 196

Figure 111. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 14, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 197

Figure 112. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Termination, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 198

Figure 113. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 7, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 199

Figure 114. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 14, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 200

Figure 115. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Termination, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 201

Figure 116. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Su rvival Rate (%) Day 7, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 202

Figure 117. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate (%) Day 14, F0

Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group

(the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated

Based on a Random Effect Model) ......................................................................... 203

Figure 118. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate (%) Termination, F0

Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group

(the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated

Based on a Random Effect Model) ......................................................................... 204

Figure 119. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 7, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 205

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

xiv Figure 120. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 14, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 206

Figure 121. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Termination, F0 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group ............................... 207

Figure 122. Mysid, Octylphenol, First Brood Size, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard

Error Bars for Each Concentration Gr oup (the Average across Laboratories

Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random Effect Model) ........ 208

Figure 123. Mysid, Octylphenol, Second Brood Size, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 209

Figure 124. Mysid, Octylphenol, # of Offspri ng for the First Two Brood, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 210

Figure 125. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days to First Brood, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 211

Figure 126. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days to Second Brood, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 212

Figure 127. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days betw een the First Two Broods, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 213

Figure 128. Mysid, Octylphenol, Mature Days , F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error

Bars for Each Concen tration Group ........................................................................ 214

Figure 129. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Repr oductive Days for the First Two Broods, F1

Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Ba rs for Each Concentration Group ........... 215

Figure 130. Mysid, Octylphenol, Numbers of Offspring Per Day Per Female for the

First Two Brood, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each

Concentration Group ............................................................................................... 216

Figure 131. Mysid, Octylphenol, % of Females Productively Active, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 217

Figure 132. Mysid, Octylphenol, Sex Ratio (Males/Females), F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 218

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

xv Figure 133. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 0, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 219

Figure 134. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 7, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 220

Figure 135. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 221

Figure 136. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Termination, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 222

Figure 137. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 0, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 223

Figure 138. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 7, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square M eans, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 224

Figure 139. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 225

Figure 140. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Termination, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2

Standard Error Bars for Each Concen tration Group (the Average across

Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a Random

Effect Model) .......................................................................................................... 226

Figure 141. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Su rvival Rate (%) Day 7, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 227

Figure 142. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Su rvival Rate (%) Day 14, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 228

Figure 143. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate (%) Termination, F1

Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group

(the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated

Based on a Random Effect Model) ......................................................................... 229

Figure 144. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 7, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

xvi across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 230

Figure 145. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 14, F1 Generation.

Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average

across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as Estimated Based on a

Random Effect Model) ........................................................................................... 231

Figure 146. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate (%) Termination, F1

Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Ba rs for Each Concentration Group. .......... 232

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 1 1. INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the effects of endocrine disruptin g chemicals, EPA is currently developing and

validating a Tier 2, two-generation mysid toxicity test to characterize the adverse consequences of

exposure to putative endocrine active substances. Test s were carried out by EPA in three labs: SMV,

UNT, and WLI. All three labs carried out tests with lindane however the WLI test did not meet control

group standards and so is not included in the inter-l aboratory analysis. SMV and WLI carried out tests

with octylphenol and UNT carried out a test with vinc lozolin. A fourth lab, ABC, did not participate in

the EPA mysid test program but carried out a mysid 2- generation test with octylphenol which is included

in the inter-laboratory analysis. T hus the inter-laboratory analysis is based on six studies carried out at

four laboratories with three chemicals.

2. QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED; LOCATIONS OF ANSWERS

EPA requested that inter-laboratory analyses be ca rried out to answer a series of questions. The

questions raised by EPA and the report tables that pertain to those questions are given below:

 Is the behavior of controls similar among labs?

o What are the ranges of control values within a study for a single lab?

Tables 1A, 1C, 2A, 2C, 3A, 3C display the control group mean values (averaged across

three tanks) for each laboratory and pooled across laboratories, as well as the CV% across

laboratories. The CV% incorporates laboratory-to-laboratory variability. The A tables

correspond to generation F0. The C ta bles correspond to generation F1.

Tables 1B, 1D, 2B, 2D, 3B, 3D display the within study variances of the control group

means within each laboratory, the pooled with in study variance across laboratories, the

random study-to-study variance within laborat ories, and the combined laboratory and

study variance across laboratories. The B tables correspond to generation F0. The D

tables correspond to generation F1.

Tables 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B present within study 95% prediction intervals that give

the anticipated range of control group mean values about the overall mean with 95%

confidence within a single laboratory and study. The A tables correspond to generation

F0. The B tables correspond to generation F1.

o What are the ranges of control values between studies for a single lab (i.e. different

chemicals)?

Tables 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B present 95% pred iction intervals that give the anticipated

range of control group mean values about the overall mean with 95% confidence among

independent studies within the same laborat ory. The A tables correspond to generation

F0. The B tables correspond to generation F1.

o What are the ranges of control values between multiple labs?

Tables 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B present 95% pred iction intervals that give the anticipated

range of control group mean values about th e overall mean with 95% confidence across

independent laboratories and studies. The A tables correspond to generation F0. The B

tables correspond to generation F1.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 2 o Are there differences in the technical proficie ncy (i.e. variability of controls) among labs?

Tables 1B, 1D, 2B, 2D, 3B, 3D display th e combined laboratory and study variances

across laboratories and studies. The signi ficance levels of these combined estimates

indicate whether there is statistical evidence that the true combined laboratory and study

variance is greater than zero. This indicat es whether there is evidence of variability of

controls among laboratories and studies. Th e B tables correspond to generation F0. The

D tables correspond to generation F1.

Tables 1B, 1D, 2B, 2D, 3B, 3D also display the p-values of tests of homogeneity of

within study variances. This indicates whet her there is evidence of differences in the

within study variability among laboratories and studies. The B tables correspond to

generation F0. The D tables correspond to generation F1.

o What is the power for detecting treatment -related effects based on the variability of

endpoints measured in controls?

Tables 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B, 9A, 9B display the distances from the control group means and

the upper and lower alternative values that can be detected with power 80% at 5%

significance level (two-sided). The A tabl es correspond to generation F0. The B tables

correspond to generation F1.

 Are dose-response relationships si milar among labs, in terms of

o Sensitivity (chemical concentrations that r esults in differences between treatment and

controls)

Tables 10A, 10B, 11A, 11B, 12A, 12B display th e summary of the significant differences

identified between test group and control grou p responses for lindane and for octylphenol,

within laboratories and pooled across laborato ries. Both overall individually significant

groups and significant trends across concentr ation groups are indicated, based on the

results of overall ANOVA F-tests and tests fo r linear trend. The A tables correspond to

generation F0. The B tables correspond to ge neration F1. Tables 10A to 12B can be

used to determine the lowest effect concentr ation as the lowest concentration at which a

significant difference between test group and control group is observed.

Tables 16A to 21B display the means and sta ndard errors for each concentration group,

within laboratories and pooled across labora tories. Significant effects pooled across

laboratories, if present, are indicated. Tables 16A to 18B correspond to the lindane

studies. Tables 19A to 21B correspond to the octylphenol studies. Both individual

significant groups and significant trends across concentration groups are indicated. The

A tables correspond to generation F0. The B tables correspond to generation F1.

o Slope (requires fitting the same model to da ta from all labs involved in comparison)

Tables 10A to 12B and Tables 16A to 21B show significant trends across concentration

groups, when present. Individual slope values were not determined.

 For the same chemical, is there value added to >1 generation (may be within multigenerational

studies, between 1 generation and >1 generation studies)?

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 3 Tables 13, 14, 15 display the summary of the significant differences identified between

the F0 and F1 generations for lindane and fo r octylphenol, within laboratories and pooled

across laboratories. Both individual sign ificant groups and significant trends across

concentration groups are indicated. Tables 13 to 15 can be used to determine the lowest

effect concentration as the lowest concentra tion at which a significant difference between

generations is observed.

Tables 22 to 27 display the differences of av erages between the F0 and F1 generations

and their standard errors for each concentr ation group, pooled across laboratories.

Significant effects, if present, are indicated. Tables 22 to 24 correspond to the lindane

studies. Tables 25 to 27 correspond to the octylphenol studies. Both individual

significant groups and significant trends across concentration groups are indicated.

3. STUDY DATA

The study endpoints that are included in the inter-l aboratory analyses are the same as those that

were included in the intra-laboratory analyses.

The test method specifies 25 endpoints. Some of the endpoints are recorded per mysid or

composite of mysids (e.g. day 0 weight), some are re corded per breeding pair, and some are recorded per

basket (i.e. per replicate tank). These endpoints are divided among three categories:

(i) Reproduction (F0, F1) (11)

a. Sex ratio (per basket)

b. Time to mature (per basket)

c. Time to first brood release (per breeding pair)

d. Time to second brood release (per breeding pair)

e. Interbrood duration, time between release of first and second brood (per breeding pair)

f. Number of young per female in the first brood (per breeding pair)

g. Number of young per female in the second brood (per breeding pair)

h. Total number of young in the first two broods per female (per breeding pair)

i. Percentage of females that are reproductively active in the first two broods (per basket)

j. Total reproduction days in the first two broods (per breeding pair)

k. Number of young per female per reproductive day in the first two broods (per breeding pair)

(ii) Survival (F0, F1) (6)

a. Survival rate for reproduction animals at days 7, 14 and termination (reproduction survival,

per basket)

b. Survival rate for all animals including both the growth and reproduction animals at days 7, 14

and termination (total survival, per tank)

The survival rates were adjusted for the numbe r removed for weight and length determinations

(i.e. were omitted from both the numerator and deno minator) and other non-treatment related deaths.

(iii) Growth (F0, F1) (8) 1



# a. Length at day 0 (per mysid)

b. Length at day 7 (per mysid)

c. Length at day 14 (per mysid)

1 

# Day 14 and terminal weights and lengths were reported by gender.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 4 d. Length at termination (per mysid)

e. Weight at day 0 (on average per composite of 5 mysids )

f. Weight at day 7 (on average per composite of 2 mysids)

g. Weight at day 14 (per mysid)

h. Weight at termination (per mysid)

(iv) Key Endpoints (F0, F1) (5)

EPA specified five endpoints as “key parameters”. These are:

a. Survival to termination (F0, F1)

b. Time to maturation (i.e. first day marsupial pouch is visible) (F0, F1)

c. Time to first brood release (F0, F1)

d. Time to second brood release (F0, F1)

e. Number of young per (surviving) female in the first two broods (F0, F1)

These endpoints will be analyzed along with the remai nder but their analysis results will be discussed in

greater detail.

4. INTER-LABORATORY ANALYSES

The inter-laboratory analysis is composed of three parts. The first part pertains to the comparison

of the control group results among the studies to assess the range of variation within studies, among

studies within laboratories, and among laboratories. The second part pertains to power analyses based on

the control groups to detect alternatives form the cont rol groups that can be detected with high power

within studies, based on average within study variabilit y. The third part pertains to the comparisons of

the treatment group-control group results for the key parameters.

Comparisons among control groups were carried out for the F0 ge neration results and for the F1

generation results. All six studies were included in the comparisons – SMV lindane and octylphenol,

UNT lindane and vinclozolin, WLI octylphenol, and A BC octylphenol. The variation in control results

was compared among laboratories and studies. Hete rogeneous variance random effects analysis of

variance models with random effects laboratory and st udy within laboratory were fitted to the control

results from each of the laboratories. Individual studies within study variances were included for each

laboratory. Pooled within study variance was determined as the unwei ghted averages of the individual

within study variances with degrees of freed om based on Satterthwaite’s approximation.

Pooled within study variation, study-to-study variation within laboratories, and laboratory-tolaboratory variation were determined. The six studi es were divided among four laboratories. SMV and

UNT each carried out two studies while WLI and A BC each had just one study included in the interlaboratory analyses. The study-to-study variation alone was estimated based on a mixed effects model

that included laboratory as a fixed effect and study as a random effect. Based on this model study-tostudy variation was estimated as the difference in st udy effects within each of the two laboratories that

carried out two studies. This is a reliable estimate of study variation, independent of laboratory variation.

The combined laboratory and study variation was based on a random effects model that treated both

laboratory and study as random effects. Due to th e limitations of the data and the confounding of

laboratory and study effects in the two laboratories that carried out just one study the random effects

model does not provide precise estimates of each of the laboratory and study variance components

individually. The variance components are highly nega tively correlated so the sum of the laboratory and

study variance components is determined with greater reliability than either of the individual variance

components. Since the estimate of study variance alone from the mixed effects model is considered to be

more reliable than the laboratory + study total variance estimate from the six studies random effects

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 5 model, if the study variance estimate exceeds the labora tory + study variance estimate , then the estimated

study variance is also used as the laboratory + study variance estimate.

The pooled within study variation, random study variation, and random laboratory and study

variation were used to construct 95% two-sided pr ediction intervals about the average within study

control group mean. Three levels of prediction intervals were constructed:



#  Within study variation

wi avg wi 0.975, avg 

# Var Var t ˆ  

 

# 

 Study-to-study within laboratory variation

st wi avg st 0.975, avg 

# Var Var Var t ˆ   

 

# 

 Laboratory-to-laboratory and study-to-study variation

tot wi avg tot 0.975, avg 

# Var Var Var t ˆ   

 

# 

Var

avg 

# is the variance of the average response pooled across studies. Var wi 

# is the within study variance.

Var

st 

# is the study-to-study variance within laboratories. Var

tot 

# is the combined study variance + laboratory

variance. By the way it is defined the estimated to tal variance must exceed the estimated study variance.

Degrees of freedom ν wi 

# , ν st, 

# and ν tot 

# were determined by Sa tterthwaite’s method. The prediction intervals

estimate the ranges of control group mean values that may be expected with 95% confidence: within a

study, among studies within a laboratory, and among studies and laboratories.

Power determinations were carried out for each endpoint based on the control group within run

variance. Alternatives that can be distinguished fro m the control group mean with power 80% with a 5%

(two-sided) significance level within a study were de termined. These alternatives are based on the noncentral t-distribution with noncentrality parameter | δ |/(  2s wi 

# ) where s wi 

# is the pooled within study standard

error. Degrees of freedom are twice that for the control group and vary with endpoint. For example

brood size is reported on a per brood basis and there are 21 breeding pairs per group, so the degrees of

freedom is 2×(21-1) = 40. Survival rate is reporte d on a per tank basis and there are 3 reproduction tanks

per group so the degrees of freedom is 2×(3-1) = 4.

5. COMPARISONS OF SELECTED STUDY CHARACTERISTICS ACROSS ENDPOINTS

AND ACROSS GENERATIONS

The inter-laboratory analysis output includes num erous tables and figures that display numerous

summary characteristics for each endpoint. Additional su mmary displays were prepared for several of the

study characteristics to highlight their comparisons across endpoints and across generations.

Table I.1 to I.4 and Figures I.1 to I.3 pertain to comparisons of inter-laboratory CVs across

endpoints. Table I.1 shows the range of and median CVs for the growth, reproduction, and survival

endpoints in generations F0 and F1. Within each endp oint category the endpoints are sorted by generation

F0 CV. Although the median CVs in each category tend to be higher or about equivalent in generation F0

than in generation F1, 15 of 25 endpoints have larg er CVs in generation F1 than in generation F0.

Tables I.2 to I.4 display the CVs across laboratories and studies and significance levels for heterogeneity

across laboratories and studies for the growth, repr oduction, and survival endpoints respectively. These

are displayed in Figures I.1 to I.3. The tables and figures show positive associations between the CVs in

generations F0 and F1 and greater CVs in generation F1 than in generation F0 for the majority of

endpoints (15 of 25).

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 6 Tables I.5 and I.6 and Figure I.4 to I.6 display the percent distances from the control group means

that can be detected with 80% power at 5% signifi cance level, in generation F0 and generation F1. The

endpoints are sorted within each endpoint category (gro wth, reproduction, survival) by the generation F0

percent distance. The generation F1 percent distance is displayed as is the ratio of generation F1 to

generation F0 percent distances. Ta ble I.6 and Figures I.4 to I.6 show that the F1 percent distance is

greater than the F0 percent distance for nearly all (23 of 25) endpoints and there is a positive association

between the F0 percent distance and the F1 pe rcent distance in each endpoint category.

Comparison of Inter-Laboratory CVs across Endpoints

The 25 mysid assay parameters were divided in to 3 categories: 8 growth parameters, 11

reproduction parameters, and 6 survival parameters. For each parameter the CV across labs and the

associated p-value for significance of the laborator y + study random variati on (i.e. differences among

laboratories and among studies within laboratories) fo r the F0 and F1generations were summarized and

are shown below.

For each category the parameters were sorted in order of F0 generation CV, from smallest to

largest. The F1 generation CV and the F0 and F1 generation p-values were presented alongside the F)

generation CV for comparison. Separate tables are shown for the growth, reproduction, and survival

endpoints respectively.

The ranges of CVs can be compared across categor ies by comparisons within and across tables.

The CVs are larger for the growth and reproduction endpoi nts and smaller for the survival endpoints. The

ranges are summarized in Table I.1.

Table I.1. Ranges of F0 and F1 CV% a cross Laboratories and Studies. By Category.

F0 F1

Category CV Range Median CV Range Median # F1 > F0

Growth 12.6 – 84.5 23.9 16.2 – 39.5 18.3 4 of 8

Reproduction 4.2 – 35.2 24.9 1.4 – 68.8 15.5 7 of 11

Survival 1.9 – 20.0 6.1 3.1 – 22.2 6.3 4 of 6

Total 1.9 – 84.5 20.0 1.4 – 68.8 16.2 15 of 25



# Although the median CVs are about equal or larg er between the F0 and F1 generations, the F1

CVs tend to exceed the F0 CVs for the same parameter. This is reflected in 15 of 25 F1 CVs exceeding

the corresponding F0 CVs.

Tables I.2, I.3, and I.4 and Figures I.1, I.2, a nd I.3 below show that there is positive association

between the F0 and F1 CVs, particularly for the re production and survival parameters. For example the

reproduction parameters Tota l Reproductive Days for the First Tw o Broods and # Offspring per Female

per Reproduction Day for the First Two Broods have relatively small CVs for both the F0 and F1

generations. By contrast Number of Offspring for Brood 1, for Brood 2, and for two broods have

relatively large CVs for both the F0 and F1 generations.

Figures I.1, I.2, and I.3 show the positive associa tions between the corresponding F0 and F1CVs.

The reference lines in each figure are the lines of equality of the F0 and F1 CVs. For those points above

the reference lines the F1 CVs ex ceed the corresponding F0 CVs.

Several CVs stand out as removed from the remainde r. For example for the growth endpoints the

F0 CV for dry weight (day 7) is 84.5%, far in ex cess of any other growth endpoint CV. As shown in

Table 2A, the average across laboratories is 0.280 mg, the WLI octylphenol average is 0.597 mg, and the

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 7 SMV octylphenol average is 0.083 mg. Average weight varies among labs by a factor of more than 7.

Based on the observed variability across laborator ies and studies, Table 5A shows a 95% normal

distribution based prediction interval across studies a nd laboratories ranging from 0.000 to 0.854. Both

the WLI octylphenol and the SMV octylphenol averages fall within this range.

For the reproduction endpoints the F1 CVs for numbe r of offspring in brood 1, brood 2, and the

two broods are somewhat larger than the other CVs. The F1 CV for number of offspring in brood 1 is

68.8%. As shown in Table 1C, the average across la boratories is 4.93, the WLI octylphenol average is

1.36, and the ABC octylphenol average is 7.71. Table 4B shows a 95% normal distribution based

prediction interval across studies and laboratories ranging from 0.000 to 13.200. Both the WLI

octylphenol and the ABC octylphenol averages fall within this range.

This suggests that the variation among labs re presents normal variation among laboratories and

studies within laboratories. Note that it would be preferable if the determination of the prediction

intervals had been based on studies other than t hose being evaluated relative to their ranges.

Table I.2 F0 and F1 CV% and Significance Leve ls across Laboratories and Studies. Growth

Endpoints.

Growth Endpoints

Categ Param CVF0 CVF1 PF0 PF1

Growth G5 Length (mm) (day 0) 12.589 18.446 0.001 0.001

G7 Length (mm) (day 14) 12.632 23.558 0.001 0.001

G3 Dry Weight (mg) ( day 14) 14.643 16.468 0.001 0.001

G8 Length (mm) (Termination) 21.725 18.067 0.001 0.001

G4 Dry Weight (mg) (Ter mination) 26.105 25.123 0.001 0.001

G6 Length (mm) (day 7) 28.817 16.204 0.001 0.001

G1 Dry Weight (mg) ( day 0) 37.991 39.547 0.001 0.003

G2 Dry Weight (mg) ( day 7) 84.464 18.223 0.001 0.047

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 8 Table I.3 F0 and F1 CV% and Significance Levels across Laboratories and Studies.

Reproductive Endpoints.

Reproductive Endpoints

Categ Param CVF0 CVF1 PF0 PF1

Repro R8 Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods 4.252 8.651 1.000 0.552

R9 # of Offspring Per Female Per Reproduction Day

for the First Two Broods 4.343 7.951 1.000 0.945

R7 Time to Mature (females) 12.229 22.588 0.001 0.001

R10 % of Female Reproductively Active 13.127 1.408 0.001 0.259

R11 Sex Ratio (males/females) 21.837 38.342 0.555 0.059

R5 Days to Brood 2 24.899 13.868 0.001 0.001

R4 Days to Brood 1 25.550 15.457 0.001 0.001

R6 Days Between Broods 1 and 2 25.656 7.679 0.001 0.059

R2 Number Offspring (Brood 2) 31.483 64.161 0.001 0.001

R3 Number Offspring (two broods) 33.032 57.475 0.001 0.001

R1 Number Offspring (brood 1) 35.188 68.846 0.001 0.001



# Table I.4 F0 and F1 CV% and Significance Leve ls across Laboratories and Studies. Survival

Endpoints.

Survival Endpoints

Categ Param CVF0 CVF1 PF0 PF1

Repro S1 Reproduction Survival Rate (%) day 7) 1.912 3.729 0.373 0.179

S4 Total Survival Rate (%) (day 7) 2.719 5.284 0.639 0.001

S5 Total Survival Rate (%) (day 14) 5.254 3.061 0.229 0.953

S6 Total Survival Rate (%) (T ermination) 6.857 11.602 1.000 0.087

S2 Reproduction Survival Rate (%) (day 14) 10.143 7.324 0.001 0.003

S3 Reproduction Survival Rate (% ) (Termination) 19.978 22.154 0.001 0.004DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data9Figure I.1. F0 CV% Vs. F1 CV% for Corresponding Parameters. Growth Endpoints.CVF110203040CVF010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data10Figure I.2 F0 CV% Vs. F1 CV% for Corresponding Parameters. Reproduction Endpoints.CVF1010203040506070CVF00 10 20 30 40DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data11Figure I.3 F0 CV% Vs. F1 CV% for Corresponding Parameters. Survival Endpoints.CVF11357911131517192123CVF01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 12 Comparison of Within Study Power Sensitiv ity across Endpoints and between Generations

The 25 mysid assay parameters were divided in to 3 categories: 8 growth parameters, 11

reproduction parameters, and 6 survival parameters. Each parameter was assigned a code: G1 to G8, R1

to R11, and S1 to S6. The endpoint categories and codes as well as the parameter descriptions are

displayed in Table I.5.

Power analyses were carried out to determine devi ations from the control group means that could

be detected with power 80% at the 5% (two-sided) significance level. The power analyses were based on

the average within study variability for the control gr oup parameters in each of the five intra-laboratory

analyses. The sample sizes assumed are the nominal sa mple sizes for the control group, pooled across the

three growth baskets or the three reproduction baskets. Table I.6 displays for each endpoint category the

endpoint codes, the F0 and F1 generation control group means, the F0 and F1 control group nominal

sample size, the F0 and F1 generation percent distan ces from the control group mean that can be detected

with power 80%, and the ratio of the F1 percen t deviation to the F0 percent deviation for the

corresponding parameters. Within each category the pa rameters are ordered by F0 percent deviation,

from smallest to largest.

