Table SI4

[srcorsi-USGS]

I think we need to talk through exactly what the columns in the new version represent. There may be issues here: The table should include: OWC class (let's call this "Chemical class" Compound name

1. Number of endpoints present in toxcast (title = "Total")
2. Number of endpoints considered in our analysis (title = "Considered")
3. Number of endpoints active (they had hitcallss in results; title = "Active")
4. Number of endpoints remaining after consideration of quality assurance remarks (title = "Filtered")
5. Min ACC (ug/L)
6. max EEF (17B estradiol equivalents). "B" should be greek "beta" upper case.
7. Min Aquatic toxicity (ug/L)

At one point, this is how we had it, but it has changed. The numbers in the current version look suspicious (Is "Rows in ToxCast" supposed to be the number of endpoints tested? If so, it looks like the numbers a much too large).

@ldecicco-USGS

[ldecicco-USGS]

I thought we agreed to take out 