The F0 and F1 nominal sample sizes (n_Nom _F0 and n_Nom_F1) are determined as follows:

Reproduction parameters

 Parameters R1 to R9 are based on the numb er of breeding pairs – 7 per tank×3 tanks

 Parameters R10 and R11 are determined on a per tank basis – 3 tanks per group

Survival parameters

 All the survival parameters are determined on a per tank basis

Growth parameters

 Parameters G1 and G2 (dry weight on days 0 a nd 7) are based on three composites per tank with

5 mysids (day 0) and 2 mysids (day 7) per composite

 Parameters G5 and G6 G2 (length on days 0 a nd 7) are based on the number of growth mysids

per tank (15 on day 0 and 6 on day 7) sel ected to have length determinations

 Parameters G3 and G4, G7 and G8 (dry weight on days 14 and termination, length on day 14 and

termination) are based on the approximate average sample sizes across laboratories and studies

for F0 and F1 respectively. There were fewer my sids remaining in the growth baskets (day 14)

and reproduction baskets (termination) in the F1 generation than in the F0 generation.

Figures I.4, I.5, and I.6 display the F0 vs.F1 percent deviations from the control group means for

the corresponding parameters for detection with 80% pow er with 5% (two-sided) significance level. The

reference lines correspond to equality of the F0 and F1 percent deviations. Pa rameters lying above the

reference line have greater F1 per cent deviation than F0 deviation.

The figures show positive associations between the F0 deviations and the F1 deviations for each

of the categories. The F1 generation deviations excee d the corresponding F0 deviations for all the growth

and reproduction parameters and for 4 of 6 of the survival parame ters. Parameter G1 among the growth

parameters (dry weight day 0) and R11 among the re production parameters (sex ratio) stand out as being

particularly far removed from the reference lines of e quality. Table 8A and 8B for the growth endpoints

show that the means (standard errors) for dry weight on day 0 are F0: 0.034(0.002) and F1: 0.028(0.007).

The means do not differ much between generations but the F1 generation standard error is 3.5 times the

F0 generation standard error. Tables 7A and 7B for the reproduction endpoints show that the means

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 13 (standard errors) for sex ratio are F0: 1.34(0.32) and F1: 1.28(0.48). The means do not differ much

between generations but the F1 genera tion standard error is 1.5 times the F0 generation standard error.

The F1 standard errors tend to exceed the corresponding F0 standard errors. This may be due to

greater variation among tanks or sm aller numbers of mysids per tank in F1 compared to F0.

Table I.5 Mysid 2-Generation Study Reproduction, Growth, and Survival Endpoints with

Endpoint Codes

Category Endpoint Parameter

Repro R1 First Brood Size

R2 Second Brood Size

R3 First Two Brood Sizes

R4 Days to First Brood

R5 Days to Second Brood

R6 Days between Two Broods

R7 Days to Maturity (females)

R8 Total Reproductive Days for First Two Broods

R9 # of Offspring Per Female Per Reproduction Day for the

First Two Broods

R10 % of Females Productively Active

R11 Sex Ratio (males/females)

Growth G1 Dry Weight Day 0

G2 Dry Weight Day 7

G3 Dry Weight Day 14

G4 Dry Weight Termination

G5 Length Day 0

G6 Length Day 7

G7 Length Day 14

G8 Length Termination

Surv S1 Reproduction Survival rate day 7

S2 Reproduction Survival rate day 14

S3 Reproduction Survival rate Termination

S4 Total Survival rate day 7

S5 Total Survival rate day 14

S6 Total Survival rate TerminationDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data14Table I.6 Mysid 2-Generation Study. Percent Deviations from the Corresponding Group Means for Detection with 80% Power inthe F0 and F1 Generations Based on Average within Study Variability.CategoryEndpointParameterGener_F0n_Nom_F0Mean_F0Gener_F1n_Nom_F1Mean_F1pctdist_F0pctdist_F1ratio_F1F0GrowthG8 Length Termination F0367.5237F1 267.23713.0215.9231.96029G7 Length Day 14 F0365.3783F1 226.28604.4324.5091.01732G5 Length Day 0 F0451.7066F1 451.56755.3706.0291.12280G6 Length Day 7 F0184.0506F1 184.37918.5389.4131.10250G4 Dry Weight TerminationF0361.1319F1 261.136413.74315.8091.15034G3 Dry Weight Day 14 F0360.5764F1 220.719216.51818.5161.12096G2 Dry Weight Day 7 F090.2803F1 90.290722.52740.2811.78810G1 Dry Weight Day 0 F090.0341F1 90.027929.619112.5223.79902ReproR7Days to Maturity (females)F02112.3873F1 2111.642811.01021.0201.90908R5 Days to Second BroodF02125.6595F1 2122.976314.21718.1261.27493R4 Days to First Brood F02119.3977F1 2117.581814.90318.7481.25804R8 Total Reproductive Days for First Two BroodsF0219.3427F1 218.375517.28426.8351.55261R9 # of Offspring Per Female Per ReproductionDay for the First Two BroodsF0211.5801F1 211.930222.51834.4371.52933R10 % of Females Productively ActiveF0391.5148F1 399.636422.85741.8611.83144R3 First Two Brood SizesF02112.4476F1 2112.605637.68846.7391.24016R1 First Brood Size F0215.4298F1 214.930439.30951.9801.32233R6 Days between Two BroodsF0216.0302F1 215.299942.18152.6971.24931R2 Second Brood Size F0217.1212F1 217.277654.60054.6981.00179R11Sex Ratio (males/females)F031.3364F1 31.2764126.803200.4391.58071SurvS4 Total Survival rate day 7F0398.3917F1 394.613811.69914.4631.23622S1 Reproduction Survival rate day 7F0398.9118F1 397.366616.56514.0250.84662S2 Reproduction Survival rate day 14F0389.0174F1 393.627817.44126.4991.51932S5 Total Survival rate day 14F0390.1102F1 389.107021.86738.7851.77373S3 Reproduction Survival rate TerminationF0378.9797F1 379.053929.77854.2621.82221S6 Total Survival rate TerminationF0377.4641F1 385.143536.50625.9450.71071DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data15Figure I.4F0 vs. F1 Percent Deviations from the Control Group Meansfor the Corresponding Parameters to Detect Effects withPower 80%. Growth Parameters.pctdist_F10102030405060708090100110120pctdist_F00 10 20 30DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data16Figure I.5F0 vs. F1 Percent Deviations from the Control Group Meansfor the Corresponding Parameters to Detect Effects withPower 80%. Reproduction Parameters.pctdist_F1102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210pctdist_F010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data17Figure I.6F0 vs. F1 Percent Deviations from the Control Group Meansfor the Corresponding Parameters to Detect Effects withPower 80%. Survival Parameters.pctdist_F1102030405060pctdist_F010 20 30 40

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 18 Lowest Effect Concentration (LOEC) across Endpoints and Across Generations

The LOEC is the lowest test concentration group (groups 2 to 6) at which a significant difference

occurs, either significantly different from the control group (group 1) within a generation or significantly

different between generations. Table I.7 displays th e LOECs within generations or between generations

for each category and endpoitn within category.

There are not many significant differences based on average results pooled across studies. Where

significant differences are shown, more detailed inform ation about the nature and direction of the effects

(positive or negative or increasing or decreasing trend) is found by reviewing Tables 10A to 15 or Tables

16A to 27.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data19Table I.7 LOEC for Comparisons between Test Groups and Control within Generations and between Generations. Lindaneand Octylphenol.LindaneOctylphenolCategoryEndpointParameterF0F1F1-F0F0F1F1-F0ReproR1First Brood Size5R2Second Brood Size62R3First Two Brood Sizes62R4Days to First BroodR5Days to Second Brood6R6Days between Two BroodsR7Days to Maturity (females)NAR8Total Reproductive Days forFirst Two BroodsNANANANANANAR9# of Offspring Per Female PerReproduction Day for theFirst Two BroodsNANANANANANAR10% of Females ProductivelyActiveR11Sex Ratio (males/females)GrowthG1Dry Weight Day 0G2Dry Weight Day 7G3Dry Weight Day 146G4Dry Weight TerminationNANAG5Length Day 05G6Length Day 7G7Length Day 145G8Length TerminationNASurvS1Reproduction Survival rateday 7S2Reproduction Survival rateday 14S3Reproduction Survival rateTerminationS4Total Survival rate day 76NAS5Total Survival rate day 14NAS6Total Survival rateTerminationNANANANANA

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 20 6. RESULTS

Tables 1A – 9B and Figures 1- 50 display the r esults of the inter-laboratory analyses on the

control group values, alternatives that can be dis tinguished from the control group means with 80% power,

and side-by-side comparisons of the intra-laboratory an alysis results. Tables 10A to 12B and 16A to 21B

display comparisons of treatment group results vs . control group results within generation F0 or

generation F1, within individual st udies or pooled across studies based on the same chemical (lindane or

octylphenol). Tables 13 to 15 and 22 to 27 display comparisons between genera tions, within individual

studies or pooled across studies based on the same chemical (lindane or octylphenol).

Tables 1A to 1D present estimates of control gr oup mean values and variance components for the

reproduction endpoints and the F0 and F1 generations, Ta bles 2A to 2D present the same estimates for the

growth endpoints, and Tables 3A to 3D present the sa me estimates for the survival endpoints. For each

grouping of endpoints the A and C tables display (for th e F0 and F1 generations respectively) the control

group average values and the standard errors for each study, and the average values and the standard

errors across studies based on a random effects analysis of variance with random effects laboratory and

study within laboratory and heterogeneous within st udy variance. The coefficient of variation across

studies is calculated as [(Across Stdy Std Err)  6/(Across Stdy Mean)]×100%.

For each grouping of endpoints the B and D ta bles display (for the F0 and F1 generations

respectively) the within study variances and degrees of freedom for each of the st udies, the pooled within

study variance calculated as the unweighted average of the individual within study variances and

associated degrees of freedom based on Satterthwaite’s approximation, and the random study effect

within laboratory variance and the to tal variance (study and laboratory ) with associated p-values based on

likelihood ratio tests. The total variance is based on a random effects model including random effects

laboratory and study within laborator y, and heterogeneous within study variances. Because two of the

labs (WLI and ABC) conducted just one study that is included in the inter-laboratory analyses, the study

variance estimate and the laboratory variance estim ate are highly intercorrelated and each variance

component is less reliably estimated based on this study than is the sum of the two variance components.

The study within labs variance component itself is more reliably estimated based on just the SMV and

UNT laboratories, each of which conducted two studies. This estimate is obtained by fitting a mixed

effects model and treating laboratory as a fixed effect and study within laboratory as a random effect.

This estimate of study variance is effectively based on just the two laboratories that conducted two studies

and is considered to be more reliable than the es timate of study variance based on the full model with

both laboratory and study as random effects. Thus the study variance component is based on the mixed

effects model and the total variance (i.e. laboratory+ study variance) is based on the full random effects

model. If the estimate of study variance exceeds the in itial estimate of total variance then the estimate of

study variance is substituted for the estimate of tota l variance. The B and D tables include estimates of

the variance of the pooled mean and associated degrees of freedom as well as the p-value for the test of

homogeneity of the within study variances based on a one-way ANOVA test on the natural logarithms of

the within study variances.

Tables 4A to 6B display the variance component estimates and 95% prediction intervals about the

pooled control mean to reflect the range of cont rol values within study, between studies within a

laboratory, and between studies and laboratories. Ta bles 4A and 4B pertain to the reproduction endpoints,

Tables 5A and 5B pertain to the growth endpoints, and Tables 6A and 6B pertain to the survival

endpoints. The A tables correspond to the F0 generati on and the B tables correspond to the F1 generation.

Tables 7A to 9B display alternatives to the cont rol group means that can be detected with 80%

power at the 5% (two-sided) significance level. The power analyses are based on the non-central tdistribution with degrees of freedom depending on th e endpoint. Tables 7A and 7B pertain to the

reproduction endpoints, Tables 8A and 8B pertain to th e growth endpoints, and Tables 9A and 9B pertain

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 21 to the survival endpoints. The A tables correspond to the F0 generation and the B tables correspond to the

F1 generation.

Tables 10A to 12B display side-by-side compar isons within generation of the significant

deviations from the control group for each intra-laborat ory analysis separately and for the inter-laboratory

analyses pooled over studies with the same chemical (lindane or octylphenol). The A tables correspond

to the F0 generation and the B tables correspond to th e F1 generation. Tables 10A, 10B correspond to the

reproduction endpoints, Tables 11A, 11B correspond to the growth endpoints, and Tables 12A, 12B

correspond to the survival endpoints. “ ↑ ” denotes that the test group mean is significantly greater than the

control group mean. “ ↓ ” denotes that the test group mean is significantly less than the control group

mean.

Tables 13 to 15 pertain to the comparisons between the F0 and F1 generations for the

reproduction (Table 13), growth (Table 14), and su rvival (Table 15) endpoints respectively. “ ↓ ” denotes

that the F1 generation is significantly smaller than the F0 generation. “ ↑ ” denotes that the F1 generation

is significantly greater than the F1 generation.

Tables 16A to 21B display the group mean (simple means) and standard erro rs within generations

for each concentration group within each study as we ll as well as the group means (least squares means)

pooled across studies. Overall significant concentra tion effects and concentration trend effects are

indicated in the two right most columns for the in ter-laboratory comparisons, where present. Otherwise

the columns are left blank. The A(B) tables corr espond to the F0(F1) generations. Tables 16A to 18B

correspond to the lindane studies. Tables 19A to 21B correspond to the octylphenol studies. Tables 16A,

16B, 19A, 19B correspond to the reproduction endpoint s. Tables 17A, 17B, 20A, 20B correspond to the

growth endpoints. Tables 18A, 18B, 21A, 21B correspond to the survival endpoints.

Tables 22 to 27 display the differences of group me ans (least squares means) and standard errors

between generations (F1 – F0) for each concentra tion group pooled across studies. Positive (negative)

f=differences indicate that the F1 mean is greater (les s) than the F0 mean. If either the generation main

effect or the generation by concentration interaction was significant then t-tests based on the analysis of

variance were performed on each conc entration group to determine tho se concentration groups for which

the F0 and F1 generation means were significantly di fferent at the 5% significance level. Step-down

trend tests for significant trends in differences betw een generations were performed, starting with the

highest concentration group and moving downward. Tables 22 to 24 correspond to the lindane studies

(Table 22 reproduction, Table 23 growth, Table 24 survival). Tables 25 to 27 correspond to the

octylphenol studies (Table 25 reproduction, Table 26 growth, Table 27 survival).

Figures 1 to 50 display side-by-side comparisons of the within study control means and weighted

pooled means across studies for the reproduction (Figures 1 to 11, 26 to 36), growth (Figures 12 to 19, 37

to 44), and survival endpoints (Figures 20 to 25, 45 to 50). Two standard erro r bars are shown above and

below the control group means. The standard error ba rs for the individual studies reflect within study

variability. For the averages across studies that standa rd error bars reflect both within study variability

and study-to-study variability. Figures 1 to 25 correspond to the F0 generation and Figures 26 to 50

correspond to the F1 generation.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 22 7. SUMMARY OF CONTROL RESULTS FOR KEY ENDPOINTS

This section elaborates on the control results for the five key endpoints specified by EPA and

enumerated in Section 3 (iv). For each endpoint the number of studies, the range of control mean values

across studies, the weighted average of individual means across studies and the %CV, a 95% prediction

interval for the range of responses across studies and laboratories are given for both the F0 and the F1

generation. In addition, the contro l group mean and alternatives that can be detected with 80% power at

5% (two-sided) significance level are shown.

A. Survival to Termination F0, F1

Table I.8 summarizes survival to termination for key endpoints across laboratories, which is

detailed in Tables 3A to 3D, 6A to 6B, 9A to 9B . This endpoint is subdivided into two endpoints:

reproduction survival to termination a nd total survival to termination.

Table I.8. Summary of Survival to Termination

Generation Reproduction Survival

% to Termination Total Survival %

to Termination

F0 # Studies 6 2

Range across Studies 72-98 76-79

Weighted Average Across Studies 79 77

CV% 20% 7%

95% Pred Intvl Betw Studies and Labs 41-100 62-93

F1 # Studies 6 2

Range across Studies 62-93 78-92

Weighted Average Across Studies 79 85

CV% 22% 12%

95% Pred Intvl Betw Studies and Labs 36-100 38-100

Generation Reproduction Survival

% to Termination Total Survival %

to Termination

F0 # Replicates Per Group 3 3

Control Group Mean 79 77

Lower Limit to Detect with 80% Power 55 49

Upper Limit to Detect with 80% Power NA NA

F1 # Replicates Per Group 3 3

Control Group Mean 79 85

Lower Limit to Detect with 80% Power 36 63

Upper Limit to Detect with 80% Power NA NA

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 23 B. Time to Maturity F0, F1

Table I.9 summarizes time to maturity across labor atories, which is detailed in Tables 1A to 1D,

4A to 4B, 7A to 7B.

Table I.9 Summary of Time to Maturity

Generation Time to Maturity

F0 # Studies 5

Range across Studies 10-14

Weighted Average Across Studies 12

CV% 12%

95% Pred Intvl Betw Studies and Labs 8-17

F1 # Studies 5

Range across Studies 9-14

Weighted Average Across Studies 12

CV% 23%

95% Pred Intvl Betw Studies and Labs 5-19

Generation Time to Maturity

F0 # Replicates Per Group 21

Control Group Mean 12

Lower Limit to Detect with 80% Power 11

Upper Limit to Detect with 80% Power 14

F1 # Replicates Per Group 21

Control Group Mean 12

Lower Limit to Detect with 80% Power 9

Upper Limit to Detect with 80% Power 14

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 24 C. Time to First Brood Release, Time to Second Brood Release F0, F1

Table I.10 summarizes time to first brood release and time to second brood release across

laboratories, which are detailed in Tables 1A to 1D, 4A to 4B, 7A to 7B.

Table I.10. Summary of Time to First and Second Brood Release

Generation Time to First

Brood Release Time to Second

Brood Release

F0 # Studies 6 6

Range across Studies 16-26 21-34

Weighted Average Across Studies 19 26

CV% 26% 25%

95% Pred Intvl Betw Studies and Labs 7-31 10-41

F1 # Studies 6 6

Range across Studies 15-20 20-26

Weighted Average Across Studies 18 23

CV% 15% 14%

95% Pred Intvl Betw Studies and Labs 11-24 15-31

Generation Time to First

Brood Release Time to Second

Brood Release

F0 # Replicates Per Group 21 21

Control Group Mean 19 26

Lower Limit to Detect with 80% Power 17 22

Upper Limit to Detect with 80% Power 22 29

F1 # Replicates Per Group 21 21

Control Group Mean 18 23

Lower Limit to Detect with 80% Power 14 19

Upper Limit to Detect with 80% Power 21 27

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data



# 25 D. Number of Offspring per (Surviving) Female (two broods ) F0, F1

Table I.11 summarizes number of offspring per (surviving) female (two broods) across

laboratories, which is detailed in Tabl es1A to 1D, 4A to 4B, 7A to 7B.

Table I.11. Summary of Number of Offspring per Female

Generation Number of Offspring per

(Surviving) Female (two broods)

F0 # Studies 6

Range across Studies 9-16

Weighted Average Across Studies 12

CV% 33%

95% Pred Intvl Betw Studies and Labs 2-13

F1 # Studies 6

Range across Studies 4-19

Weighted Average Across Studies 13

CV% 57%

95% Pred Intvl Betw Studies and Labs 0-30

Generation Number of Offspring per

(Surviving) Female (two broods)

F0 # Replicates Per Group 21

Control Group Mean 12

Lower Limit to Detect with 80% Power 8

Upper Limit to Detect with 80% Power 17

F1 # Replicates Per Group 21

Control Group Mean 13

Lower Limit to Detect with 80% Power 7

Upper Limit to Detect with 80% Power 18.5DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data26Table 1A. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Means andStandard Errors for Control with RandomLaboratory and Study for Reproduction Endpoints and F0 GenerationParameterIndividual Study Mean (Standard Error)aAverage Across Laboratories andStudiesSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolMean(Standard Error)bCV(95% CI)cNumber Offspring(brood 1)5.476 (0.349)6.048 (0.550)5.941 (0.661)3.800 (0.490)7.714 (0.474)3.471 (0.576)5.430 (0.780)35.188(19.292, 186.875)Number Offspring(brood 2)8.800 (0.605)8.238 (0.807)6.308 (1.227)4.900 (0.767)8.619 (1.004)5.800 (1.176)7.121 (0.915)31.483(17.895, 127.411)Number Offspring(two broods)14.300 (0.612)14.286 (1.096)12.077 (1.483)8.700 (1.049)16.333 (1.210)9.067 (1.293)12.448 (1.679)33.032(18.626, 141.763)Days to Brood 115.810 (0.178)19.000 (0.333)19.294 (0.580)17.800 (0.614)16.476 (0.178)26.250 (1.468)19.398 (2.023)25.550(14.559, 98.672)Days to Brood 221.200 (0.388)23.500 (0.407)23.800 (0.712)25.412 (0.912)22.619 (0.428)34.077 (1.734)25.659 (2.608)24.899(14.021, 102.570)Days Between Broods 1 and 25.400 (0.320)4.500 (0.154)4.900 (0.100)7.588 (0.832)6.238 (0.377)9.000 (1.177)6.030 (0.632)25.656(15.757, 69.362)Time to Mature (females)d10.333 (0.333)13.000 (0.000)13.235 (0.585)11.333 (0.333)NAf14.000 (0.000)12.387 (0.677)12.229(7.303, 36.094)Total Reproductive Days for theFirst Two Broods9.200 (0.388)9.500 (0.407)NANANANA9.343 (0.281)4.252(3.454, 5.539)# of Offspring Per Female PerReproduction Day for the FirstTwo Broods1.567 (0.054)1.636 (0.112)NANANANA1.580 (0.049)4.343(3.414, 5.979)% of Females ProductivelyActivee100.000 (0.000)95.238 (4.762)80.952 (4.762)95.233 (4.767)100.000 (0.000)76.167 (4.767)91.515 (4.905)13.127(7.842, 38.678)Sex Ratio(males/ females)1.268 (0.367)1.773 (0.261)1.126 (0.180)1.472 (0.164)1.417 (0.542)1.064 (0.233)1.336 (0.119)21.837(13.658, 54.508)a.Means and their associated standard errorsfor each study were pooled across all samples within the control groups for each study.b.Averages and standard errors across studies were based on random effects model with study and laboratory treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous within studyvariances.c.CV = [(std err)K/Average]×100%, K is the numberof study with measurements.d.When fitting the model standard error 0 was replaced with 0.0001 for model fit purposes.e.When fitting the model standard error 0 was replaced with 1 for model fit purposes.f.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data27Table 1B. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Variance Component Analysis with Random Laboratoryand Study for Reproduction Endpoints and F0 GenerationParameterWithin Study Variance/Degree of Freedom (df)aRandom Variances (pvalues)Variance ofAverage/dffp-Value of TestofHomogeneouswithin StudiesVariancesgSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolPooledWithinbStudycLaboratoryand Studyd,eNumber Offspring(brood 1)0.122/20.00.302/20.00.437/16.00.240/19.00.224/20.00.332/16.00.276/92.50.839(0.108)2.580(<0.001)0.608/2.90.121Number Offspring(brood 2)0.366/19.00.652/20.01.505/12.00.589/19.01.007/20.01.383/14.00.917/71.60.000(1.000)2.649(<0.001)0.838/3.40.029Number Offspring(two broods)0.374/19.01.200/20.02.198/12.01.101/19.01.464/20.01.671/14.01.335/75.20.476(0.827)10.467(<0.001)2.818/3.30.008Days to Brood 10.032/20.00.111/19.00.337/16.00.377/19.00.032/20.02.154/15.00.507/28.53.073(<0.001)16.734(<0.001)4.094/3.3<0.001Days to Brood 20.151/19.00.166/19.00.507/9.00.831/16.00.183/20.03.006/12.00.807/28.31.773(<0.001)26.848(<0.001)6.803/3.1<0.001Days Between Broods 1 and 20.102/19.00.024/19.00.010/9.00.692/16.00.142/20.01.385/12.00.392/29.01.566(0.002)1.942(<0.001)0.399/5.1<0.001Time to Mature (females)0.111/2.00.000/2.00.342/16.00.111/2.0NAh0.000/20.00.113/16.22.601(<0.001)2.601(<0.001)0.459/4.0<0.001Total Reproductive Days for the First TwoBroods0.151/19.00.166/19.0NANANANA0.158/37.90.000(1.000)0.000(1.000)0.079/37.90.833# of Offspring Per Female Per ReproductionDay for the First Two Broods0.003/19.00.012/19.0NANANANA0.008/27.40.000(1.000)0.000(1.000)0.002/26.80.002% of Females Productively Active1.000/2.022.677/2.022.677/2.022.721/2.01.000/2.022.721/2.015.466/8.330.416(0.286)98.876(<0.001)24.054/4.00.023Sex Ratio(males/ females)0.134/2.00.068/2.00.032/2.00.027/2.00.293/2.00.054/2.00.102/6.50.030(0.555)0.030(0.555))0.014/5.50.541a.The within study variance for each laboratoryis the square of the standard error associated with the means, which was reportedin Table 1A.b.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximationc.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances. Themodel is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which each have two studies. The p-values are based on likelihood ratio test.d.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. The p-values are based onlikelihood ratio test.e.If the estimated study and laboratory variance is less than the study only variance, then the study variance is used as the study and laboratory variance.f.Variances for the averages were calculated asthe square of the standard error of thepooled weighted averages value. It includes both within and among laboratory and study variation. Degrees offreedom for the (mean) overall effect variance were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2 + Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2 is the total random variance, Si2 and dfi are the reportedvariance and degrees of freedom for laboratoryi, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2, and K is the number of studies (Hartung andMakambi, 2001)g.P-value of the test of homogeneity of the within study variancesbased on an ANOVA model, applied to the log (within-study variance).h.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.i.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data28Table 1C. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Means andStandard Errors for Control with RandomLaboratory and Study for Reproduction Endpoints and F1 GenerationParameterIndividual Study Mean (Standard Error)aAverage Across Laboratories and StudiesSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolMean(Standard Error)bCV(95% CI)cNumber Offspring(brood 1)6.571 (0.445)6.313 (0.717)4.867 (0.827)4.143 (0.421)7.714 (0.793)1.364 (0.432)4.930 (1.386)68.846(36.055, 1280.59)Number Offspring(brood 2)9.600 (0.654)7.154 (1.234)8.143 (1.185)7.200 (0.541)11.048 (1.141)1.818 (0.903)7.278 (1.906)64.164(34.101, 740.345)Number Offspring(two broods)15.950 (0.854)13.077 (1.820)13.286 (1.762)11.350 (0.697)18.762 (1.419)4.364 (1.728)12.606 (2.958)57.475(30.901, 490.292)Days to Brood 114.857 (0.261)16.333 (0.702)17.214 (0.395)16.095 (0.153)19.905 (0.194)19.286 (1.782)17.582 (1.109)15.457(8.918, 53.752)Days to Brood 220.050 (0.185)21.182 (0.761)22.818 (0.615)21.150 (0.150)25.600 (0.266)25.250 (2.287)22.976 (1.301)13.868(8.014, 47.647)Days Between Broods 1 and 25.200 (0.258)5.364 (0.561)5.545 (0.366)5.000 (0.072)5.700 (0.263)6.500 (1.500)5.300 (0.166)7.679(4.889, 17.641)Time to Mature (females)d9.667 (0.333)10.667 (0.333)11.357 (0.387)9.333 (1.202)NAf14.000 (0.000)11.643 (1.176)22.588(12.130, 127.532)Total Reproductive Days for theFirst Two Broods8.050 (0.185)9.182 (0.761)NANANANA8.375 (0.512)8.651(7.036, 11.273)# of Offspring Per Female PerReproduction Day for the First TwoBroods1.997 (0.116)1.754 (0.200)NANANANA1.930 (0.109)7.951(6.015, 11.779)% of Females Productively Activee100.000 (0.000)88.571 (5.948)83.333 (16.667)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)61.667 (7.265)99.636 (0.573)1.408(0.815, 4.706)Sex Ratio(males/ females)1.364 (0.397)1.183 (0.376)0.737 (0.189)1.434 (0.354)1.714 (0.286)2.029 (0.920)1.276 (0.200)38.342(23.292, 112.792)a.Means and their associated standard errorsfor each study were pooled across all samples within the control groups for each study.b.Averages and standard errors across studies were based on random effects model with study and laboratory treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances.c.CV = [(std err)K/Average]×100%, K is the numberof study with measurements.d.When fitting the model standard error 0 was replaced with 0.0001 for model fit purposes.e.When fitting the model standard error 0 was replaced with 1 for model fit purposes.f.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data29Table 1D. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Variance Component Analysis with Random Laboratoryand Study for Reproduction Endpoints and F1 GenerationParameterWithin Study Variance/Degree of Freedom (df)aRandom Variance(P-value)Variance ofAverage/dffp-Value of Testof Homogeneouswithin StudiesVariancesgSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolPooledWithinbStudycLaboratoryand Studyd,eNumber Offspring(brood 1)0.198/20.00.514/15.00.684/14.00.178/20.00.629/20.00.187/10.00.398/73.30.000(1.000)7.411(<0.001)1.920/3.10.006Number Offspring(brood 2)0.428/19.01.524/12.01.405/13.00.293/19.01.302/20.00.815/10.00.961/65.10.711(0.541)14.057(<0.001)3.634/3.20.004Number Offspring(two broods)0.729/19.03.313/12.03.104/13.00.486/19.02.014/20.02.987/10.02.105/57.21.014(0.651)33.760(<0.001)8.749/3.1<0.001Days to Brood 10.068/20.00.492/14.00.156/13.00.023/20.00.038/20.03.177/6.00.659/9.20.642(0.018)4.571(<0.001)1.231/3.4<0.001Days to Brood 20.034/19.00.579/10.00.378/10.00.023/19.00.071/19.05.228/3.01.052/4.40.805(0.041)6.175(<0.001)1.692/3.4<0.001Days Between Broods 1 and 20.066/19.00.314/10.00.134/10.00.005/19.00.069/19.02.250/3.00.473/4.70.034(0.700)0.069(0.059)0.028/5.7<0.001Time to Mature (females)0.111/2.00.111/2.00.150/13.01.445/2.0NAh0.000/10.00.363/3.10.558(0.115)4.228(<0.001)1.383/2.4<0.001Total Reproductive Days for the FirstTwo Broods0.034/19.00.579/10.0NANANANA0.306/11.20.334(0.552)0.334(0.552)0.262/48.9<0.001# of Offspring Per Female PerReproduction Day for the First TwoBroods0.014/19.00.040/10.0NANANANA0.027/16.90.003(0.945)0.003(0.945)0.012/20.50.049% of Females Productively Active0.000/2.035.377/2.0277.787/2.00.000/2.00.000/2.052.777/2.061.490/3.442.362(0.259)42.362(0.259)0.328/3.4<0.001Sex Ratio(males/ females)0.158/2.00.142/2.00.036/2.00.125/2.00.082/2.00.846/2.00.231/4.90.068(0.513)0.110(0.059)0.040/5.40.368a.The within study variance for each laboratoryis the square of the standard error associated with the means, which was reportedin Table 1C.b.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximationc.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effect and study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances.The model is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which each have two studies. The p-values are based on likelihood ratio test.d.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the random laboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. The p-values are based onlikelihood ratio test.e.If the estimated study and laboratory variance is less than thestudy only variance, then the study variance is used as the study and laboratory variance.f.Variances for the averages were calculatedas the square of the standard error of the pooled weighted averages value. It includes both within and among laboratoryand study variation. Degreesof freedom for the (mean) overall effect variance were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance, Si2and dfiare the reportedvariance and degrees of freedom for laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)g.P-value of the test of homogeneity of the within study variances based on an ANOVA model, applied to the log (within-study variance).h.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data30Table 2A. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Means andStandard Errors for Control with RandomLaboratory and Study for GrowthEndpoints and F0 GenerationParameterIndividual Study Mean (Standard Error)aAverage Across Laboratories and StudiesSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolMean(Standard Error)bCV(95% CI)cDry Weight (mg) (day 0)0.035 (0.002)0.034 (0.002)0.045 (0.003)0.033 (0.002)0.018 (0.002)0.045 (0.003)0.034 (0.005)37.991 (16.749, .)Dry Weight (mg) (day7)0.297 (0.017)0.083 (0.012)0.119 (0.015)0.200 (0.010)0.221 (0.012)0.597 (0.021)0.280 (0.097)84.464 (43.406, .)Dry Weight (mg) (day 14)0.642 (0.025)0.440 (0.023)0.573 (0.025)0.522 (0.022)0.619 (0.029)0.662 (0.016)0.576 (0.034)14.643 (9.087, 37.130)Dry Weight (mg) (Termination)1.098 (0.043)0.994 (0.032)0.905 (0.025)1.043 (0.047)NAd1.407 (0.043)1.132 (0.132)26.105 (13.701, 186.156)Length (mm) (day 0)1.843 (0.011)1.703 (0.025)1.638 (0.026)1.641 (0.032)1.493 (0.020)1.916 (0.017)1.707 (0.088)12.589 (7.242, 44.120)Length (mm) (day 7)4.458 (0.098)3.469 (0.085)3.144 (0.098)3.572 (0.086)3.482 (0.043)5.550 (0.087)4.051 (0.477)28.817 (16.571, 107.512)Length (mm) (day 14)6.303 (0.056)5.321 (0.063)4.680 (0.075)4.914 (0.064)5.125 (0.054)5.837 (0.037)5.378 (0.277)12.632 (7.586, 36.360)Length (mm) (Termination)7.421 (0.052)7.467 (0.048)6.311 (0.029)6.225 (0.072)NA8.829 (0.070)7.524 (0.731)21.725 (11.223, 168.172)a.Means and their associated standard errorsfor each study were pooled across all samples within the control groups for each study.b.Averages and standard errors across studies were based on random effects model with study and laboratory treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances.c.CV = [(std err)K/Average]×100%, K is the numberof study with measurements.d.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data31Table 2B. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Variance Component Analysis with Random Laboratoryand Study for Growth Endpoints and F0 GenerationParameterWithin Study Variance/Degree of Freedom (df)aRandom Variance(p-value)Variance ofAverage/dffp-Value ofTest ofHomogeneouswithin StudiesVariancesgSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolPooled WithinbStudycLaboratory andStudyd,eDry Weight (mg) (day 0)0.000/26.00.000/8.00.000/8.00.000/6.00.000/8.00.000/8.00.000/37.30.000(0.023)0.000(<0.001)0.000/1.00.124Dry Weight (mg) (day7)0.000/8.00.000/8.00.000/8.00.000/8.00.000/8.00.000/8.00.000/38.20.013(<0.001)0.041(<0.001)0.009/3.60.305Dry Weight (mg) (day 14)0.001/31.00.001/35.00.001/34.00.000/35.00.001/24.00.000/40.00.001/159.70.010(<0.001)0.010(<0.001)0.001/5.00.019Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)0.002/38.00.001/40.00.001/35.00.002/31.0NAh0.002/31.00.001/144.40.006(0.023)0.054(<0.001)0.017/2.2<0.001Length (mm) (day 0)0.000/134.00.001/44.00.001/44.00.001/33.00.000/44.00.000/44.00.001/170.10.005(<0.001)0.032(<0.001)0.008/3.3<0.001Length (mm) (day 7)0.010/17.00.007/17.00.010/17.00.007/17.00.002/17.00.008/17.00.007/90.40.282(<0.001)0.987(<0.001)0.227/3.50.007Length (mm) (day 14)0.003/31.00.004/35.00.006/34.00.004/35.00.003/24.00.001/40.00.004/172.60.252(<0.001)0.371(<0.001)0.077/4.10.002Length (mm) (Termination)0.003/38.00.002/40.00.001/35.00.005/31.0NA0.005/31.00.003/127.00.000(1.000)1.601(<0.001)0.534/2.0<0.001a.The within study variance for each laboratoryis the square of the standard error associated with the means, which was reportedin Table 2A.b.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximationc.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances.The model is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which each have two studies. The p-values are based on likelihood ratio test.d.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. The p-values are based onlikelihood ratio test.e.If the estimated study and laboratory variance is less than the study only variance, then the study variance is used as the study and laboratory variance.f.Variances for the averages were calculated asthe square of the standard error of thepooled weighted averages value. It includes both within and among laboratoryand study variation. Degreesof freedom for the (mean) overall effect variance were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance, Si2and dfiare the reportedvariance and degrees of freedom for laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)g.P-value of the test of homogeneity of the within study variancesbased on an ANOVA model, applied to the log (within-study variance).h.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data32Table 2C. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Means andStandard Errors for Control with RandomLaboratory and Study for GrowthEndpoints and F1 GenerationParameterIndividual Study Mean (Standard Error)aAverage Across Laboratories and StudiesSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolMean(Standard Error)bCV(95% CI)cDry Weight (mg) (day 0)0.029 (0.003)0.023 (0.001)0.022 (0.001)0.058 (0.017)0.016 (0.003)0.044 (0.006)0.028 (0.004)39.547 (17.418, .)Dry Weight (mg) (day7)0.380 (0.047)0.252 (0.012)0.247 (0.014)NAc0.276 (0.031)0.340 (0.018)0.291 (0.024)18.223 (11.038, 51.383)Dry Weight (mg) (day 14)0.805 (0.042)0.560 (0.030)0.719 (0.027)0.602 (0.018)0.797 (0.044)0.847 (0.029)0.719 (0.048)16.468 (10.208, 42.075)Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)1.046 (0.039)1.066 (0.051)1.030 (0.047)0.931 (0.034)NAd1.394 (0.049)1.136 (0.128)25.123 (13.045, 195.370)Length (mm) (day 0)1.633 (0.032)1.607 (0.026)1.482 (0.015)1.340 (0.018)1.359 (0.014)1.889 (0.030)1.568 (0.118)18.446 (10.486, 69.936)Length (mm) (day 7)4.715 (0.061)4.446 (0.093)3.956 (0.080)NA3.778 (0.112)5.200 (0.140)4.379 (0.317)16.204 (9.158, 63.249)Length (mm) (day 14)6.388 (0.073)6.057 (0.084)5.641 (0.042)5.276 (0.037)5.449 (0.058)8.040 (0.102)6.286 (0.605)23.558 (13.255, 96.850)Length (mm)(Termination)7.403 (0.040)7.311 (0.071)6.273 (0.059)6.100 (0.049)NA8.207 (0.209)7.237 (0.585)18.067 (9.347, 131.308)a.Means and their associated standard errorsfor each study were pooled across all samples within the control groups for each study.b.Averages and standard errors across studies were based on random effects model with study and laboratory treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances.c.CV = [(std err)K/Average]×100%, K is the number of study with measurements.d.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data33Table 2D. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Variance Component Analysis with Random Laboratoryand Study for Growth Endpoints and F1 GenerationParameterWithin Study Variance/Degree of Freedom (df)aRandom Variance (p-value)Variance ofAverage/dffp-Value ofTest ofHomogeneouswithin StudiesVariancesgSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolPooled WithinbStudycLaboratoryand Studyd,eDry Weight (mg) (day 0)0.000/2.00.000/8.00.000/8.00.000/8.00.000/2.00.000/3.00.000/10.90.000(0.248)0.000(0.003)0.000/1.0<0.001Dry Weight (mg) (day7)0.002/8.00.000/8.00.000/8.0NAh0.001/8.00.000/5.00.001/19.30.007(0.047)0.007(0.047)0.001/4.5<0.001Dry Weight (mg) (day 14)0.002/17.00.001/18.00.001/21.00.000/28.00.002/23.00.001/14.00.001/88.90.017(<0.001)0.017(<0.001)0.002/5.0<0.001Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)0.002/36.00.003/28.00.002/26.00.001/33.0NA0.002/19.00.002/117.90.001(0.627)0.048(<0.001)0.016/2.10.210Length (mm) (day 0)0.001/14.00.001/44.00.000/44.00.000/44.00.000/14.00.001/18.00.001/81.70.005(<0.001)0.057(<0.001)0.014/3.2<0.001Length (mm) (day 7)0.004/17.00.009/17.00.006/17.0NA0.013/17.00.020/11.00.010/50.00.030(0.079)0.397(<0.001)0.101/3.10.015Length (mm) (day 14)0.005/17.00.007/18.00.002/21.00.001/28.00.003/23.00.010/14.00.005/66.80.057(<0.001)1.472(<0.001)0.365/3.1<0.001Length (mm) (Termination)0.002/36.00.005/28.00.004/25.00.002/33.0NA0.044/19.00.011/31.00.007(0.148)1.013(<0.001)0.342/2.0<0.001a.The within study variance for each laboratoryis the square of the standard error associated with the means, which was reportedin Table 2C.b.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximationc.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances. Themodel is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which each have two studies. The p-values are based on likelihood ratio test.d.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. The p-values are based onlikelihood ratio test.e.If the estimated study and laboratory variance is less than the study only variance, then the study variance is used as the study and laboratory variance.f.Variances for the averages were calculated asthe square of the standard error of thepooled weighted averages value. It includes both within and among laboratory and study variation. Degrees offreedom for the (mean) overall effect variance were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance, Si2and dfiare the reported varianceand degrees of freedom for laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)g.P-value of the test of homogeneity of the within study variancesbased on an ANOVA model, applied to the log (within-study variance).h.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data34Table 3A. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Means andStandard Errors for Control with RandomLaboratory and Study for Survival Endpoints and F0 GenerationParameterIndividual Study Mean (Standard Error)aAverage Across Laboratories and StudiesSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolMean(Standard Error)bCV(95% CI)cReproductionSurvival Rate(%) (day 7)d96.667 (3.334)91.667 (6.009)96.667 (1.667)100.000 (0.000)97.778 (2.222)100.000 (0.000)98.912 (0.772)1.912 (1.182, 4.866)ReproductionSurvival Rate(%) (day 14)89.027 (3.584)86.667 (1.667)78.333 (1.667)85.000 (2.887)97.778 (2.222)91.667 (4.410)89.017 (3.686)10.143 (5.898, 33.565)ReproductionSurvival Rate(%)(Termination)75.784 (5.435)73.000 (5.000)77.302 (5.808)72.309 (4.415)97.619 (2.381)69.583 (1.969)78.980 (6.442)19.978 (11.495, 71.503)Total SurvivalRate (%)(day 7)d96.667 (3.334)94.333 (2.333)96.667 (2.205)100.000 (0.000)NAe100.000 (0.000)98.392 (1.196)2.719 (1.659, 7.261)Total SurvivalRatea(%)(day 14)89.638 (2.162)86.000 (3.606)80.392 (6.429)88.235 (1.698)NA95.098 (2.594)90.110 (2.117)5.254 (3.160, 14.891)Total SurvivalRate(%)(Termination)75.784 (5.435)79.000 (5.196)NANANANA77.464 (3.756)6.857 (4.092, 20.225)a.Means and their associated standard errorsfor each study were pooled across all samples within the control groups for each study.b.Averages and standard errors across studies were based on random effects model with study and laboratory treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances.c.CV = [(std err)K/Average]×100%, K is the numberof study with measurements.d.When fitting the model standard error 0 was replaced with 1 for model fit purposes.e.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data35Table 3B. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Variance Component Analysis with Random Laboratoryand Study for Survival Endpoints and F0 GenerationParameterWithin Study Variance/Degree of Freedom (df)aRandom Variance (p-value)Variance ofAverage/dffp-Value ofTest of Homogeneouswithin StudiesVariancesgSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolPooled WithinbStudycLaboratory andStudyd,eReproductionSurvival Rate (%)(day 7)11.113/2.036.109/2.02.778/2.00.000/2.04.938/2.00.000/2.09.490/4.43.158(0.373)3.158(0.373)0.596/4.70.078ReproductionSurvival Rate(%)(day 14)12.846/2.02.778/2.02.778/2.08.333/2.04.938/2.019.446/2.08.520/8.07.532(0.331)50.362(<0.001)13.587/3.50.662ReproductionSurvival Rate(%)(Termination)29.535/2.024.999/2.033.735/2.019.492/2.05.669/2.03.878/2.019.551/9.00.000(1.000)157.216(<0.001)41.493/3.40.518Total Survival Rate(%) (day 7)11.113/2.05.443/2.04.862/2.00.000/2.0NAh0.000/2.04.684/6.11.291(0.736)3.357(0.639)1.431/4.40.318Total SurvivalRatea(%) (day 14)4.675/2.013.000/2.041.329/2.02.883/2.0NA6.729/2.013.723/4.80.000(1.000)9.369(0.229)4.483/4.10.372Total Survival Rate(%) (Termination)29.535/2.027.000/2.0NANANANA28.267/4.00.000(1.000)0.000(1.000)14.105/4.00.949a.The within study variance for each laboratoryis the square of the standard error associated with the means, which was reportedin Table 3A.b.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximationc.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances. Themodel is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which each have two studies. The p-values are based on likelihood ratio test.d.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. The p-values are based onlikelihood ratio test.e.If the estimated study and laboratory variance is less than the study only variance, then the study variance is used as the study and laboratory variance.f.Variances for the averages were calculated asthe square of the standard error of thepooled weighted averages value. It includes both within and among laboratory and study variation. Degrees offreedom for the (mean) overall effect variance were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance, Si2and dfiare the reported varianceand degrees of freedom for laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)g.P-value of the test of homogeneity of the within study variancesbased on an ANOVA model, applied to the log (within-study variance).DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data36Table 3C. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Means andStandard Errors for Control with RandomLaboratory and Study for Survival Endpoints and F1 GenerationParameterIndividual Study Mean (Standard Error)aAverage Across Laboratories and StudiesSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolMean(Standard Error)bCV(95% CI)cReproduction Survival Rate(%)(day 7)d97.778 (2.222)95.333 (2.333)97.778 (2.222)97.778 (2.222)100.000 (0.000)88.533 (4.276)97.367 (1.482)3.729 (2.292, 9.698)Reproduction Survival Rate (%)(day 14)d95.956 (2.025)89.333 (5.812)84.444 (8.012)93.333 (3.849)100.000 (0.000)86.325 (3.557)93.628 (2.800)7.324 (4.637, 17.149)Reproduction Survival Rate(%)(Termination)92.308 (4.441)77.000 (9.291)66.667 (8.333)72.639 (11.427)93.333 (3.849)61.640 (8.328)79.054 (7.150)22.154 (13.173, 68.124)Total Survival Rate(%)(day 7)95.833 (2.406)92.000 (1.000)98.889 (1.111)96.444 (1.937)NAe89.103 (4.617)94.614 (2.236)5.284 (2.934, 22.020)Total Survival Rate (%)(day 14)91.667 (4.167)86.000 (3.000)86.111 (3.675)80.889 (13.026)NA90.103 (1.245)89.107 (1.220)3.061 (1.739, 11.262)Total Survival Rate(%) (Termination)92.308 (4.441)78.333 (3.844)NANANANA85.144 (6.985)11.602 (9.657, 14.577)a.Means and their associated standard errorsfor each study were pooled across all samples within the control groups for each study.b.Averages and standard errors across studies were based on random effects model with study and laboratory treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances.c.CV = [(std err)K/Average]×100%, K is the numberof study with measurements.d.When fitting the model standard error 0 was replaced with 1 for model fit purposes.e.“NA” denotes that endpoint is notincluded in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data37Table 3D. Interlab Analysis for ControlMysid Data across All Studies: Variance Component Analysis with Random Laboratoryand Study for Reproduction Endpoints and F1 GenerationParameterWithin Study Variance/Degree of Freedom (df)aRandom Variance/(p-value)Variance ofAverage/dffp-Value ofTest ofHomogeneouswithin StudiesVariancesgSMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLindaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolPooled WithinbStudycLaboratory andStudyd,eReproduction SurvivalRate(%) (day 7)4.938/2.05.443/2.04.938/2.04.938/2.00.000/2.018.288/2.06.591/7.10.000(1.000)5.326(0.179)2.198/4.60.512Reproduction SurvivalRate (%) (day 14)4.100/2.033.775/2.064.200/2.014.816/2.00.000/2.012.653/2.021.757/6.02.377(0.923)26.404(0.003)7.838/5.50.048Reproduction SurvivalRate(%) (Termination)19.722/2.086.328/2.069.447/2.0130.574/2.014.816/2.069.360/2.065.041/8.823.524(0.714)181.267(0.004)51.121/4.10.582Total Survival Rate(%)(day 7)5.788/2.01.000/2.01.235/2.03.752/2.0NAh21.317/2.06.618/4.31.905(0.594)12.047(<0.001)4.998/2.70.186Total Survival Rate (%)(day 14)17.362/2.08.999/2.013.504/2.0169.681/2.0NA1.549/2.042.219/3.01.018(0.953)1.018(0.953)1.488/3.00.023Total Survival Rate(%)(Termination)19.722/2.014.776/2.0NANANANA17.249/3.980.401(0.087)80.401(0.087)48.794/125.60.838a.The within study variance for each laboratoryis the square of the standard error associated with the means, which was reportedin Table 3C.b.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximationc.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within studyvariances. The model is applied to the twolaboratories SMV and UNT, which each havetwo studies. The p-values are based on likelihood ratio test.d.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated asrandom effects, incorporating heterogeneouswithin study variances. The model is applied to all six studies. The p-values are based on likelihood ratio test.e.If the estimated study and laboratory variance is less than the study only variance, then the study variance is used as the study and laboratory variance.f.Variances for the averages were calculated asthe square of the standard error of thepooled weighted averages value. It includes both within and among laboratory and study variation.Degrees of freedom for the (mean) overall effect variance were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance, Si2and dfiare thereported variance and degrees of freedom for laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)g.P-value of the test of homogeneity of the within study variancesbased on an ANOVA model, applied to the log (within-study variance).h.“NA” denotes that IS not included in the study dataset.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data38Table 4A. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in aLaboratory, and Between Studies and Laboratories for ReproductiveEndpoints and F0 GenerationParameterAverageMean(Std. Error)Variance (Degree of Freedom)95 % Prediction Intervalsg,hPooled WithinaRandom StudybRandom Laband StudycWithin StudydBetween StudiesWithin LaboratoryeBetween Studiesand LaboratoriesfNumber Offspring(brood 1)5.430(0.780)0.276/92.50.839/1.12.580/2.3(3.128,7.731)(1.780,9.080)(0.271,10.588)Number Offspring(brood 2)7.121(0.915)0.917/71.60.000/1.02.649/1.9(4.281,9.961)(4.281,9.961)(1.692,12.550)Number Offspring(two broods)12.448(1.679)1.335/75.20.476/0.210.467/2.6(7.636,17.259)(7.164,17.731)(2.467,22.428)Days to Brood 119.398(2.023)0.507/28.53.073/1.816.734/3.1(13.537,25.258)(12.512,26.283)(7.371,31.425)Days to Brood 225.659(2.608)0.807/28.31.773/1.426.848/2.9(17.897,33.422)(17.832,33.487)(10.090,41.229)Days Between Broods 1 and 26.030(0.632)0.392/29.01.566/1.61.942/3.5(4.154,7.907)(1.529,10.531)(2.091,9.970)Time to Mature (females)12.387(0.677)0.113/16.22.601/1.82.188/3.6(10.548,14.227)(6.267,18.508)(8.244,16.531)Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods9.343(0.281)0.158/37.90.000/1.00.000/1.0(8.371,10.314)(8.371,10.314)(8.371,10.314)# of Offspring Per FemalePer Reproduction Day forthe First Two Broods1.580(0.049)0.008/27.40.000/1.00.000/1.0(1.378,1.782)(1.378,1.782)(1.378,1.782)% of Females Productively Active91.515(4.905)15.466/8.330.416/0.898.876/3.0(77.308, 100.000)(67.970, 100.000)(62.287,100.000)Sex Ratio(males/ females)1.336(0.119)0.102/6.50.030/0.30.030/0.3(0.557,2.116)(0.336,2.337)(0.336,2.337)a.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within study variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom is basedon Satterthwaite’s approximation (see Table 1B).b.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances. Themodel is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which eachhave two studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution.c.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. Degrees of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution. If random lab+study issmaller than random study, then random study is used in its place.d.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within )), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated using Satterthwaite’sapproximation.e.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated usingSatterthwaite’s approximation.f.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study and laboratory), whereυis degree of freedom as calculatedusing Satterthwaite’s approximation.g.In general the 95% prediction intervals are in an increasing order from within lab to between study to between study and laboratory. However, this order is not held due to the degree offreedom\approximation.h.The lower limits of the intervals are truncated at 0 since no measurement could be negative. For endpoints measured in “%’, theupper limits are truncated at 100%.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data39Table 4B. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in aLaboratory, and Between Studies and Laboratories for ReproductiveEndpoints and F1 GenerationParameterAverageMean(Std. Error)Variance (Degree of Freedom)95 % Prediction Intervalsg,hPooled WithinaRandom StudybRandom Laband StudycWithin StudydBetween StudiesWithin LaboratoryeBetween Studiesand LaboratoriesfNumber Offspring(brood 1)4.930(1.386)0.398/73.30.000/1.07.411/2.8(0.886,8.975)(0.886,8.975)(0.000,13.200)Number Offspring(brood 2)7.278(1.906)0.961/65.10.711/0.414.057/2.8(1.798,12.757)(1.411,13.144)(0.000,18.628)Number Offspring(two broods)12.606(2.958)2.105/57.21.014/0.233.760/2.8(4.047,21.164)(3.706,21.505)(0.000,30.236)Days to Brood 117.582(1.109)0.659/9.20.642/1.34.571/2.6(14.349,20.814)(13.894,21.269)(11.000,24.163)Days to Brood 222.976(1.301)1.052/4.40.805/1.26.175/2.5(19.041,26.911)(18.593,27.360)(15.247,30.705)Days Between Broods 1 and 25.300(0.166)0.473/4.70.034/0.10.069/1.0(3.511,7.089)(3.430,7.170)(3.470,7.130)Time to Mature (females)11.643(1.176)0.363/3.10.558/0.94.228/2.1(7.841,15.444)(7.595,15.691)(4.689,18.597)Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods8.375(0.512)0.306/11.20.334/0.30.334/0.3(6.841,9.910)(4.165,12.586)(4.165,12.586)# of Offspring Per Female Per Reproduction Dayfor the First Two Broods1.930(0.109)0.027/16.90.003/0.00.003/0.0(1.529,2.331)(0.985,2.875)(0.985,2.875)% of Females Productively Active99.636(0.573)61.490/3.442.362/0.542.362/0.5(76.161, 100.000)(62.624, 100.000)(62.624,100.000)Sex Ratio(males/ females)1.276(0.200)0.231/4.90.068/0.30.110/1.1(0.029,2.524)(0.000,2.840)(0.000,2.751)a.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximation (see Table 1B).b.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances. Themodel is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which eachhave two studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution.c.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution. If random lab+study issmaller than random study, then random study is used in its place.d.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within )), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated using Satterthwaite’sapproximation.e.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated usingSatterthwaite’s approximation.f.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study and laboratory), whereυis degree of freedom as calculatedusing Satterthwaite’s approximation.g.In general the 95% prediction intervals are in an increasing order from within lab to between study to between study and laboratory. However, this order is not held due to the degree of freedomapproximation.h.The lower limits of the intervals are truncated at 0 since no measurement could be negative. For endpoints measured in “%’, theupper limits are truncated at 100%.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data40Table 5A. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in aLaboratory, and Between Studiesand Laboratories for Growth Endpoints and F0 GenerationParameterAverageMean(Std. Error)Variance (Degree of Freedom)95 % Prediction Intervalsg,hPooled WithinaRandom StudybRandom Laband StudycWithin StudydBetween StudiesWithin LaboratoryeBetween Studiesand LaboratoriesfDry Weight (mg) (day 0)0.034(0.005)0.000/37.30.000/1.50.000/3.2(0.000,0.071)(0.009,0.060)(0.002,0.067)Dry Weight (mg) (day7)0.280(0.097)0.000/38.20.013/1.90.041/3.6(0.002,0.558)(0.000,0.676)(0.000,0.854)Dry Weight (mg) (day 14)0.576(0.034)0.001/159.70.010/1.80.010/1.8(0.484,0.669)(0.179,0.974)(0.179,0.974)Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)1.132(0.132)0.001/144.40.006/1.30.054/2.1(0.652,1.611)(0.681,1.582)(0.337,1.927)Length (mm) (day 0)1.707(0.088)0.001/170.10.005/1.60.032/3.2(1.448,1.965)(1.417,1.996)(1.185,2.228)Length (mm) (day 7)4.051(0.477)0.007/90.40.282/1.90.987/3.5(2.675,5.427)(2.168,5.934)(1.224,6.877)Length (mm) (day 14)5.378(0.277)0.004/172.60.252/1.90.371/4.1(4.625,6.131)(3.615,7.141)(3.718,7.039)Length (mm) (Termination)7.524(0.731)0.003/127.00.000/1.01.601/2.0(4.408,10.639)(4.408,10.639)(3.033,12.015)a.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximation (see Table 1B).b.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances. Themodel is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which eachhave two studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution.c.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution. If random lab+study issmaller than random study, then random study is used in its place.d.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within )), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated using Satterthwaite’sapproximation.e.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated usingSatterthwaite’s approximation.f.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study and laboratory), whereυis degree of freedom as calculatedusing Satterthwaite’s approximation.g.In general the 95% prediction intervals are in an increasing order from within lab to between study to between study and laboratory. However, this order is not held due to the degree of freedomapproximation.h.The lower limits of the intervals are truncated at 0 since no measurement could be negative. For endpoints measured in “%’, theupper limits are truncated at 100%.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data41Table 5B. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in aLaboratory, and Between Studiesand Laboratories for Growth Endpoints and F1 GenerationParameterAverageMean(Std. Error)Variance (Degree of Freedom)95 % Prediction Intervalsg,hPooled WithinaRandom StudybRandom Laband StudycWithin StudydBetween StudiesWithin LaboratoryeBetween Studiesand LaboratoriesfDry Weight (mg) (day 0)0.028(0.004)0.000/10.90.000/0.10.000/3.4(0.008,0.048)(0.000,1.178)(0.000,0.058)Dry Weight (mg) (day7)0.291(0.024)0.001/19.30.007/0.70.007/0.7(0.214,0.368)(0.000,1.367)(0.000,1.367)Dry Weight (mg) (day 14)0.719(0.048)0.001/88.90.017/1.80.017/1.8(0.590,0.848)(0.220,1.218)(0.220,1.218)Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)1.136(0.128)0.002/117.90.001/0.20.048/1.9(0.668,1.605)(0.678,1.595)(0.359,1.914)Length (mm) (day 0)1.568(0.118)0.001/81.70.005/1.60.057/3.1(1.210,1.925)(1.207,1.929)(0.864,2.271)Length (mm) (day 7)4.379(0.317)0.010/50.00.030/0.70.397/2.9(3.425,5.333)(3.364,5.394)(2.483,6.275)Length (mm) (day 14)6.286(0.605)0.005/66.80.057/1.81.472/3.0(4.399,8.173)(4.474,8.098)(2.674,9.898)Length (mm) (Termination)7.237(0.585)0.011/31.00.007/0.91.013/1.9(4.820,9.654)(4.874,9.600)(3.640,10.834)a.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximation (see Table 1B).b.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances. Themodel is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which eachhave two studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution.c.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution. If random lab+study issmaller than random study, then random study is used in its place.d.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within )), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated using Satterthwaite’sapproximation.e.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated usingSatterthwaite’s approximation.f.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study and laboratory), whereυis degree of freedom as calculatedusing Satterthwaite’s approximation.g.In general the 95% prediction intervals are in an increasing order from within lab to between study to between study and laboratory. However, this order is not held due to the degree of freedomapproximation.h.The lower limits of the intervals are truncated at 0 since no measurement could be negative. For endpoints measured in “%’, theupper limits are truncated at 100%.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data42Table 6A. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in aLaboratory, and Between Studiesand Laboratories for Survival Endpoints and F0 GenerationParameterAverageMean(Std. Error)Variance (Degree of Freedom)95 % Prediction Intervalsg,hPooled WithinaRandom StudybRandom Laband StudycWithin StudydBetween StudiesWithinLaboratoryeBetween Studiesand LaboratoriesfReproduction Survival Rate (%) (day 7)98.912(0.772)9.490/4.43.158/0.43.158/0.4(90.745,100.000)(88.705,100.000)(88.705,100.000)Reproduction Survival Rate(%) (day 14)c89.017(3.686)8.520/8.07.532/0.650.362/2.6(78.135,99.900)(75.355,100.000)(67.106,100.000)Reproduction Survival Rate(%) (Termination)78.980(6.442)19.551/9.00.000/1.0157.216/2.7(60.374,97.585)(60.374,97.585)(40.755,100.000)Total Survival Rate (%) (day 7)98.392(1.196)4.684/6.11.291/0.13.357/1.0(92.822,100.000)(89.546,100.000)(90.844,100.000)Total Survival Ratea(%) (day 14)c90.110(2.117)13.723/4.80.000/1.09.369/1.0(80.166,100.000)(80.166,100.000)(77.057,100.000)Total Survival Rate(%) (Termination)77.464(3.756)28.267/4.00.000/1.00.000/1.0(62.150,92.778)(62.150,92.778)(62.150,92.778)a.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximation (see Table 1B).b.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances. Themodel is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which eachhave two studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution.c.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution. If random lab+study issmaller than random study, then random study is used in its place.d.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within )), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated using Satterthwaite’sapproximation.e.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated usingSatterthwaite’s approximation.f.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study and laboratory), whereυis degree of freedom as calculatedusing Satterthwaite’s approximation.g.In general the 95% prediction intervals are in an increasing order from within lab to between study to between study and laboratory. However, this order is not held due to the degree of freedomapproximation.h.The lower limits of the intervals are truncated at 0 since no measurement could be negative. For endpoints measured in “%’, theupper limits are truncated at 100%.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data43Table 6B. Interlab Analysis for Control Mysid Data across All Studies: 95% Prediction Intervals Within Study, Between Studies in aLaboratory, and Between Studiesand Laboratories for Survival Endpoints and F1 GenerationParameterAverageMean(Std. Error)Variance (Degree of Freedom)95 % Prediction Intervalsg,hPooled WithinaRandomStudybRandom Laband StudycWithin StudydBetween StudiesWithinLaboratoryeBetween Studiesand LaboratoriesfReproduction Survival Rate (%) (day 7)97.367(1.482)6.591/7.10.000/1.05.326/1.1(90.828,100.000)(90.828,100.000)(88.256,100.000)Reproduction Survival Rate(%) (day 14)c93.628(2.800)21.757/6.02.377/0.026.404/2.0(81.464,100.000)(71.857,100.000)(76.031,100.000)Reproduction Survival Rate(%) (Termination)79.054(7.150)65.041/8.823.524/0.1181.267/2.3(55.579,100.000)(44.935,100.000)(36.354,100.000)Total Survival Rate (%) (day 7)94.614(2.236)6.618/4.31.905/0.312.047/1.2(86.557,100.000)(85.600,100.000)(81.225,100.000)Total Survival Ratea(%) (day 14)c89.107(1.220)42.219/3.01.018/0.01.018/0.0(68.952,100.000)(65.524,100.000)(65.524,100.000)Total Survival Rate(%) (Termination)85.144(6.985)17.249/3.980.401/0.780.401/0.7(68.785,100.000)(37.843,100.000)(37.843,100.000)a.Pooled Within is the unweighted average ofthe within laboratory variances among the studies. Associated degrees of freedom isbased on Satterthwaite’s approximation (see Table 1B).b.Variance between study is based a random effect model with laboratory as a fixed effectand study and laboratory treated as random effect, incorporating heterogeneous within study variances. Themodel is applied to the two laboratories SMV and UNT, which eachhave two studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution.c.Random study and laboratory variance is the sum of the randomlaboratory and random study variances, as estimated using a random effects model with study and laboratory treated as randomeffects, incorporating heterogeneous withinstudy variances. The model is applied to all six studies. Degree of freedom is calculated based on chi-square distribution. If random lab+study issmaller than random study, then random study is used in its place.d.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within )), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated using Satterthwaite’sapproximation.e.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study), whereυis degree of freedom as calculated usingSatterthwaite’s approximation.f.The prediction interval for withinlaboratory is (average mean) ± t0.975,υ√((standard error of mean)^2 + (pooled within ) + random study and laboratory), whereυis degree of freedom as calculatedusing Satterthwaite’s approximation.g.In general the 95% prediction intervals are in an increasing order from within lab to between study to between study and laboratory. However, this order is not held due to the degree of freedomapproximation.h.The lower limits of the intervals are truncated at 0 since no measurement could be negative. For endpoints measured in “%’, theupper limits are truncated at 100%.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data44Table 7A. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Powerat the 5% (Two-Sided) Significance Level. Mysid Study, F0Generation, Reproduction EndpointsParameterMean(Control)aStandard Error(Control)bSample SizePer GroupcDetectionDistancedLowerLimiteUpperLimiteFirst Brood Size5.42980.52566212.13443.29547.564Second Brood Size7.12120.95759213.88823.233011.009First Two Brood Sizes12.44761.15534214.69127.756517.139Days to First Brood19.39770.71195212.890816.506922.289Days to Second Brood25.65950.89845213.648122.011429.308Days between Two Broods6.03020.62645212.54363.48668.574Days to Maturity (females)12.38730.33591211.363911.023313.751Total Reproductive Days for First Two Broods9.34270.39769211.61487.728010.958# of Offspring Per Female Per Reproduction Day for theFirst Two Broods1.58010.08762210.35581.22431.936% of Females Productively Active91.51483.93264320.917570.5973NAfSex Ratio (males/females)1.33640.3186031.6946NAg3.031a.Weighted mean across studies for control group as presented in the interlaboratory analysis of control data.b.Square root of pooled within run variances for control group as presented in the inter-lab analysis of control data.c.Control group sample size and projectedsample sizes per concentration group.d.Detection distance for declaring a significant difference from the control group at the 5% level of significance with 80% power.e.A concentration group mean valuebelow the lower limit or above the upper limit will be declared to be significantly differentfrom control group at the 5% level with 80% power.f.Estimated upper limits above 100% are labeled as “NA”, which indicates that it is impossible to detect a significant higher % of Females Productively Active thancontrol under the current samplesize, variability, and degrees of freedom.g.Estimated lower limit with a negative value is labeled as “NA”,which indicates that it is impossible to detect a significant lower sex ratio than control under the current sample size, variability, anddegrees of freedom.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data45Table 7B. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Powerat the 5% (Two-Sided) Significance Level. Mysid Study, F1Generation, Reproduction EndpointsParameterMean(Control)aStandard Error(Control)bSample SizePer GroupcDetectionDistancedLowerLimiteUpperLimiteFirst Brood Size4.93040.63117212.56282.36767.493Second Brood Size7.27760.98037213.98073.296911.258First Two Brood Sizes12.60561.45100215.89176.714018.497Days to First Brood17.58180.81181213.296314.285520.878Days to Second Brood22.97631.02569214.164718.811627.141Days between Two Broods5.29990.68783212.79292.50718.093Days to Maturity (females)11.64280.60273212.44739.195414.090Total Reproductive Days for First Two Broods8.37550.55353212.24766.127910.623# of Offspring Per Female Per Reproduction Dayfor the First Two Broods1.93020.16371210.66471.26542.595% of Females Productively Active99.63647.84157341.708957.9275NAfSex Ratio (males/females)1.27640.4810032.5584NAg3.835a.Weighted mean across studies for control group as presented in the interlaboratory analysis of control data.b.Square root of pooled within run variances for control group as presented in the inter-lab analysis of control data.c.Control group sample size and projectedsample sizes per concentration group.d.Detection distance for declaring a significant difference from the control group at the 5% level of significance with 80% power.e.A concentration group mean valuebelow the lower limit or above the upper limit will be declared to be significantly differentfrom control group at the 5% level with 80% power.f.Estimated upper limits above 100% are labeled as “NA”, which indicates that it is impossible to detect a significant higher % of Females Productively Active thancontrol under the current samplesize, variability, and degrees of freedom.g.Estimated lower limit with a negative value is labeled as “NA”,which indicates that it is impossible to detect a significant lower sex ratio than control under the current sample size, variability, anddegrees of freedom..DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data46Table 8A. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Powerat the 5% (Two-Sided) Significance Level. Mysid Study, F0Generation, Growth EndpointsParameterMean(Control)aStandard Error(Control)bSample SizePer GroupcDetectionDistancedLowerLimiteUpperLimiteDry Weight Day 00.034100.00239290.010100.024000.04419Dry Weight Day 70.280280.01496090.063140.217140.34342Dry Weight Day 140.576410.023698360.095210.481200.67161Dry Weight Termination1.131890.038719360.155550.976341.28745Length Day 01.706550.022877450.091641.614911.79820Length Day 74.050640.084795180.345833.704804.39647Length Day 145.378340.059332360.238365.139975.61670Length Termination7.523660.056584360.227327.296347.75099a.Weighted mean across studies for control group as presented in the interlaboratory analysis of control data.b.Square root of pooled within run variances for control group as presented in the inter-lab analysis of control data.c.Control group sample size and projectedsample sizes per concentration group.d.Detection distance for declaring a significant difference from the control group at the 5% level of significance with 80% power.e.A concentration group mean valuebelow the lower limit or above the upper limit will be declared to be significantly differentfrom control group at the 5% level with 80% power.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data47Table 8B. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Powerat the 5% (Two-Sided) Significance Level. Mysid Study, F1Generation, Growth EndpointsParameterMean(Control)aStandard Error(Control)bSample SizePer GroupcDetectionDistancedLowerLimiteUpperLimiteDry Weight Day 00.027870.0074390.03136NAf0.05923Dry Weight Day 70.290730.0277590.117110.173620.40784Dry Weight Day 140.719170.03283220.133160.586010.85233Dry Weight Termination1.136410.04446260.179650.956771.31606Length Day 01.567510.02359450.094511.473001.66203Length Day 74.379140.10107180.412203.966954.79134Length Day 146.285990.06988220.283416.002576.56940Length Termination7.237100.10609260.428646.808477.66574a.Weighted mean across studies for control group as presented in the interlaboratory analysis of control data.b.Square root of pooled within run variances for control group as presented in the inter-lab analysis of control data.c.Control group sample size and projectedsample sizes per concentration group.d.Detection distance for declaring a significant difference from the control group at the 5% level of significance with 80% power.e.A concentration group mean valuebelow the lower limit or above the upper limit will be declared to be significantly differentfrom control group at the 5% level with 80% power.f.Estimated lower limit with a negative value is labeled as “NA”,which indicates that it is impossible to detect a significant lower value than control under the current sample size, variability, anddegrees of freedom.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data48Table 9A. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Powerat the 5% (Two-Sided) Significance Level. Mysid Study, F0Generation, Survival EndpointsParameterMean(Control)aStandard Error(Control)bSample SizePer GroupcDetectionDistancedLowerLimiteUpperLimite,fReproduction Survival rate day 798.91183.08054316.385282.5266NAReproduction Survival rate day 1489.01742.91893315.525673.4918NAReproduction Survival rate Termination78.97974.42168323.518755.4611NATotal Survival rate day 798.39172.16416311.511086.8807NATotal Survival rate day 1490.11023.70450319.704070.4062NATotal Survival rate Termination77.46415.31671328.279349.1848NAa.Weighted mean across studies for control group as presented in the interlaboratory analysis of control data.b.Square root of pooled within run variances for control group as presented in the inter-lab analysis of control data.c.Control group sample size and projectedsample sizes per concentration group.d.Detection distance for declaring a significant difference from the control group at the 5% level of significance with 80% power.e.A concentration group mean valuebelow the lower limit or above the upper limit will be declared to be significantly differentfrom control group at the 5% level with 80% power.f.Estimated upper limits above 100% are labeled as “NA”, which indicates that it is impossible to detect a significant higher survival rate than control under the current sample size, variability, anddegrees of freedom.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data49Table 9B. Alternatives that Can be Detected with 80 % Powerat the 5% (Two-Sided) Significance Level. Mysid Study, F1Generation, Survival EndpointsParameterMean(Control)aStandard Error(Control)bSample SizePer GroupcDetectionDistancedLowerLimiteUpperLimite,fReproduction Survival rate day 797.36662.56729313.655383.7113NAReproduction Survival rate day 1493.62784.66446324.810068.8178NAReproduction Survival rate Termination79.05398.06482342.896336.1576NATotal Survival rate day 794.61382.57264313.683780.9301NATotal Survival rate day 1489.10706.49764334.560554.5464NATotal Survival rate Termination85.14354.15323322.090863.0528NAa.Weighted mean across studies for control group as presented in the interlaboratory analysis of control data.b.Square root of pooled within run variances for control group as presented in the inter-lab analysis of control data.c.Control group sample size and projectedsample sizes per concentration group.d.Detection distance for declaring a significant difference from the control group at the 5% level of significance with 80% power.e.A concentration group mean valuebelow the lower limit or above the upper limit will be declared to be significantly differentfrom control group at the 5% level with 80% power.f.Estimated upper limits above 100% are labeled as “NA”, which indicates that it is impossible to detect a significant higher survival rate than control under thecurrent sample size, variability,and degrees of freedom.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

50 Table 10A. Summary of Intra-Labora tory and Inter-Laboratory Anal ysis Results for Reproduction

Endpoints, Comparisons between Control and Test Chemicals, Generation: F0 a,b,c



# Parameters Lindane Octylphenol Vinclozolin

SMV UNT Across

Laboratories d 

# SMV WLI Across

Laboratories d 

# UNT

Time to Mature

(females) Decreasing trend

for the two highest

concentration

groups

Number Offspring

(brood 1) Increasing trends

for the two highest

concentration

groups Group 6( ↑ ) Groups

3( ↓ ) &

4( ↓ )

Number Offspring

(brood 2) Group 5( ↓ ) Group

2( ↓ ),

3( ↓ ), 4( ↓ )

& 5( ↓ ) A decreasing trend

for the highest

concentration group

Number Offspring (two

broods) Group 5( ↑ ) Groups

2( ↓ ) and

3( ↓ ), 5( ↓ )

and 6( ↓ ) Group

4( ↓ ) &

5( ↓ ) A decreasing trend

for the highest

concentration group

Days to Brood 1 Groups 3( ↓ ), 5( ↓ )

and 6( ↓ ) Decreasing trend

for the two highest

concentration

groups Group 2( ↓ ) Increasing trend for

the two highest

concentration

groups

Days to Brood 2 Groups 3( ↓ ) and

5( ↓ ) Group 6( ↓ )

Days Between Broods 1

and 2 Groups

2( ↑ ) &

5( ↑ )

Total Reproductive

Days for the First Two

Broods Groups 3( ↓ ) and

5( ↓ ) NA NA NA NA

# of Offspring Per

Female Per

Reproduction Day for

the First Two Broods Increasing trends

for the two highest

concentration

groups NA NA NA NA

% of Females

Productively Active Decreasing trend

for the highest

concentration

group

Sex Ratio

(males/females) Group 6( ↑ )

a. Test concentration groups are group 2 to 6 and control group is group 1.

b. Statistical analysis results are based on the intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory analysis. Significant findings are summariz ed in the table. If the

data are not available for the intra-laborat ory analysis, it is marked with a “NA”.

c. “ ↓ ” Less than control.

“ ↑ ” Greater than control

d. The inter-laboratory analysis includes SMV, UNT for lindane, and SMV, ABC and WLI fo r octylphenol. If only one laboratory data are

available, inter-laboratory analysis is not performed and marked with a “NA”.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

51 Table 10B. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by Generation

for Reproduction Endpoints, Comparisons between Control and Test Chemicals,

Generation: F1 a,b,c



# Parameter Lindane Octylphenol Vinclozolin

SMV UNT Across

Laboratories d 

# SMV Across

Laboratories d 

# UNT

Time to Mature

(females) NA

Number Offspring (brood 1) Groups 4( ↓ )

and 5( ↓ ) Decreasing trends for the

highest concentration

group

Number Offspring (brood 2) Group 4( ↓ ) Decreasing trend for the

highest concentration

group

Number Offspring (two broods) Groups 3( ↓ )

and 4( ↓ ) Group 2( ↑ ) Decreasing trend for the

highest concentration

group

Days to Brood 1 Groups 2( ↑ ),

3( ↑ ) and 4( ↑ )

Days to Brood 2 Group 3( ↑ ) Increasing trend for the

highest concentration

group

Days Between Broods 1 and 2 Group 6( ↑ )

Total Reproductive Days for the

First Two Broods Group 3( ↑ ) NA NA NA

# of Offspring Per Female Per

Reproduction Day for the First

Two Broods 8 

# Groups 3( ↓ )

and 4( ↓ ) NA NA NA

% of Females Productively Active

Sex Ratio

(males/females)

a. Test concentration groups are group 2 to 6 and control group is group 1.

b. Statistical analysis results are based on the intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory analysis. Significant findings are summariz ed in the table. If the

data are not available for the intra-laborat ory analysis, it is marked with a “NA”.

c. “ ↓ ” Less than control.

“ ↑ ” Greater than control

d. The inter-laboratory analysis includes SMV, UNT for lindane, and SMV and ABC for octy lphenol. If only one laboratory data are a vailable,

inter-laboratory analysis is not pe rformed and marked with a “NA”.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

52 Table 11A. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by Generation

for Growth Endpoints, Comparisons between Control and Test Chemicals, Generation:

F0 a,b,c



# Parameter Lindane Octylphenol Vinclozolin

SMV UNT Across

Laboratories d 

# SMV WLI Across

Laboratories d 

# UNT

Dry

Weight(mg)

(day 7) Group 6( ↑ ) Increasing

trend for the

two highest

concentration

groups Group 3( ↓ )

Dry

Weight(mg)

(day 14) Increasing

trend for the

three highest

concentration

groups Groups 2( ↑ )

& 6( ↑ ) Decreasing

trend for the

two highest

concentration

groups Group 6( ↓ )

Dry Weight

(mg)

(Termination) Group 5( ↑ ) Decreasing

trend for the

highest

concentration

group

Length (mm)

(day 7) Groups 5( ↑ )

and 6( ↑ ) Groups 2( ↑ ),

3( ↑ ), 4( ↑ ),

5( ↑ ) & 6( ↑ ) Decreasing

trend for the

two highest

concentration

groups

Length (mm)

(day 14) Groups 2( ↑ ),

3( ↑ ), 4( ↑ ), 5( ↑ )

and 6( ↑ ) Increasing

trends for

the four

highest

groups Increasing

trends for all

concentration

groups Groups 2( ↑ ),

3( ↑ ), 4( ↑ ), 5( ↑ )

& 6( ↑ ) Groups 2( ↑ )

and 4( ↑ )

Length (mm)

(Termination) Group 5( ↑ ) Decreasing

trends for the

three highest

concentration

groups

a. Test concentration groups are group 2 to 6 and control group is group 1.

b. Statistical analysis results are based on the intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory analysis. Significant findings are summariz ed in the table. If the

data are not available for the intra-laborat ory analysis, it is marked with a “NA”.

c. “ ↓ ” Less than control.

“ ↑ ” Greater than control

d. The inter-laboratory analysis includes SMV, UNT for lindane, and SMV, ABC and WLI fo r octylphenol. If only one laboratory data are

available, inter-laboratory analysis is not performed and marked with a “NA”.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

53 Table 11B. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by Generation

for Growth Endpoints, Comparisons between Control and Test Chemicals, Generation:

F1 a,b,c



# Parameters Lindane Octylphenol Vinclozolin

SMV UNT Across

Laboratories d 

# SMV Across

Laboratories d 

# UNT

Dry Weight(mg)

(day 0)

Dry Weight(mg)

(day 7)

Dry Weight(mg)

(day 14) Groups

3( ↓ ) and

4( ↓ ) Group 6( ↓ )

Dry Weight (mg)

(Termination) NA

Length (mm)

(day 0) Increasing trend for

the highest

concentration group

Length (mm)

(day 7) Group

6( ↓ ) Increasing

concentration trends

for the two highest

concentration groups. Groups 2( ↑ ) & 5( ↑ )

Length (mm)

(day 14) Groups

3( ↓ ) and

4( ↓ ) Group 3( ↓ ) Increasing

concentration trends

for the two highest

concentration groups.

Length (mm)

(Termination) Groups

4( ↓ ) and

5( ↑ ) Group 6( ↑ ) NA Increasing trend for

the highest four

concentration

groups

a. Test concentration groups are group 2 to 6 and control group is group 1.

b. Statistical analysis results are based on the intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory analysis. Significant findings are summariz ed in the table. If the

data are not available for the intra-laborat ory analysis, it is marked with a “NA”.

c. “ ↓ ” Less than control.

“ ↑ ” Greater than control

d. The inter-laboratory analysis includes SMV, UNT for lindane, and SMV and ABC for octy lphenol. If only one laboratory data are available,

inter-laboratory analysis is not pe rformed and marked with a “NA”.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

54 Table 12A. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by Generation

for Survival Endpoints, Comparisons between Control and Test Chemicals, Generation:

F0 a,b,c



# Parameters Lindane Octylphenol Vinclozolin

SMV UNT Across

Laboratories d 

# SMV WLI Across

Laboratories d 

# UNT

Reproduction Survival

Rate (%) (day 7) Decreasing trend for the

highest concentration group

Reproduction Survival

Rate (%) (day 14)

Reproduction Survival

Rate (%) (Termination) Decreasing trend for the

highest concentration group

Total Survival Rate (%)

(day 7) Decreasing trend for the

highest concentration group

Total Survival Rate (%)

(day 14) NA NA Decreasing trend for the

highest concentration group

Total Survival Rate (%)

(Termination) NA NA

a. Test concentration groups are group 2 to 6 and control group is group 1.

b. Statistical analysis results are based on the intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory analysis. Significant findings are summariz ed in the table. If the

data are not available for the intra-laborat ory analysis, it is marked with a “NA”.

c. “ ↓ ” Less than control.

“ ↑ ” Greater than control

d. The inter-laboratory analysis includes SMV, UNT for lindane, and SMV, ABC and WLI fo r octylphenol. If only one laboratory data are

available, inter-laboratory analysis is not performed and marked with a “NA”.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

55 Table 12B. Summary of Intra-Laboratory Analysis and Inter-Laboratory Results by Generation

for Survival Endpoints, Comparisons between Control and Test Chemicals, Generation:

F1 a,b,c



# Parameters Lindane Octylphenol Vinclozolin

SMV UNT Across

Laboratories d 

# SMV Across

Laboratories d 

# UNT

Reproduction Survival

Rate (%) (day 7) Group 6( ↓ )

Reproduction Survival

Rate (%) (day 14) Group 6( ↓ ) Decreasing trend for

the highest

concentration group

Reproduction Survival

Rate (%)

(Termination) Decreasing for the

highest concentration

group

Total Survival Rate

(%) (day 7) Decreasing trend for

the highest

concentration group NA

Total Survival Rate

(%) (day 14) Group 6( ↓ ) NA Group 5( ↓ )

Total Survival Rate

(%) (Termination) NA NA

a. Test concentration groups are group 2 to 6 and control group is group 1.

b. Statistical analysis results are based on the intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory analysis. Significant findings are summariz ed in the table. If the

data are not available for the intra-laborat ory analysis, it is marked with a “NA”.

c. “ ↓ ” Less than control.

“ ↑ ” Greater than control

d. The inter-laboratory analysis includes SMV, UNT for lindane, and SMV and ABC for octy lphenol. If only one laboratory data are a vailable,

inter-laboratory analysis is not pe rformed and marked with a “NA”.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

56 Table 13. Summary of Intra-Laboratory An alysis and Inter-Laboratory Results between

Generations for Reproduction Endpoints , Comparison between Two Generations a,b,c



# Parameter Lindane Octylphenol Vinclozolin

SMV UNT Across

Laboratories d 

# SMV Across Laboratories d 

# UNT

Time to Mature (females) Group 2( ↓ )

Number Offspring (brood 1) Groups 4( ↓ )

and 5( ↓ ) 

# Group 5 ( ↓ 

# ) Group 2( ↑ ) Groups 3( ↑ )

and 6( ↑ )

Number Offspring (brood 2) Group 4( ↓ ) Groups 2( ↑ )

and 5( ↑ ) 

# Groups 2( ↑ ) and 5( ↑ ) Group 3( ↑ )

Number Offspring (two broods) Groups 3( ↓ ),

4( ↓ ), and

5( ↓ ) Groups 2( ↑ )

and 5( ↑ ) 

# Groups 2( ↑ ) and 5( ↑ ) Groups 2( ↑ )

and 3( ↑ )

Days to Brood 1 Groups 3( ↑ ),

4( ↑ ), and

5( ↑ ) Group 2( ↓ ) Groups 1( ↓ ),

3( ↓ ), 4( ↓ ), and

6( ↓ )

Days to Brood 2 Groups 3( ↑ )

and 5( ↑ ) Groups

2( ↓ ) and

5( ↓ ) Groups 1( ↓ ),

4( ↓ ), 5( ↓ ) and

6( ↓ ) 

# A decreasing trend in

differences for the highest

concentration

group Group 5( ↓ )

Days Between Broods 1 and 2

Total Reproductive Days for the

First Two Broods Groups 3( ↑ )

and 5( ↑ ) NA 

# NA

# of Offspring Per Female Per

Reproduction Day for the First

Two Broods 8 

# Groups 3( ↓ ),

4( ↓ ) and 5( ↓ ) NA Groups 2( ↑ ),

4( ↑ ), 5( ↑ ), 6( ↑ ) 

# NA

% of Females Productively Active Group 6( ↑ )

Sex Ratio (males/females) Groups 2( ↓ )

and 3( ↓ ) Group 4( ↓ ),

5( ↓ ) and 6( ↓ )

a. Test concentration groups are group 2 to 6 and control is group 1.

b. Statistical analysis results are based on the intra-laboratory an alysis. Significant findings are summarized in the table. If o nly one generation of

the data were available, comparis ons of two generation was not perfor med and is marked with a “NA”.

c. “ ↓ ” F1 generation less than F0 generation.

“ ↑ ” F1 generation greater than F0 generation.

d. The inter-laboratory analysis includes SMV, UNT for lindane for both generation, and SM V, ABC and WLI for F0 generation and SMV and

ABC for the F1 generation for octylphenol. If only one laboratory data are available, inter-laboratory analysis is not performe d and marked with a

“NA”.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

57 Table 14. Statistical Analysis and Inter-Labo ratory Results between Generations for Growth

Endpoints, Comparison between Two Generations a,b,c



# Parameter Lindane Octylphenol Vinclozolin

SMV UNT Across

Laboratories d 

# SMV Across

Laboratories d 

# UNT

Dry Weight(mg) (day

7) Group 6( ↑ 

# ) Groups 1( ↑ 

# ), 2( ↑ 

# ),

3( ↑ 

# ), 4( ↑ 

# ) and 6( ↑ 

# )

Dry Weight(mg) (day

14) Groups 1( ↑ 

# ),

2( ↑ 

# ), 4( ↑ 

# ),

5( ↓ ) and 6( ↑ 

# ) Groups 1( ↑ 

# ),

2( ↑ 

# ), 3( ↑ 

# ),

4( ↑ 

# ) and 5( ↑ 

# ) A decreasing trend

in differences (F1-

F0) for the highest

concentration

group Groups 3( ↑ 

# ), 4( ↑ 

# )

and 5( ↑ 

# ) Groups 4( ↑ 

# ), 5( ↑ 

# )

and 6( ↑ 

# )

Dry Weight (mg)

(Termination) Groups 2( ↓ )

and 5( ↓ ) Group 6( ↑ 

# )

Length (mm) (day 7) Groups 1( ↑ 

# ),

2( ↑ 

# ), 3( ↓ ),

4( ↑ 

# ) and 5( ↑ 

# ) Groups 1( ↑ 

# ), 2( ↑ 

# ),

3( ↑ 

# ), 4( ↑ 

# ), 5( ↑ 

# ) and

6( ↑ 

# )

Length (mm) (day

14) Groups 3( ↓ ),

4( ↓ ) and 5( ↓ ) Groups 1( ↑ 

# ),

2( ↑ 

# ) and 4( ↑ 

# ) Groups 1( ↑ 

# ), 2( ↑ 

# ),

3( ↑ 

# ), 4( ↑ 

# ), 5( ↑ 

# ) and

6( ↑ 

# ) Group 5( ↑ 

# ) Group 6( ↑ 

# )

Length (mm)

(Termination) Groups 3( ↓ )

and 6( ↑ 

# ) Groups 2( ↓ ), 3( ↑ 

# )

and 6( ↑ 

# )

a. Test concentration groups are group 2 to 6 and control is group 1.

b. Statistical analysis results are based on the intra-laboratory an alysis. Significant findings are summarized in the table. If o nly one generation of

the data were available, comparis ons of two generation was not perfor med and is marked with a “NA”.

c. “ ↓ ” F1 generation less than F0 generation.

“ ↑ ” F1 generation greater than F0 generation.

d. The inter-laboratory analysis includes SMV, UNT for lindane for both generation, and SM V, ABC and WLI for F0 generation and SMV and

ABC for the F1 generation for octylphenol. If only one laboratory data are available, inter-laboratory analysis is not performe d and marked with a

“NA”.

# DRAFT

Inter-Laboratory Statistical Analysis Report for Mysid 2-Generation Data

58 Table 15. Statistical Analysis and Inter-Labora tory Results between Generations for Survival

Endpoints, Comparison between Two Generations a,b,c



# Parameter Lindane Octylphenol Vinclozolin

SMV UNT Across Laboratories d 

# SMV Across

Laboratories d 

# UNT

Reproduction Survival Rate

(%) (day 7) Group

4( ↑ 

# ) Group 6( ↓ )

Reproduction Survival Rate (%)

(day 14) Group

4( ↑ 

# ) Group 5( ↓ )

Reproduction Survival Rate (%)

(Termination) Group

1( ↑ 

# ) Groups 2( ↑ 

# )

and 6( ↑ 

# )

Total Survival Rate (%) (day 7) A decreasing trend in

differences (F1-F0) for

the highest

concentration

group Group 5( ↓ )

Total Survival Rate (%) (day

14) Group

4( ↑ 

# ) Group 6( ↓ ) Group 5( ↓ )

Total Survival Rate (%)

(Termination) NA NA NA

a. Test concentration groups are group 2 to 6 and control is group 1.

b. Statistical analysis results are based on the intra-laboratory an alysis. Significant findings are summarized in the table. If o nly one generation of

the data were available, comparis ons of two generation was not perfor med and is marked with a “NA”.

c. “ ↓ ” F1 generation less than F0 generation.

“ ↑ ” F1 generation greater than F0 generation.

d. The inter-laboratory analysis includes SMV, UNT for lindane for both generation, and SM V, ABC and WLI for F0 generation and SMV and

ABC for the F1 generation for octylphenol. If only one laboratory data are available, inter-laboratory analysis is not performe d and marked with a

“NA”.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data59Table 16A. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisonsof Mysid Lindane Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F0 Generation, Reproductive Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)32 ng/L(Group 2)80 ng/L(Group 3)200 ng/L(Group 4)500 ng/L(Group 5)1250 ng/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eNumber Offspring(brood 1)SMV5.476 (0.349)6.619 (0.623)6.381 (0.537)6.381 (0.445)8.048 (0.362)6.667 (0.427)UNT5.941 (0.661)6.550 (0.573)5.450 (0.578)5.222 (0.461)6.000 (0.463)8.100 (0.533)Average5.665 (0.639)6.583 (0.679)5.928 (0.662)5.807 (0.621)7.082 (0.606)7.338 (0.631)Number Offspring(brood 2)SMV8.800 (0.605)10.444 (0.506)8.762 (0.752)7.947 (1.010)10.556 (0.764)9.000 (1.073)UNT6.308 (1.227)8.421 (1.168)8.684 (1.017)8.588 (0.758)6.667 (1.022)7.286 (2.135)Average7.778 (1.097)9.583 (1.067)8.636 (1.098)8.404 (1.098)8.816 (1.101)8.267 (1.366)Number Offspring(two broods)SMV14.300 (0.612)17.333 (1.032)15.143 (1.161)14.158 (0.956)18.611 (0.950)16.125 (1.235)UNT12.077 (1.483)14.947 (1.559)14.263 (1.172)13.765 (0.678)12.467 (1.203)16.286 (2.974)Average13.277 (1.466)16.214 (1.564)14.701 (1.522)14.030 (1.403)15.769 (1.487)15.694 (1.810)Days to Brood 1SMV15.810 (0.178)16.048 (0.428)15.150 (0.412)15.333 (0.252)14.190 (0.203)15.238 (0.266)UNT19.294 (0.580)18.389 (0.915)18.167 (0.305)18.389 (0.429)17.591 (0.382)16.421 (0.353)Average17.429 (1.443)17.291 (1.485)16.673 (1.441)16.836 (1.438)15.844 (1.433)15.880 (1.435)Days to Brood 2SMV21.200 (0.388)20.611 (0.372)20.250 (0.396)20.389 (0.293)19.444 (0.246)20.929 (0.549)UNT23.800 (0.712)24.643 (0.617)23.750 (0.371)23.000 (0.181)23.400 (0.340)19.800 (0.663)Average22.493 (1.587)22.571 (1.577)22.003 (1.561)21.696 (1.546)21.408 (1.551)20.433 (1.596)Days Between Broods 1and 2SMV5.400 (0.320)4.500 (0.390)5.100 (0.100)5.000 (0.000)5.278 (0.226)6.154 (0.608)UNT4.900 (0.100)6.067 (0.483)5.824 (0.456)5.125 (0.272)5.667 (0.497)5.667 (1.706)Average5.073 (0.278)5.179 (0.386)5.303 (0.296)5.051 (0.264)5.405 (0.334)6.101 (0.644)Time to Mature(females)SMV10.333 (0.333)9.667 (0.333)9.667 (0.333)9.333 (0.333)9.000 (0.000)9.667 (0.333)UNT13.235 (0.585)12.444 (0.908)12.167 (0.305)12.333 (0.420)11.591 (0.382)10.105 (0.275)Average11.721 (1.257)10.941 (1.282)10.919 (1.236)10.809 (1.244)10.267 (1.228)9.853 (1.234)Total Reproductive Daysfor the First Two BroodsSMV9.200 (0.388)8.611 (0.372)8.250 (0.396)8.389 (0.293)7.444 (0.246)9.000 (0.588)UNTNAfNANANANANAAverageNANANANANANA# of Offspring PerSMV1.567 (0.054)2.028 (0.093)1.983 (0.136)1.801 (0.117)2.554 (0.157)2.003 (0.152)DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data60ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)32 ng/L(Group 2)80 ng/L(Group 3)200 ng/L(Group 4)500 ng/L(Group 5)1250 ng/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eFemale PerReproduction Day forthe First Two BroodsUNTNANANANANANAAverageNANANANANANA% of FemalesProductively ActiveSMV100.000(0.000)100.000 (0.000)95.238 (4.762)100.000(0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000(0.000)UNT80.952 (4.762)90.476 (9.524)90.476 (9.524)95.238 (4.762)100.000 (0.000)95.238 (4.762)Average93.173 (4.491)96.951 (4.890)92.865 (6.076)97.626 (4.491)100.000 (4.063)97.626 (4.491)Sex Ratio(males/ females)SMV1.268 (0.367)1.334 (0.139)1.357 (0.327)0.696 (0.161)1.052 (0.322)1.014 (0.201)UNT1.126 (0.180)1.773 (0.146)1.706 (0.199)1.956 (0.438)1.568 (0.666)1.228 (0.486)Average1.041 (0.257)1.552 (0.220)1.527 (0.261)0.986 (0.253)1.264 (0.352)1.175 (0.275)a.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within thelaboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not available.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data61Table 16B. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisonsof Mysid Lindane Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F1 Generation, Reproductive Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)32 ng/L(Group 2)80 ng/L(Group 3)200 ng/L(Group 4)500 ng/L(Group 5)1250 ng/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eNumber Offspring(brood 1)SMV6.571 (0.445)6.048 (0.579)4.810 (0.423)3.947 (0.310)4.700 (0.411)5.300 (0.689)UNT4.867 (0.827)5.824 (0.431)3.867 (0.363)4.800 (0.313)5.294 (0.803)8.375 (0.999)Average5.955 (0.636)5.924 (0.587)4.320 (0.543)4.373 (0.516)4.913 (0.623)6.494 (0.746)Number Offspring(brood 2)SMV9.600 (0.654)8.150 (0.812)7.100 (0.710)5.313 (0.751)10.632 (1.035)7.533 (1.234)UNT8.143 (1.185)7.667 (0.843)7.000 (0.992)7.842 (0.989)7.917 (1.158)7.667 (2.333)Average9.130 (0.775)7.914 (0.756)7.060 (0.760)6.365 (0.773)9.384 (0.909)7.567 (1.218)Number Offspring(two broods)SMV15.950 (0.854)14.300 (0.904)11.900 (0.906)9.375 (0.816)15.421 (1.170)13.200 (1.200)UNT13.286 (1.762)13.467 (0.940)11.167 (0.984)12.474 (1.047)12.833 (1.450)17.000 (2.517)Average15.129 (1.149)13.890 (1.007)11.546 (1.017)10.763 (1.009)14.290 (1.198)14.182 (1.394)Days to Brood 1SMV14.857 (0.261)16.571 (0.496)16.667 (0.319)16.737 (0.512)15.650 (0.455)16.000 (0.333)UNT17.214 (0.395)16.000 (0.268)17.500 (0.374)17.350 (0.254)16.882 (0.477)16.091 (0.513)Average15.956 (0.598)16.197 (0.613)17.078 (0.602)17.049 (0.614)16.260 (0.641)16.076 (0.626)Days to Brood 2SMV20.050 (0.185)20.944 (0.347)21.895 (0.374)21.563 (0.524)21.105 (0.524)21.167 (0.520)UNT22.818 (0.615)21.500 (0.292)22.100 (0.233)23.000 (0.412)21.125 (0.295)20.333 (0.667)Average21.145 (0.636)21.224 (0.609)21.991 (0.606)22.319 (0.655)21.090 (0.636)20.812 (0.703)Days Between Broods 1and 2SMV5.200 (0.258)4.778 (0.286)5.263 (0.263)4.938 (0.063)5.474 (0.328)5.417 (0.417)UNT5.545 (0.366)5.286 (0.286)4.900 (0.100)5.611 (0.389)4.700 (0.213)5.333 (0.333)Average5.337 (0.278)5.032 (0.268)5.029 (0.215)5.097 (0.224)5.000 (0.256)5.369 (0.316)Time to Mature(females)SMV9.667 (0.333)8.667 (0.667)10.667 (0.667)9.667 (0.333)10.000 (0.577)10.667 (0.333)UNT11.357 (0.387)10.000 (0.268)11.429 (0.388)11.350 (0.254)10.882 (0.477)10.000 (0.504)Average10.491 (0.639)9.420 (0.666)11.038 (0.689)10.536 (0.622)10.443 (0.694)10.454 (0.656)Total Reproductive Daysfor the First Two BroodsSMV8.050 (0.185)8.944 (0.347)9.895 (0.374)9.563 (0.524)9.105 (0.524)9.167 (0.520)UNTNAfNANANANA)NAAverageNANANANANA)NA# of Offspring PerSMV1.997 (0.116)1.699 (0.114)1.269 (0.095)1.004 (0.090)1.772 (0.141)1.620 (0.168)DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data62ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)32 ng/L(Group 2)80 ng/L(Group 3)200 ng/L(Group 4)500 ng/L(Group 5)1250 ng/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eFemale PerReproduction Day forthe First Two BroodsUNTNANANANANA)NAAverageNANANANANA)NA% of FemalesProductively ActiveSMV100.000(0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000(0.000)100.000(0.000)100.000 (0.000)95.238 (4.762)UNT83.333(16.667)100.000 (0.000)93.333 (6.667)90.476 (4.762)89.683 (5.204)83.333(16.667)Average99.598 (1.205)100.000 (0.888)99.524 (1.192)99.282 (1.178)99.312 (1.183)94.047 (4.623)Sex Ratio(males/ females)SMV1.364 (0.397)1.694 (0.282)1.430 (0.253)1.022 (0.152)0.985 (0.200)0.931 (0.153)UNT0.737 (0.189)0.807 (0.096)1.500 (0.551)0.992 (0.179)1.183 (0.409)0.933 (0.204)Average0.932 (0.248)1.088 (0.204)1.424 (0.295)1.005 (0.199)1.022 (0.254)0.927 (0.204)a.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within thelaboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not available.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data63Table 17A. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisonsof Mysid Lindane Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F0 Generation, Growth Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)32 ng/L(Group 2)80 ng/L(Group 3)200 ng/L(Group 4)500 ng/L(Group 5)1250 ng/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eDry Weight (mg)(day 7)SMV0.297 (0.017)0.357 (0.017)0.281 (0.026)0.316 (0.018)0.359 (0.025)0.304 (0.019)UNT0.119 (0.015)0.108 (0.018)0.094 (0.012)0.072 (0.009)0.149 (0.017)0.222 (0.028)Average0.208 (0.101)0.233 (0.101)0.188 (0.101)0.192 (0.101)0.253 (0.101)0.257 (0.101)Dry Weight (mg)(day 14)SMV0.642 (0.025)0.616 (0.025)0.675 (0.035)0.891 (0.034)0.997 (0.034)1.031 (0.045)UNT0.573 (0.025)0.472 (0.024)0.485 (0.028)0.481 (0.027)0.563 (0.026)0.595 (0.030)Average0.608 (0.158)0.544 (0.158)0.581 (0.158)0.685 (0.158)0.778 (0.158)0.810 (0.159)Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)SMV1.098 (0.043)1.188 (0.047)1.069 (0.043)1.047 (0.040)1.288 (0.055)1.018 (0.067)UNT0.905 (0.025)1.014 (0.034)1.057 (0.034)1.048 (0.040)0.961 (0.056)1.027 (0.076)Average0.998 (0.081)1.098 (0.082)1.065 (0.082)1.047 (0.082)1.125 (0.086)1.020 (0.092)Length (mm)(day 7)SMV4.458 (0.098)4.466 (0.062)4.670 (0.130)4.791 (0.099)4.838 (0.085)4.583 (0.054)UNT3.144 (0.098)3.200 (0.078)3.272 (0.072)3.383 (0.068)3.744 (0.084)4.039 (0.140)Average3.801 (0.606)3.834 (0.604)3.958 (0.606)4.080 (0.605)4.291 (0.605)4.261 (0.606)Length (mm)(day 14)SMV6.303 (0.056)6.568 (0.067)6.636 (0.094)6.815 (0.060)6.971 (0.054)6.582 (0.089)UNT4.680 (0.075)4.710 (0.090)4.905 (0.097)5.211 (0.122)5.195 (0.094)5.294 (0.074)Average5.491 (0.828)5.649 (0.828)5.771 (0.829)6.008 (0.829)6.093 (0.828)5.949 (0.829)Length (mm)(Termination)SMV7.421 (0.052)7.488 (0.061)7.370 (0.054)7.368 (0.066)7.662 (0.072)7.385 (0.094)UNT6.311 (0.029)6.344 (0.041)6.405 (0.044)6.239 (0.059)6.313 (0.064)6.455 (0.086)Average6.866 (0.556)6.914 (0.557)6.892 (0.557)6.803 (0.557)6.981 (0.558)6.925 (0.559)a.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within thelaboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data64Table 17B. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisonsof Mysid Lindane Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F1 Generation, Growth Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)32 ng/L(Group 2)80 ng/L(Group 3)200 ng/L(Group 4)500 ng/L(Group 5)1250 ng/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eDry Weight (mg)(day 0)SMV0.029 (0.003)0.030 (0.006)0.027 (0.004)0.033 (0.006)0.025 (0.006)0.025 (0.005)UNT0.022 (0.001)0.023 (0.002)0.023 (0.002)0.017 (0.002)0.023 (0.002)0.022 (0.002)Average0.025 (0.003)0.026 (0.004)0.025 (0.004)0.021 (0.004)0.025 (0.004)0.025 (0.004)Dry Weight (mg)(day 7)SMV0.380 (0.047)0.383 (0.050)0.294 (0.025)0.307 (0.026)0.337 (0.022)0.318 (0.012)UNT0.247 (0.014)0.234 (0.010)0.265 (0.024)0.237 (0.013)0.256 (0.013)0.291 (0.045)Average0.287 (0.039)0.273 (0.038)0.281 (0.040)0.272 (0.038)0.294 (0.038)0.285 (0.038)Dry Weight (mg)(day 14)SMV0.805 (0.042)0.783 (0.044)0.588 (0.030)0.622 (0.038)0.788 (0.034)0.688 (0.043)UNT0.719 (0.027)0.716 (0.026)0.633 (0.023)0.705 (0.024)0.672 (0.025)0.618 (0.047)Average0.755 (0.041)0.744 (0.041)0.612 (0.038)0.669 (0.040)0.725 (0.039)0.655 (0.046)Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)SMV1.046 (0.039)1.022 (0.031)0.978 (0.036)0.986 (0.043)1.137 (0.049)0.937 (0.054)UNT1.030 (0.047)0.972 (0.037)1.031 (0.038)0.995 (0.038)0.993 (0.042)1.007 (0.044)Average1.039 (0.034)1.000 (0.028)1.003 (0.030)0.991 (0.032)1.055 (0.035)0.978 (0.037)Length (mm)(day0)SMV1.633 (0.032)1.671 (0.017)1.627 (0.025)1.705 (0.016)1.689 (0.018)1.699 (0.024)UNT1.482 (0.015)1.482 (0.017)1.469 (0.017)1.427 (0.017)1.467 (0.021)1.462 (0.028)Average1.565 (0.107)1.576 (0.106)1.551 (0.106)1.567 (0.106)1.578 (0.106)1.581 (0.107)Length (mm)(day 7)SMV4.715 (0.061)4.622 (0.102)4.644 (0.105)4.544 (0.134)4.863 (0.099)4.334 (0.094)UNT3.956 (0.080)3.772 (0.055)4.074 (0.091)4.100 (0.101)4.194 (0.079)4.150 (0.080)Average4.340 (0.312)4.179 (0.313)4.359 (0.316)4.329 (0.319)4.526 (0.315)4.250 (0.314)Length (mm)(day 14)SMV6.388 (0.073)6.333 (0.043)6.111 (0.053)6.058 (0.071)6.474 (0.080)6.547 (0.136)UNT5.641 (0.042)5.574 (0.063)5.347 (0.059)5.463 (0.064)5.585 (0.058)5.525 (0.084)Average6.018 (0.385)5.953 (0.385)5.729 (0.385)5.768 (0.386)6.011 (0.386)5.980 (0.390)Length (mm)(Termination)SMV7.403 (0.040)7.351 (0.048)7.230 (0.054)7.124 (0.055)7.673 (0.087)7.220 (0.114)UNT6.273 (0.059)6.110 (0.040)6.092 (0.054)6.128 (0.049)6.352 (0.073)6.711 (0.068)Average6.839 (0.546)6.729 (0.546)6.661 (0.546)6.626 (0.546)7.009 (0.548)6.994 (0.549)a.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within theDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data65laboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data66Table 18A. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisonsof Mysid Lindane Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F0 Generation, Survival Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)32 ng/L(Group 2)80 ng/L(Group 3)200 ng/L(Group 4)500 ng/L(Group 5)1250 ng/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eReproduction SurvivalRate (%) (day 7)SMV96.667 (3.334)90.000 (2.887)98.333 (1.667)88.333 (1.667)95.000 (2.887)95.000 (2.887)UNT96.667 (1.667)98.333 (1.667)98.333 (1.667)100.000 (0.000)95.000 (0.000)100.000(0 000)Average96.276 (3.448)94.603 (3.380)98.333 (3.201)94.467 (3.127)94.605 (3.287)97.708 (3.287)Reproduction SurvivalRate (%) (day 14)SMV89.027 (3.584)84.298 (6.153)91.818 (1.818)87.895 (1.848)86.619 (3.845)86.475 (3.766)UNT78.333 (1.667)86.667 (1.667)88.333 (4.410)95.000 (5.000)80.000 (5.000)80.000(10 408)Average82.406 (3.157)86.100 (3.500)90.645 (3.321)90.055 (3.413)83.819 (4.026)85.281 (4.736)Reproduction SurvivalRate (%) (Termination)SMV75.784 (5.435)72.729 (5.739)85.279 (2.788)80.370 (4.815)76.111 (2.003)69.697 (8.018)UNT77.302 (5.808)83.056 (4.035)71.528 (12.529)67.703 (6.347)64.128 (4.391)46.296 (5.543)Average76.461 (6.582)78.821 (6.274)81.350 (6.873)74.548 (6.553)70.703 (5.733)56.145 (7.057)TotalSurvival Rate (%) (day7)SMV96.667 (3.334)92.500 (0.000)97.500 (1.443)89.167 (3.005)94.167 (2.205)95.000 (2.887)UNT96.667 (2.205)96.667 (2.205)99.167 (0.833)99.167 (0.833)97.500 (0.000)98.333 (0.833)Average96.082 (2.488)94.254 (1.930)98.032 (1.829)96.991 (1.911)95.910 (1.930)96.767 (1.908)TotalSurvival Rate (%) (day14)SMV89.638 (2.162)86.958 (2.741)90.196 (2.594)83.001 (5.021)85.817 (6.581)86.608 (0.908)UNT80.392 (6.429)79.412 (6.123)90.196 (3.535)86.275 (4.274)86.275 (3.535)84.314 (5.187)Average88.698 (2.049)85.698 (2.502)90.196 (2.091)84.899 (3.254)86.172 (3.114)86.540 (0.895)TotalSurvival Rate (%)(Termination)SMV75.784 (5.435)72.729 (5.739)85.279 (2.788)80.370 (4.815)76.111 (2.003)69.697 (8.018)UNTNAfNANANANANAAverageNANANANANANAa.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within thelaboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not available.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data67Table 18B. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisonsof Mysid Lindane Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F1 Generation, Survival Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)32 ng/L(Group 2)80 ng/L(Group 3)200 ng/L(Group 4)500 ng/L(Group 5)1250 ng/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eReproduction SurvivalRate (%) (day 7)SMV97.778 (2.222)93.333 (3.849)97.778 (2.222)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)95.556 (2.222)UNT97.778 (2.222)100.000 (0.000)93.333 (6.667)100.000 (0.000)86.667 (6.667)68.889 (8.012)Average97.778 (1.571)99.578 (0.968)97.334 (2.108)100.000 (0.707)99.707 (0.989)93.651 (2.141)Reproduction SurvivalRate (%) (day 14)SMV95.956 (2.025)88.487 (2.798)97.917 (2.083)100.000 (0.000)94.118 (3.396)91.667 (2.083)UNT84.444 (8.012)95.556 (2.222)88.889 (4.444)93.333 (6.667)82.222 (5.880)46.667 (13.878)Average91.200 (7.001)92.200 (6.334)93.593 (6.522)96.753 (6.732)88.646 (6.902)81.755 (7.579)Reproduction SurvivalRate (%) (Termination)SMV92.308 (4.441)77.835 (2.215)89.744 (6.784)86.931 (3.031)85.769 (5.426)66.667 (6.060)UNT66.667 (8.333)82.165 (9.301)75.354 (4.067)70.476 (5.793)64.545 (10.594)58.333 (8.333)Average82.770 (7.941)72.991 (7.390)82.215 (7.706)79.581 (7.401)77.488 (8.440)61.864 (8.409)TotalSurvival Rate (%) (day7)SMV95.833 (2.406)91.667 (2.406)98.611 (1.389)98.611 (1.389)95.833 (4.167)89.683 (3.118)UNT98.889 (1.111)98.889 (1.111)85.556 (9.876)100.000 (0.000)82.222 (2.222)67.778 (4.843)Average97.435 (5.199)95.441 (5.199)95.123 (6.229)99.314 (5.105)88.354 (5.531)79.844 (5.768)TotalSurvival Rate (%) (day14)SMV91.667 (4.167)87.247 (2.190)97.222 (1.389)97.101 (2.898)88.889 (3.675)86.905 (0.595)UNT86.111 (3.675)91.667 (2.406)75.611 (10.448)93.056 (5.008)70.833 (6.365)44.444 (9.108)Average88.923 (9.495)89.425 (9.225)88.443 (10.101)94.881 (9.517)80.298 (9.764)70.380 (9.900)TotalSurvival Rate (%)(Termination)SMV92.308 (4.441)77.835 (2.215)89.744 (6.784)86.931 (3.031)85.769 (5.426)66.667 (6.060)UNTNAfNANANANANAAverageNANANANANANAa.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within thelaboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not available.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data68Table 19A. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisons ofMysid Octylphenol Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F0 Generation, Reproductive Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentration TrendTestscOverallControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eNumber Offspring(brood 1)SMV6.048 (0.550)5.050 (0.373)4.450 (0.407)4.524 (0.349)6.000 (0.602)4.842 (0.336)ABC7.714 (0.474)5.714 (0.677)7.053 (1.039)7.429 (0.461)5.100 (0.571)1.100 (0.376)WLI3.471 (0.576)3.150 (0.559)3.211 (0.575)2.300 (0.548)2.056 (0.591)3.867 (0.956)Average5.760 (1.173)4.632 (1.175)4.778 (1.200)4.756 (1.163)4.383 (1.182)3.108 (1.182)Number Offspring(brood 2)SMV8.238 (0.807)5.889 (0.993)6.389 (0.897)6.842 (0.738)5.238 (0.556)6.111 (0.779)ABC8.619 (1.004)2.905 (0.676)7.579 (1.140)4.429 (1.041)4.300 (0.808)0.200 (0.156)WLI5.800 (1.176)2.167 (0.668)1.722 (0.553)1.222 (0.482)0.500 (0.345)3.100 (1.140)Average7.504 (1.558)3.632 (1.517)5.031 (1.533)4.111 (1.514)3.287 (1.488)2.789 (1.512)A decreasing trend forthe highestconcentration groupNumber Offspring(two broods)SMV14.286 (1.096)10.944 (1.077)10.944 (1.127)11.579 (0.762)11.238 (0.894)11.056 (0.982)ABC16.333 (1.210)8.619 (1.086)14.632 (1.914)11.857 (1.339)9.400 (0.832)1.300 (0.442)WLI9.067 (1.293)5.278 (0.966)4.944 (0.895)3.667 (0.824)2.556 (0.692)7.200 (1.788)Average13.224 (2.539)8.282 (2.516)9.889 (2.562)8.963 (2.509)7.711 (2.487)6.066 (2.531)A decreasing trend forthe highestconcentration groupDays to Brood 1SMV19.000 (0.333)17.500 (0.256)18.450 (0.525)19.238 (0.601)18.143 (0.504)19.895 (0.630)ABC16.476 (0.178)16.450 (0.135)17.000 (0.459)16.238 (0.168)16.800 (0.304)17.889 (0.539)WLI26.250 (1.468)26.778 (1.569)28.938 (1.841)26.438 (3.260)30.357 (2.106)25.800 (1.349)Average20.722 (3.152)20.104 (3.151)20.923 (3.164)20.564 (3.160)20.729 (3.160)21.680 (3.167)Days to Brood 2SMV23.500 (0.407)23.778 (0.655)23.053 (0.538)24.278 (0.571)24.000 (0.684)25.500 (0.567)ABC22.619 (0.428)22.615 (0.572)23.556 (0.720)21.938 (0.382)23.000 (0.570)25.500 (2.500)WLI34.077 (1.734)33.222 (1.722)35.100 (2.243)38.167 (2.750)35.000 (4.582)36.000 (1.915)Average26.788 (3.796)26.838 (3.806)26.923 (3.809)26.792 (3.802)27.247 (3.814)28.763 (3.828)Days Between Broods 1and 2SMV4.500 (0.154)6.278 (0.631)4.579 (0.220)5.222 (0.250)6.050 (0.521)5.500 (0.445)ABC6.238 (0.377)6.308 (0.536)6.778 (0.639)5.625 (0.386)6.438 (0.584)8.500 (2.500)WLI9.000 (1.177)9.000 (1.354)7.900 (1.531)10.000 (2.266)6.667 (1.667)9.000 (1.653)Average6.223 (0.995)7.101 (1.046)6.267 (1.018)6.354 (1.011)6.932 (1.047)7.015 (1.100)Time to MatureSMV13.000 (0.000)13.000 (0.000)13.000 (0.000)13.000 (0.000)13.000 (0.000)13.000 (0.000)DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data69ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentration TrendTestscOverallControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,e(females)ABCNANANANANANAWLI14.000 (0.000)14.000 (0.000)14.000 (0.000)14.000 (0.000)14.000 (0.000)14.000 (0.000)Average13.500 (0.500)13.500 (0.500)13.500 (0.500)13.500 (0.500)13.500 (0.500)13.500 (0.500)Total Reproductive Daysfor the First Two BroodsSMV9.500 (0.407)9.778 (0.655)9.053 (0.538)10.278 (0.571)10.000 (0.684)11.500 (0.567)ABCNAfNANANANANAWLINANANANANANAAverageNANANANANANA# of Offspring PerFemale PerReproduction Day forthe First Two BroodsSMV1.636 (0.112)1.126 (0.083)1.242 (0.082)1.194 (0.063)1.229 (0.095)0.975 (0.081)ABCNANANANANANAWLINANANANANANAAverageNANANANANANA% of FemalesProductively ActiveSMV95.238 (4.762)95.238 (4.762)95.238 (4.762)100.000(0 000)100.000 (0.000)90.476 (4.762)ABC100.000(0 000)95.238 (4.762)100.000(0 000)100.000(0 000)100.000 (0.000)47.619(12 99)WLI76.167 (4.767)85.700 (8.256)76.167 (4.767)71.400 (8.256)66.633 (4.767)71.400 (8.256)Average91.648 (8.247)89.239 (8.740)91.648 (8.247)91.861 (8.221)91.698 (8.217)79.449 (9.054)Sex Ratio(males/ females)SMV1.773 (0.261)2.300 (0.581)1.783 (0.468)1.457 (0.583)1.613 (0.162)1.607 (0.301)ABC1.417 (0.542)1.667 (0.583)1.589 (0.585)1.464 (0.669)1.135 (0.452)0.929 (0.214)WLI1.064 (0.233)0.878 (0.148)1.245 (0.025)0.896 (0.111)1.094 (0.263)0.920 (0.019)Average1.384 (0.253)1.218 (0.243)1.502 (0.204)1.162 (0.228)1.290 (0.236)1.176 (0.203)Yesa.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within thelaboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not available.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data70Table 19B. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisons ofMysid Octylphenol Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F1 Generation, Reproductive Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eNumber Offspring(brood 1)SMV6.313 (0.717)7.842 (0.876)6.056 (0.521)5.706 (0.435)6.450 (0.622)4.688 (0.481)ABC7.714 (0.793)6.867 (1.013)7.579 (0.818)7.905 (0.636)9.154 (0.815)NAfAverage7.018 (0.968)7.519 (1.046)6.813 (0.927)6.705 (0.889)7.663 (0.950)5.438 (0.987)Number Offspring(brood 2)SMV7.154 (1.234)11.000 (0.956)7.800 (0.879)7.500 (1.194)9.500 (0.781)6.200 (1.061)ABC11.048 (1.141)11.071 (1.216)13.167 (1.205)11.952 (1.105)10.000 (1.664)NAAverage9.126 (1.835)11.154 (1.803)10.309 (1.789)9.759 (1.823)10.071 (1.833)7.451 (2.210)Number Offspring(two broods)SMV13.077 (1.820)19.111 (1.627)13.533 (1.023)13.125 (1.241)15.722 (1.146)10.933 (1.115)ABC18.762 (1.419)17.929 (1.841)20.722 (1.676)19.857 (1.275)19.154 (2.130)NAAverage16.006 (2.768)18.680 (2.804)16.864 (2.695)16.479 (2.675)17.532 (2.765)13.003 (3.112)Days to Brood 1SMV16.333 (0.702)17.789 (0.610)15.778 (0.222)16.765 (0.621)16.750 (0.428)16.250 (0.521)ABC19.905 (0.194)20.533 (0.515)19.211 (0.511)18.476 (0.321)19.077 (0.288)NAAverage18.396 (1.408)19.163 (1.438)17.338 (1.404)17.407 (1.418)17.870 (1.405)17.606 (1.502)Days to Brood 2SMV21.182 (0.761)22.889 (0.646)20.929 (0.370)21.333 (0.310)21.353 (0.342)20.231 (0.632)ABC25.600 (0.266)26.286 (0.508)24.389 (0.543)23.600 (0.234)25.846 (0.706)NAAverage23.599 (1.789)24.588 (1.802)22.654 (1.785)22.436 (1.766)23.428 (1.792)21.928 (1.920)Days Between Broods 1and 2SMV5.364 (0.561)4.944 (0.262)5.286 (0.304)5.000 (0.389)4.882 (0.146)4.385 (0.140)ABC5.700 (0.263)5.786 (0.114)5.222 (0.190)5.350 (0.131)6.769 (0.752)NAAverage5.512 (0.390)5.426 (0.318)5.197 (0.337)5.159 (0.336)5.253 (0.363)4.594 (0.379)Time to Mature(females)SMV10.667 (0.333)12.000 (0.000)12.333 (0.882)11.667 (0.333)13.000 (1.000)11.000 (0.577)ABCNAfNANANANA)NAAverageNANANANANA)NATotal Reproductive Daysfor the First Two BroodsSMV9.182 (0.761)10.889 (0.646)8.929 (0.370)9.333 (0.310)9.353 (0.342)8.231 (0.632)ABCNANANANANA)NAAverageNANANANANA)NA# of Offspring PerSMV1.754 (0.200)1.787 (0.128)1.618 (0.123)1.669 (0.082)1.741 (0.087)1.471 (0.158)DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data71ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eFemale PerReproduction Day forthe First Two BroodsABCNANANANANA)NAAverageNANANANANA)NA% of FemalesProductively ActiveSMV88.571 (5.948)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)94.444 (5.556)100.000 (0.000)94.444 (5.556)ABC100.000(0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000(0.000)100.000 (0.000)NAAverage99.686 (0.986)100.000 (0.707)100.000 (0.707)99.826 (0.984)100.000 (0.707)94.444 (5.556)Sex Ratio(males/ females)SMV1.183 (0.376)0.927 (0.121)0.640 (0.239)0.807 (0.262)1.003 (0.055)1.130 (0.304)ABC1.714 (0.286)3.640 (2.682)1.081 (0.262)0.944 (0.199)0.905 (0.238)NAAverage1.520 (0.228)0.933 (0.121)0.841 (0.176)0.894 (0.158)0.998 (0.053)1.130 (0.304)a.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within thelaboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not available.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data72Table 20A. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisons ofMysid Octylphenol Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F0 Generation, Growth Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eDry Weight (mg)(day 7)SMV0.083 (0.012)0.144 (0.014)0.124 (0.019)0.137 (0.027)0.159 (0.026)0.146 (0.016)ABC0.221 (0.012)0.203 (0.013)0.221 (0.011)0.224 (0.010)0.204 (0.009)0.137 (0.012)WLI0.597 (0.021)0.508 (0.014)0.488 (0.039)0.600 (0.024)0.533 (0.032)0.518 (0.029)Average0.297 (0.129)0.285 (0.129)0.286 (0.129)0.320 (0.129)0.299 (0.129)0.266 (0.129)Dry Weight (mg)(day 14)SMV0.440 (0.023)0.544 (0.016)0.456 (0.023)0.440 (0.016)0.440 (0.013)0.553 (0.015)ABC0.619 (0.029)0.625 (0.026)0.657 (0.023)0.653 (0.033)0.651 (0.028)0.441 (0.017)WLI0.662 (0.016)0.598 (0.014)0.643 (0.017)0.624 (0.017)0.590 (0.018)0.560 (0.016)Average0.574 (0.057)0.589 (0.056)0.586 (0.057)0.570 (0.057)0.558 (0.057)0.519 (0.056)Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)SMV0.994 (0.032)1.032 (0.045)1.027 (0.033)1.011 (0.034)1.012 (0.032)0.995 (0.036)ABCNAfNANANANANAWLI1.407 (0.043)1.462 (0.038)1.400 (0.045)1.427 (0.044)1.394 (0.041)1.326 (0.065)Average1.198 (0.199)1.250 (0.199)1.217 (0.199)1.216 (0.199)1.204 (0.199)1.177 (0.200)Length (mm)(day 7)SMV3.469 (0.085)4.062 (0.065)3.926 (0.072)3.893 (0.075)3.809 (0.101)3.927 (0.076)ABC3.482 (0.043)3.432 (0.058)3.501 (0.057)3.487 (0.048)3.461 (0.052)3.016 (0.080)WLI5.550 (0.087)5.083 (0.061)5.094 (0.114)5.233 (0.064)4.911 (0.113)4.989 (0.108)Average4.168 (0.536)4.192 (0.536)4.178 (0.537)4.205 (0.536)4.069 (0.537)3.978 (0.537)Length (mm)(day 14)SMV5.321 (0.063)5.763 (0.057)5.699 (0.043)5.649 (0.049)5.558 (0.085)5.848 (0.047)ABC5.125 (0.054)5.132 (0.042)5.174 (0.037)4.920 (0.053)5.033 (0.050)4.601 (0.064)WLI5.837 (0.037)6.090 (0.058)6.234 (0.046)6.220 (0.059)6.217 (0.062)6.185 (0.053)Average5.427 (0.342)5.662 (0.342)5.703 (0.342)5.596 (0.342)5.605 (0.343)5.550 (0.343)Length (mm)(Termination)SMV7.467 (0.048)7.412 (0.064)7.375 (0.055)7.240 (0.052)7.313 (0.073)7.128 (0.053)ABCNANANANANA)NAWLI8.829 (0.070)8.915 (0.063)8.830 (0.077)8.959 (0.075)8.948 (0.062)8.936 (0.111)Average8.159 (0.789)8.163 (0.789)8.109 (0.789)8.091 (0.789)8.132 (0.789)7.997 (0.789)a.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within theDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data73laboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not available.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data74Table 20B. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisons ofMysid Octylphenol Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F1 Generation, Growth Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eDry Weight (mg)(day 0)SMV0.023 (0.001)0.020 (0.001)0.020 (0.001)0.020 (0.001)0.026 (0.003)0.021 (0.004)ABC0.016 (0.003)0.015 (0.002)0.011 (0.001)0.017 (0.004)0.017 (0.002)0.011 (0.006)Average0.019 (0.004)0.017 (0.004)0.015 (0.004)0.017 (0.004)0.021 (0.004)0.017 (0.005)Dry Weight (mg)(day 7)SMV0.252 (0.012)0.292 (0.015)0.263 (0.024)0.252 (0.014)0.230 (0.014)0.276 (0.013)ABC0.276 (0.031)0.240 (0.005)0.287 (0.020)0.294 (0.014)0.267 (0.016)NAfAverage0.260 (0.022)0.262 (0.019)0.276 (0.023)0.273 (0.020)0.248 (0.020)0.276 (0.027)Dry Weight (mg)(day 14)SMV0.560 (0.030)0.553 (0.031)0.597 (0.032)0.579 (0.037)0.562 (0.025)0.627 (0.031)ABC0.797 (0.044)0.860 (0.039)0.769 (0.048)0.812 (0.037)0.817 (0.046)NAAverage0.680 (0.125)0.699 (0.124)0.697 (0.125)0.696 (0.125)0.686 (0.124)0.748 (0.127)Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)SMV1.066 (0.051)1.039 (0.040)1.060 (0.042)0.996 (0.047)1.014 (0.044)0.989 (0.050)ABCNANANANANANAAverageNANANANANANALength (mm)(day0)SMV1.607 (0.026)1.581 (0.018)1.586 (0.017)1.610 (0.022)1.608 (0.022)1.582 (0.019)ABC1.359 (0.014)1.465 (0.032)1.404 (0.035)1.372 (0.018)1.498 (0.026)1.424 (0.027)Average1.478 (0.093)1.518 (0.093)1.496 (0.093)1.490 (0.093)1.551 (0.093)1.502 (0.093)Length (mm)(day 7)SMV4.446 (0.093)4.943 (0.100)4.466 (0.099)4.739 (0.124)4.863 (0.082)4.651 (0.077)ABC3.778 (0.112)3.617 (0.072)3.873 (0.054)3.763 (0.054)3.710 (0.055)NAAverage4.107 (0.495)4.270 (0.494)4.181 (0.493)4.248 (0.494)4.282 (0.492)4.188 (0.521)Length (mm)(day 14)SMV6.057 (0.084)6.554 (0.146)6.212 (0.081)6.334 (0.099)6.823 (0.087)6.412 (0.113)ABC5.449 (0.058)5.654 (0.046)5.417 (0.069)5.613 (0.040)5.482 (0.071)NAAverage5.759 (0.453)6.099 (0.455)5.815 (0.453)5.980 (0.453)6.145 (0.453)5.986 (0.486)Length (mm)(Termination)SMV7.311 (0.071)7.542 (0.084)7.479 (0.076)7.296 (0.071)7.399 (0.097)7.099 (0.066)ABCNANANANANANAAverageNANANANANANAa.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within theDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data75laboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not available.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data76Table 21A. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisons ofMysid Octylphenol Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F0 Generation, Survival Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eReproduction SurvivalRate (%) (day 7)SMV91.667 (6.009)93.333 (3.334)93.333 (4.410)91.667 (4.410)91.667 (6.009)91.667 (3.334)ABC97.778 (2.222)97.778 (2.222)100.000(0.000)100.000 (0.000)93.333 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)WLI100.000 (0.000)98.333 (1.667)100.000(0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)96.667 (1.667)Average97.204 (2.547)96.397 (2.541)98.153 (2.396)98.005 (2.396)94.962 (2.425)96.699 (2.416)Reproduction SurvivalRate (%) (day 14)SMV86.667 (1.667)91.667 (3.334)91.667 (3.334)91.667 (4.410)83.333 (8.819)86.667 (1.667)ABC97.778 (2.222)97.778 (2.222)97.778 (2.222)100.000 (0.000)88.889 (4.444)100.000 (0.000)WLI91.667 (4.410)96.667 (3.334)86.667 (8.333)95.000 (2.887)98.333 (1.667)95.000 (0.000)Average92.368 (3.289)95.090 (3.395)94.305 (3.575)95.651 (3.262)94.179 (3.570)94.112 (3.040)Reproduction SurvivalRate (%) (Termination)SMV73.000 (5.000)64.333 (7.310)78.000 (5.774)70.333 (3.712)75.333 (7.535)65.000 (5.507)ABC97.619 (2.381)91.111 (2.222)93.016 (0.159)95.238 (4.762)88.889 (4.444)100.000 (0.000)WLI69.583 (1.969)82.185 (5.075)57.778 (5.880)75.000 (6.250)74.644 (2.718)60.513 (7.715)Average79.966 (8.695)79.357 (8.929)76.684 (8.842)79.832 (8.952)79.469 (8.931)78.136 (8.918)TotalSurvival Rate (%) (day7)SMV94.333 (2.333)95.000 (2.887)95.333 (2.667)94.333 (2.963)92.667 (4.334)92.000 (1.000)ABCNAfNANANANANAWLI100.000 (0.000)99.167 (0.833)100.000(0.000)99.167 (0.833)100.000 (0.000)97.500 (0.000)Average97.353 (2.785)96.678 (2.758)97.493 (2.794)96.625 (2.759)97.325 (2.817)94.750 (2.702)TotalSurvival Rate (%) (day14)SMV86.000 (3.606)86.000 (2.000)85.000 (4.582)91.000 (3.464)85.333 (7.689)83.000 (1.000)ABCNANANANANANAWLI95.098 (2.594)96.078 (1.961)90.196 (5.459)96.078 (0.980)98.039 (1.961)94.118 (1.698)Average90.488 (5.236)91.045 (4.990)87.969 (5.939)91.662 (4.914)93.100 (5.186)88.163 (4.877)TotalSurvival Rate (%)(Termination)SMV79.000 (5.196)70.333 (3.180)77.000 (5.033)79.333 (2.028)81.000 (7.000)71.667 (4.703)ABCNANANANANANAWLINANANANANANADRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data77ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eAverageNANANANANANAa.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within thelaboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not available.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data78Table 21B. Mean and Standard Errors and Comparisons ofMysid Octylphenol Concentrations to Control AcrossLaboratories, F1 Generation, Survival Endpoints.ParameterLaboratoryMean Standard Errora,bConcentrationTrend TestscOverallControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)SignificantConcentrationEffectd,eReproduction SurvivalRate (%) (day 7)SMV95.333 (2.333)95.333 (2.333)84.333 (4.334)88.667 (4.334)95.333 (2.333)100.000 (0.000)ABC100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)NAfAverage97.221 (3.217)97.221 (3.217)96.529 (3.255)96.748 (3.255)97.221 (3.217)102.980 (3.275)Reproduction SurvivalRate (%) (day 14)SMV89.333 (5.812)95.333 (2.333)83.000 (2.082)81.667 (3.180)93.000 (0.000)97.667 (2.333)ABC100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)100.000 (0.000)NAAverage94.675 (6.579)97.320 (6.298)91.786 (6.279)91.650 (6.367)96.500 (6.217)102.983 (7.314)Reproduction SurvivalRate (%) (Termination)SMV77.000 (9.291)90.000 (5.000)75.000 (4.163)68.333 (7.055)88.000 (2.082)93.000 (3.512)ABC93.333 (3.849)90.278 (1.690)97.778 (2.222)97.778 (2.222)93.333 (0.000)NAAverage85.926 (9.455)89.239 (8.696)86.891 (8.643)85.410 (8.972)90.576 (8.407)98.886 (10.789)TotalSurvival Rate (%) (day7)SMV92.000 (1.000)94.667 (3.930)87.667 (2.906)87.667 (3.930)95.333 (2.333)94.333 (2.963)ABCNANANANANANAAverageNANANANANANATotalSurvival Rate (%) (day14)SMV86.000 (3.000)90.333 (3.844)81.333 (1.667)77.667 (5.334)90.000 (1.000)90.333 (5.044)ABCNANANANANANAAverageNANANANANANATotalSurvival Rate (%)(Termination)SMV78.333 (3.844)84.000 (4.726)76.333 (4.177)69.333 (4.484)86.333 (0.333)86.667 (4.910)ABCNANANANANANAAverageNANANANANANAa.Means and their associated standard errors for each concentration group within eachlaboratory were pooled across all samples within the concentration group within thelaboratory.b.Averages and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on random effects model with concentration group treated as a fixed effect andlaboratory and interaction of laboratory and concentration group treated as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory.c.Step-down trend test were performed.d.The overall concentration effects were determined by the above random effect model. The degreesof freedom for the fixed concentration effect were estimated as2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedomfor laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)e.If concentration effect is significant, then pairwise comparisonsof test concentrations to the control were performed using both unadjusted two-sample t-tests and theDunnett’s tests. Concentration groups with significant differencefrom the controls were listedand marked with “*”if detectedusing the unadjusted t-tests and with “**” ifdetected using the Dunnett’s tests.f.Data were not availableDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data79Table 22. Differences (F1-F0) between Two Generationsfor Reproduction Endpointsacross Laboratories. TestChemical: Lindanea,b.ParametersDifference of Averages Between F0 and F1 Generations(Standard Error)cConcentrationTrend TestsdGroups withSignificantDifferencebetweenGenerationse,fControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)Number Offspring(brood 1)0.272 (0.912)-0.658 (0.907)-1.606(0.866)-1.435(0.818)-2.165(0.881)-0.819(0.987)Group 5 ()Number Offspring(brood 2)1.181 (1.268)-1.743 (1.225)-1.644(1.258)-2.001(1.266)0.511 (1.354)-0.890(1.780)Number Offspring(two broods)1.686 (1.842)-2.375 (1.829)-3.161(1.799)-3.217(1.696)-1.522(1.880)-1.629(2.275)Days toBrood 1-1.466(1.164)-1.108 (1.224)0.409 (1.163)0.190 (1.166)0.419 (1.175)0.225 (1.168)Days toBrood 2-1.199(1.411)-1.325 (1.386)-0.019(1.367)0.599 (1.373)-0.318(1.370)0.348 (1.451)Days BetweenBroods 1 and 20.277 (0.377)-0.132 (0.458)-0.233(0.345)0.070 (0.330)-0.379(0.404)-0.722(0.703)Time to Mature(females) (days)-1.204(0.916)-1.533 (0.968)0.091 (0.925)-0.277(0.887)0.180 (0.917)0.605 (0.897)Total ReproductiveDays for the First TwoBroodsOnly SMV data available# of Offspring PerFemale PerReproduction Dayfor the FirstTwo BroodsOnly SMV data available% of FemalesProductively Active3.215 (4.587)3.063 (4.212)4.388 (5.966)-1.266(4.252)-3.841(3.967)-5.583(6.289)Sex Ratio-0.159(0.365)-0.476 (0.303)-0.144(0.398)-0.029(0.335)-0.251(0.442)-0.224(0.354)DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data80a.A random effects model with generation, concentration group and interaction of generation and concentration group treated as fixed effect, and laboratory, laboratoryby generation and laboratory bygeneration by group as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory and generation.b.The degrees of freedom for the fixedeffects were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance acrosslaboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedom within laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung andMakambi, 2001)c.Differences of averages (least square means) between two generations and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on the aboverandom effect models..d.Step-down trend test were performed in the differences between the two generations.e.If generation or the interaction of generation and concentration group effect is significant, then F-tests were used to identify the concentration groups in which the twogenerations are significantly different at the 0.05 level.f.“↓” F1 generation less than F0 generation.“↑” F1 generation greater than F0 generation.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data81Table 23. Differences (F1-F0) between Two Generationsfor Growth Endpoints across Laboratories. Test Chemical:Lindanea,b.ParametersDifference of Averages Between F0 and F1 Generations(Standard Error)cConcentrationTrend TestsdGroups withSignificantDifferencebetweenGenerationse,fControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)Dry Weight (mg)(day 7)0.092 (0.069)0.057 (0.069)0.092 (0.068)0.082 (0.067)0.044 (0.068)0.037 (0.069)Dry Weight (mg)(day 14)0.153 (0.148)0.204 (0.148)0.031 (0.148)-0.017(0.148)-0.049(0.148)-0.154(0.151)A decreasing trendin differences forthe highestconcentrationgroupDry Weight (mg)(Termination)0.044 (0.082)-0.099 (0.081)-0.062(0.081)-0.056(0.082)-0.064(0.088)-0.043(0.094)Length (mm)(day 7)0.537 (0.345)0.350 (0.343)0.406 (0.349)0.251 (0.350)0.236 (0.345)-0.002(0.347)Length (mm)(day 14)0.527 (0.445)0.299 (0.445)-0.043(0.447)-0.243(0.447)-0.076(0.446)0.048 (0.450)Length (mm)(Termination)-0.026(0.127)-0.186 (0.128)-0.228(0.129)-0.176(0.132)0.022 (0.140)0.096 (0.149)a.A random effects model with generation, concentration group and interaction of generation and concentration group treated as fixed effect, and laboratory, laboratoryby generation and laboratory bygeneration by group as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory and generation.b.The degrees of freedom for the fixedeffects were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance acrosslaboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedom within laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung andMakambi, 2001)c.Differences of averages (least square means) between two generations and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on the aboverandom effect models..d.Step-down trend test were performed in the differences between the two generations.e.If generation or the interaction of generation and concentration group effect is significant, then F-tests were used to identify the concentration groups in which the twogenerations are significantly different at the 0.05 level.f.“↓” F1 generation less than F0 generation.“↑” F1 generation greater than F0 generation.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data82Table 24. Differences (F1-F0) between Two Generationsfor Survival Endpoints across Laboratories. Test Chemical:Lindanea,b.ParametersDifference of Averages Between F0 and F1 Generations(Standard Error)cConcentrationTrend TestsdGroups withSignificantDifferencebetweenGenerationse,fControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)Reproductive Survival(%)(day 7)1.350 (4.850)3.356 (4.850)-2.015(5.189)5.577 (4.402)2.074 (5.027)-7.855(5.348)Reproductive Survival(%)(day 14)9.291 (5.781)5.525 (5.497)3.986 (5.502)7.645 (5.645)5.760 (6.336)1.470 (7.044)Reproductive Survival(%)(Termination)5.943 (7.886)-3.170 (7.252)1.965 (7.747)5.312 (7.254)7.285 (7.754)5.992 (8.681)Total Survival (%)(day 7)0.990 (5.180)1.238 (4.940)-2.114(5.538)4.420 (4.918)-8.173(5.265)-16.088(5.567)A decreasing trendin differences forthe highestconcentrationgroupTotal Survival (%)(day 14)2.991 (7.939)5.658 (7.651)0.403 (8.020)9.979 (8.058)-5.511(8.422)-10.492(7.903)Total Survival (%)(Termination)Only SMV data are availablea.A random effects model with generation, concentration group and interaction of generation and concentration group treated as fixed effect, and laboratory, laboratoryby generation and laboratory bygeneration by group as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory and generation.b.The degrees of freedom for the fixedeffects were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance acrosslaboratories, Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees of freedom within laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung andMakambi, 2001)c.Differences of averages (least square means) between two generations and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on the aboverandom effect models..d.Step-down trend test were performed in the differences between the two generations.e.If generation or the interaction of generation and concentration group effect is significant, then F-tests were used to identify the concentration groups in which the twogenerations are significantly different at the 0.05 level.f.“↓” F1 generation less than F0 generation.“↑” F1 generation greater than F0 generation.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data83Table 25. Differences (F1-F0) between Two Generationsfor Reproduction Endpointsacross Laboratories. TestChemical: Octylphenola,b.ParametersDifference of Averages Between F0 and F1 Generations(Standard Error)cConcentrationTrend TestsdGroups withSignificantDifferencebetweenGenerationse,fControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)Number Offspring(brood 1)0.559 (1.373)2.069 (1.431)1.316 (1.376)1.324 (1.310)2.676 (1.371)1.331 (1.670)Number Offspring(brood 2)1.622 (2.466)7.501 (2.417)5.314 (2.417)5.647 (2.430)6.732 (2.425)4.652 (2.791)Groups 2() and5()Number Offspring(two broods)2.762 (3.942)10.327 (3.951)7.104 (3.907)7.531 (3.856)9.755 (3.914)6.809 (4.447)Groups 2() and5()Days to Brood 1-2.369(4.180)-0.931 (4.188)-3.518(4.187)-3.078(4.188)-2.826(4.184)-4.057(4.228)Days to Brood 2-3.155(5.052)-2.224 (5.064)-4.276(5.061)-4.390(5.049)-3.809(5.067)-6.820(5.123)A decreasing trendin differences forthe highestconcentrationgroupDays BetweenBroods 1 and 20.122 (0.516)-0.903 (0.569)-0.161(0.509)-0.397(0.491)-0.657(0.603)-1.340(0.695)Time to Mature(females) (days)-2.583(0.741)-1.250 (0.662)-0.917(1.103)-1.583(0.741)-0.250(1.199)-2.250(0.878)Total ReproductiveDays for the First TwoBroodsOnly SMV data available# of Offspring PerFemale PerReproduction Dayfor the First TwoBroodsOnly SMV data available% of FemalesProductively Active-0.149(1.379)2.656 (3.216)0.284 (1.226)-0.260(1.244)0.195 (0.996)6.991 (6.823)Sex Ratio0.116 (0.373)-0.213 (0.319)-0.646(0.309)-0.277(0.316)-0.245(0.293)0.028 (0.402)a.A random effects model with generation, concentration group and interaction of generation and concentration group treated as fixed effect, and laboratory, laboratory bygeneration and laboratory by generation by group as random effects, incorporatingheterogeneous variances of group within laboratory and generation.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data84b.The degrees of freedom for the fixed effects were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories,Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees offreedom within laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)c.Differences of averages (least square means) between two generations and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on the above randomeffect models..d.Step-down trend test were performed in the differences between the two generations.e.If generation or the interaction of generation and concentration group effect is significant, then F-tests were used to identify the concentration groups in which the twogenerations are significantly different at the 0.05 level.f.“↓” F1 generation less than F0 generation.“↑” F1 generation greater than F0 generation.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data85Table 26. Differences (F1-F0) between Two Generations forGrowth Endpoints across Laboratories. Test Chemical:Octylphenola,b.ParametersDifference of Averages Between F0 and F1 Generations(Standard Error)cConcentrationTrend TestsdGroups withSignificantDifferencebetweenGenerationse,fControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)Dry Weight (mg)(day 7)0.090 (0.042)0.101 (0.040)0.111 (0.043)0.076 (0.041)0.072 (0.041)0.145 (0.049)Dry Weight (mg)(day 14)0.120 (0.077)0.132 (0.076)0.118 (0.078)0.143 (0.077)0.146 (0.076)0.233 (0.091)Dry Weight (mg)(Termination)-0.033(0.267)-0.112 (0.266)-0.058(0.266)-0.122(0.266)-0.092(0.266)-0.090(0.267)Length (mm)(day 7)0.410 (0.312)0.549 (0.309)0.473 (0.309)0.513 (0.310)0.683 (0.309)0.693 (0.354)Length (mm)(day 14)0.590 (0.196)0.690 (0.202)0.372 (0.196)0.642 (0.197)0.798 (0.199)0.729 (0.262)Group 5()Length (mm)(Termination)-0.095(0.082)0.156 (0.097)0.137 (0.089)0.003 (0.083)0.039 (0.110)-0.076(0.082)a.A random effects model with generation, concentration group and interaction of generation and concentration group treated as fixed effect, and laboratory, laboratory bygeneration and laboratory by generation by group as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory and generation.b.The degrees of freedom for the fixed effects were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories,Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees offreedom within laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)c.Differences of averages (least square means) between two generations and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on the above randomeffect models..d.Step-down trend test were performed in the differences between the two generations.e.If generation or the interaction of generation and concentration group effect is significant, then F-tests were used to identify the concentration groups in which the twogenerations are significantly different at the 0.05 level.f.“↓” F1 generation less than F0 generation.“↑” F1 generation greater than F0 generation.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data86Table 27. Differences (F1-F0) between Two Generations forSurvival Endpoints across Laboratories. Test Chemical:Octylphenola,b.ParametersDifference of Averages Between F0 and F1 Generations(Standard Error)cConcentrationTrend TestsdGroups withSignificantDifferencebetweenGenerationse,fControl(Group 1)0.26 μg/L(Group 2)0.64 μg/L(Group 3)1.6 μg/L(Group 4)4.0 μg/L(Group 5)10 μg/L(Group 6)Reproductive Survival(%)(day 7)1.806 (2.395)2.495 (2.387)-1.045(2.340)-0.238(2.340)4.119 (2.226)7.784 (2.688)Reproductive Survival(%)(day 14)3.232 (3.507)2.682 (3.306)-1.421(3.456)-2.454(3.291)3.917 (3.616)9.201 (4.175)Reproductive Survival(%)(Termination)1.815 (8.563)5.556 (8.009)6.537 (7.835)2.019 (8.273)7.439 (7.782)19.299(9.774)Total Survival (%)(day 7)-4.071(3.751)-0.729 (5.330)-8.545(4.646)-7.677(5.330)-0.711(4.330)0.865 (4.608)Total Survival (%)(day 14)-2.117(7.329)1.659 (7.540)-4.265(7.425)-11.625(8.375)-0.729(6.741)4.541 (8.135)Total Survival (%)(Termination)Only SMV data are availablea.A random effects model with generation, concentration group and interaction of generation and concentration group treated as fixed effect, and laboratory, laboratory bygeneration and laboratory by generation by group as random effects, incorporating heterogeneous variances of group within laboratory and generation.b.The degrees of freedom for the fixed effects were estimated as 2*((1/K)*∑(SR2+ Si2))2/(var(SR2)+(2/K2)*∑(Si4/dfi)), where SR2is the total random variance across laboratories,Si2and dfiare the reported variance and degrees offreedom within laboratory i, var(SR2) is the variance of SR2,and K is the number of studies (Hartung and Makambi, 2001)c.Differences of averages (least square means) between two generations and standard errors across laboratory for each concentration group were based on the above randomeffect models..d.Step-down trend test were performed in the differences between the two generations.e.If generation or the interaction of generation and concentration group effect is significant, then F-tests were used to identify the concentration groups in which the twogenerations are significantly different at the 0.05 level.f.“↓” F1 generation less than F0 generation.“↑” F1 generation greater than F0 generation.DRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data87Figure 1. Control Study, First Brood Sizes, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and AcrossStudies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for First Brood Size (F0)012345678910SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data88Figure 2. Control Study, Second Brood Sizes, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and AcrossStudies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Second Brood Size (F0)23456789101112SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data89Figure 3. Control Study, Brood Sizes for First Two Broods,F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference LineCorresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for First & Secon Brood Size (F0)02468101214161820SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data90Figure 4. Control Study, Days to First Brood, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and AcrossStudies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Days to First Brood (F0)1015202530SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data91Figure 5. Control Study, Days to Second Brood, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference LineCorresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Days to Second Brood (F0)2025303540SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data92Figure 6. Control Study, Days to Between first Two Broods, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Days between Two Broods (F0)23456789101112SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data93Figure 7. Control Study, Mature Days, F0 Generation:Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and AcrossStudies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Mature Day (F0)81012141618SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data94Figure 8. Control Study, Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 StandardErrors for Each Study and Across Studies. The SolidReference Line Corresponds to the Average AcrossStudies.

Parameter Estimate for Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods (F0)56789101112131415SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data95Figure 9. Control Study, Number of Offspring per Femaleper Reproductive Day, F0 Generation: Means ± 2Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies.The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to theAverage Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for # of Offspring Per Day for the First Two Broods (F0)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data96Figure 10. Control Study, % of Female Reproductively Active, F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for % of Fmales Productively Active (F0)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data97Figure 11. Control Study, Sex Ratio (Males/Females), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Sex Ratio (F0)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data98Figure 12. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day0) (mg), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 0 (F0)0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.08SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data99Figure 13. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day7) (mg), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 7 (F0)0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data100Figure 14. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day14) (mg), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 14 (F0)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data101Figure 15. Control Study, Dry Weight (Termination) (mg), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Termination (F0)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data102Figure 16. Control Study, Length (Day 0) (mm), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 0 (F0)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data103Figure 17. Control Study, Length (Day 7) (mm), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 7 (F0)012345678SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data104Figure 18. Control Study, Length (Day 14) (mm), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 14 (F0)012345678910SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data105Figure 19. Control Study, Length (Termination) (mm), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Studyand Across Studies. The Solid Reference LineCorresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Length Termination (F0)012345678910SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data106Figure 20. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Day 7) (%), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors forEach Study and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 7 (F0)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data107Figure 21. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Day 14) (%), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors forEach Study and Across Studies. The Solid ReferenceLine Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 14 (F0)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data108Figure 22. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Termination) (%), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 StandardErrors for Each Study and Across Studies. The SolidReference Line Corresponds to the Average AcrossStudies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate Termination (F0)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data109Figure 23. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Day 7) (%), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 7 (F0)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data110Figure 24. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Day 14) (%), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 14 (F0)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data111Figure 25. Control Study, Total SurvivalRate (Termination) (%), F0 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors forEach Study and Across Studies. The Solid ReferenceLine Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate Termination (F0)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data112Figure 26. Control Study, First Brood Sizes, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and AcrossStudies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for First Brood Size (F1)012345678910SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data113Figure 27. Control Study, Second Brood Sizes, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and AcrossStudies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Second Brood Size (F1)01234567891011121314SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data114Figure 28. Control Study, Brood Sizes for First Two Broods, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for First & Secon Brood Size (F1)04812162024SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data115Figure 29. Control Study, Days to First Brood, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and AcrossStudies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Days to First Brood (F1)1015202530SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data116Figure 30. Control Study, Days to Second Brood, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference LineCorresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Days to Second Brood (F1)15202530354045SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data117Figure 31. Control Study, Days to Between first Two Broods, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Days between Two Broods (F1)23456789101112SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data118Figure 32. Control Study, Mature Days, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and AcrossStudies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Mature Day (F1)6810121416SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data119Figure 33. Control Study, Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 StandardErrors for Each Study and Across Studies. The SolidReference Line Corresponds to the Average AcrossStudies.

Parameter Estimate for Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods (F1)56789101112131415SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data120Figure 34. Control Study, Number of Offspring perFemale per Reproductive Day, F1 Generation: Means ± 2Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies.The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to theAverage Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for # of Offspring Per Day for the First Two Broods (F1)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data121Figure 35. Control Study, % of Female Reproductively Active, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for % of Fmales Productively Active (F1)405060708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data122Figure 36. Control Study, Sex Ratio, F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study and Across Studies.The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Sex Ratio (F1)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data123Figure 37. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day0) (mg), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 0 (F1)0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.10SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data124Figure 38. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day7) (mg), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 7 (F1)0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data125Figure 39. Control Study, Dry Weight (Day14) (mg), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 14 (F1)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data126Figure 40. Control Study, Dry Weight (Termination) (mg), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Termination (F1)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data127Figure 41. Control Study, Length (Day 0) (mm), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 0 (F1)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.0SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data128Figure 42. Control Study, Length (Day 7) (mm), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 7 (F1)012345678SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data129Figure 43. Control Study, Length (Day 14) (mm), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Study andAcross Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 14 (F1)2345678910SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data130Figure 44. Control Study, Length (Termination) (mm), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for Each Studyand Across Studies. The Solid Reference LineCorresponds to the Average Across Studies.

Parameter Estimate for Length Termination (F1)2345678910SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data131Figure 45. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Day 7) (%), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors forEach Study and Across Studies. The Solid ReferenceLine Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 7 (F1)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data132Figure 46. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Day 14) (%), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors forEach Study and Across Studies. The Solid ReferenceLine Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 14 (F1)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data133Figure 47. Control Study, Reproduction Survival Rate (Termination) (%), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 StandardErrors for Each Study and Across Studies. The SolidReference Line Corresponds to the Average AcrossStudies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate Termination (F1)405060708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data134Figure 48. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Day 7) (%), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 7 (F1)60708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data135Figure 49. Control Study, Total Survival Rate (Day 14) (%), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors for EachStudy and Across Studies. The Solid Reference Line Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 14 (F1)5060708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data136Figure 50. Control Study, Total SurvivalRate (Termination) (%), F1 Generation: Means ± 2 Standard Errors forEach Study and Across Studies. The Solid ReferenceLine Corresponds to the Average Across Studies.Note: The upper limits were truncated at 100%.

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate Termination (F1)5060708090100110SMVLindaneSMVOctylphenolUNTLIndaneUNTVinclozolinABCOctylphenolWLIOctylphenolALLLab & ChemicalDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data137Figure 51. Mysid, Lindane First Brood Size, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each ConcentrationGroup (the Average across Laboratories Were LeastSquare Means, as Estimated Based on a RandomEffect Model)

Parameter Estimate for First Brood Size (F0)02468101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data138Figure 52. Mysid, Lindane, Second Brood Size, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Second Brood Size (F0)012345678910111213141 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data139Figure 53. Mysid, Lindane, First Two Brood Size, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for First & Secon Brood Size (F0)6810121416182022241 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data140Figure 54. Mysid, Lindane, Days to First Brood, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days to First Brood (F0)10152025301 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data141Figure 55. Mysid, Lindane, Days to Second Brood, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days to Second Brood (F0)152025301 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data142Figure 56. Mysid, Lindane, Days between the First Two Broods, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days between Two Broods (F0)2468101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data143Figure 57. Mysid, Lindane, Mature Days, F0 Generation.Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each ConcentrationGroup (the Average across Laboratories Were LeastSquare Means, as Estimated Based on a RandomEffect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Mature Day (F0)8101214161 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data144Figure 58. Mysid, Lindane, Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 StandardError Bars for Each Concentration Group

Parameter Estimate for Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods (F0)567891011121314151 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data145Figure 59. Mysid, Lindane, Total Reproductive Number ofOffspring Per Reproductive Day Per Female for the FirstTwo Broods, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 StandardError Bars for Each Concentration Group.

Parameter Estimate for # of Offspring Per Day for the First Two Broods (F0)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.01 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data146Figure 60. Mysid, Lindane, % of Female Reproductively Active, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for % of Fmales Productively Active (F0)607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data147Figure 61. Mysid, Lindane, Sex Ratio (males/females), F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Sex Ratio (F0)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.51 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data148Figure 62. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Day 7, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 7 (F0)0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.81 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data149Figure 63. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Day14, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 14 (F0)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data150Figure 64. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Termination,F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Termination (F0)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.01 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data151Figure 65. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 7, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 7 (F0)0123456781 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data152Figure 66. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 14, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 14 (F0)0123456789101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data153Figure 67. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Termination, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Termination (F0)5678910111 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data154Figure 68. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Survival Rate (%)Day 7, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 7 (F0)607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data155Figure 69. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Survival Rate (%) Day 14, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Barsfor Each Concentration Group (the Average acrossLaboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 14 (F0)607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data156Figure 70. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Survival Rate (%)Termination, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard ErrorBars for Each Concentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least Square Means, asEstimated Based on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate Termination (F0)304050607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data157Figure 71. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 7,F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 7 (F0)607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data158Figure 72. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 14,F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model).

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 14 (F0)607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data159Figure 73. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate (%) Termination, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate Termination (F0)50607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data160Figure 74. Mysid, Lindane, First Brood Size, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each ConcentrationGroup (the Average across Laboratories Were LeastSquare Means, as Estimated Based on a RandomEffect Model)

Parameter Estimate for First Brood Size (F1)234567891011121 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data161Figure 75. Mysid, Lindane, Second Brood Size, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Second Brood Size (F1)23456789101112131415161 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data162Figure 76. Mysid, Lindane, First Two Broods Size, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for First & Secon Brood Size (F1)4812162024281 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data163Figure 77. Mysid, Lindane, Days to First Brood, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days to First Brood (F1)10152025301 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data164Figure 78. Mysid, Lindane Days to Second Brood Size, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days to Second Brood (F1)15202530351 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data165Figure 79. Mysid, Lindane Days between First Two Broods,F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days between Two Broods (F1)234567891011121 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data166Figure 80. Mysid, Lindane, Mature Day, F1 Generation.Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each ConcentrationGroup (the Average across Laboratories Were LeastSquare Means, as Estimated Based on a RandomEffect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Mature Day (F1)68101214161 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data167Figure 81. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Days for the FirstTwo Broods, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard ErrorBars for Each Concentration Group

Parameter Estimate for Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods (F1)567891011121314151 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data168Figure 82. Mysid, Lindane, Number of Offspring Per Day Per Female for First Two Broods, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group

Parameter Estimate for # of Offspring Per Day for the First Two Broods (F1)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.01 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data169Figure 83. Mysid, Lindane, % of Females Productively Active, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for % of Fmales Productively Active (F1)4050607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data170Figure 84. Mysid, Lindane, Sex Ratio (Males/Females), F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Sex Ratio (F1)01234561 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data171Figure 85. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Day 0, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 0 (F1)0.000.010.020.030.040.050.061 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data172Figure 86. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Day 7, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 7 (F1)0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data173Figure 87. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Day 14, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 14 (F1)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.01 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data174Figure 88. Mysid, Lindane, Dry Weight (mg) Termination,F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Termination (F1)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.01 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data175Figure 89. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 0, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 0 (F1)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.01 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data176Figure 90. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 7, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 7 (F1)0123456781 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data177Figure 91. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Day 14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 14 (F1)23456789101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data178Figure 92. Mysid, Lindane, Length (mm) Termination, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Termination (F1)23456789101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data179Figure 93. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Survival Rate Day 7, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 7 (F1)50607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data180Figure 94. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Survival Rate Day14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 14 (F1)1020304050607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data181Figure 95. Mysid, Lindane, Reproductive Survival Rate Termination, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Barsfor Each Concentration Group (the Average acrossLaboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate Termination (F1)4050607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data182Figure 96. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate Day 7,F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 7 (F1)50607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data183Figure 97. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate Day 14,F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 14 (F1)20304050607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data184Figure 98. Mysid, Lindane, Total Survival Rate Termination,F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate Termination (F1)50607080901001101 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6UNT1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab1-Control 2-32 ng/L3-80 ng/L 4-200 ng/L5-500 ng/L 6-1250 ng/LDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data185Figure 99. Mysid, Octylphenol, First Brood Size, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for First Brood Size (F0)0123456789101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data186Figure 100. Mysid, Octylphenol, Second Brood Size, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Second Brood Size (F0)0123456789101112131-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data187Figure 101. Mysid, Octylphenol, Numbers of Offspring of the First Two Broods, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 StandardError Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, asEstimated Based on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for First & Secon Brood Size (F0)02468101214161820221-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data188Figure 102. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days to First Brood, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days to First Brood (F0)1015202530351-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data189Figure 103. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days to the Second Brood,F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days to Second Brood (F0)152025303540451-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data190Figure 104. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days between the First Two Broods, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Barsfor Each Concentration Group (the Average acrossLaboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days between Two Broods (F0)2468101214161-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data191Figure 105. Mysid, Octylphenol, Mature Days, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each ConcentrationGroup (the Average across Laboratories Were LeastSquare Means, as Estimated Based on a RandomEffect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Mature Day (F0)810121416181-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data192Figure 106. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Reproductive Daysfor the First Two Broods, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group.

Parameter Estimate for Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods (F0)567891011121314151-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data193Figure 107. Mysid, Octylphenol, Numbers of Offspring Per Day Per Female, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard ErrorBars for Each Concentration Group.

Parameter Estimate for # of Offspring Per Day for the First Two Broods (F0)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.01-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data194Figure 108. Mysid, Octylphenol, % of Females ProductivelyActive, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for % of Fmales Productively Active (F0)20304050607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data195Figure 109. Mysid, Octylphenol, Sex Ratio (Males/Females),F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Sex Ratio (F0)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.51-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data196Figure 110. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 7,F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 7 (F0)0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data197Figure 111. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 14,F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 14 (F0)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data198Figure 112. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Termination, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Termination (F0)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.01-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data199Figure 113. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 7, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 7 (F0)0123456781-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data200Figure 114. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 14, F0Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 14 (F0)0123456789101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data201Figure 115. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Termination,F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Termination (F0)5678910111213141-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data202Figure 116. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate(%) Day 7, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard ErrorBars for Each Concentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least Square Means, asEstimated Based on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 7 (F0)607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data203Figure 117. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate(%) Day 14, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard ErrorBars for Each Concentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least Square Means, asEstimated Based on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 14 (F0)607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data204Figure 118. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate(%) Termination, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 StandardError Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, asEstimated Based on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate Termination (F0)4050607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data205Figure 119. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 7, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 7 (F0)607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data206Figure 120. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 14, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 14 (F0)607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data207Figure 121. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Termination, F0 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Barsfor Each Concentration Group

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate Termination (F0)607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data208Figure 122. Mysid, Octylphenol, First Brood Size, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for First Brood Size (F1)234567891011121-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data209Figure 123. Mysid, Octylphenol, Second Brood Size, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Second Brood Size (F1)23456789101112131415161-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data210Figure 124. Mysid, Octylphenol, # of Offspring for the FirstTwo Brood, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Barsfor Each Concentration Group (the Average acrossLaboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for First & Secon Brood Size (F1)4812162024281-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data211Figure 125. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days to First Brood, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days to First Brood (F1)10152025301-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data212Figure 126. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days to Second Brood, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days to Second Brood (F1)1520253035401-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data213Figure 127. Mysid, Octylphenol, Days between the First Two Broods, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Barsfor Each Concentration Group (the Average acrossLaboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Days between Two Broods (F1)234567891011121-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data214Figure 128. Mysid, Octylphenol, Mature Days, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for Each ConcentrationGroup

Parameter Estimate for Mature Day (F1)68101214161-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data215Figure 129. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Reproductive Daysfor the First Two Broods, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2Standard Error Bars for Each Concentration Group

Parameter Estimate for Total Reproductive Days for the First Two Broods (F1)567891011121314151-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data216Figure 130. Mysid, Octylphenol, Numbers of Offspring PerDay Per Female for the First Two Brood, F1 Generation.Mean ± 2 Standard Error Barsfor Each Concentration Group

Parameter Estimate for # of Offspring Per Day for the First Two Broods (F1)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.01-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data217Figure 131. Mysid, Octylphenol, % of Females ProductivelyActive, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for % of Fmales Productively Active (F1)4050607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data218Figure 132. Mysid, Octylphenol, Sex Ratio (Males/Females),F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Sex Ratio (F1)0123456789101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data219Figure 133. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 0,F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 0 (F1)0.000.010.020.030.040.050.061-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data220Figure 134. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 7,F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 7 (F1)0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data221Figure 135. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Day 14,F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Day 14 (F1)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.01-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data222Figure 136. Mysid, Octylphenol, Dry Weight (mg) Termination, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Dry Weight Termination (F1)0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.01-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data223Figure 137. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 0, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 0 (F1)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.01-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data224Figure 138. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 7, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 7 (F1)0123456781-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data225Figure 139. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Day 14, F1Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Day 14 (F1)23456789101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data226Figure 140. Mysid, Octylphenol, Length (mm) Termination,F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars for EachConcentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least SquareMeans, as Estimated Based ona Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Length Termination (F1)23456789101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data227Figure 141. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate(%) Day 7, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard ErrorBars for Each Concentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least Square Means, asEstimated Based on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 7 (F1)607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data228Figure 142. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate(%) Day 14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard ErrorBars for Each Concentration Group (the Averageacross Laboratories Were Least Square Means, asEstimated Based on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate day 14 (F1)607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data229Figure 143. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate(%) Termination, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 StandardError Bars for Each Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, asEstimated Based on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Reproduction Survival rate Termination (F1)4050607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data230Figure 144. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 7, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 7 (F1)607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data231Figure 145. Mysid, Octylphenol, Total Survival Rate (%) Day 14, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 Standard Error Bars forEach Concentration Group (the Average across Laboratories Were Least Square Means, as EstimatedBased on a Random Effect Model)

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate day 14 (F1)50607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & LabDRAFTInter-Laboratory Statistical AnalysisReport for Mysid 2-Generation Data232Figure 146. Mysid, Octylphenol, Reproductive Survival Rate(%) Termination, F1 Generation. Mean ± 2 StandardError Bars for Each Concentration Group.

Parameter Estimate for Total Survival rate Termination (F1)50607080901001101-Control 2-0.26 ug/L3-0.64 ug/L 4-1.6 ug/L5-4.0 ug/L 6-10 ug/L1 2 3 4 5 6SMV1 2 3 4 5 6ABC1 2 3 4 5 6WLI1 2 3 4 5 6AverageGroup & Lab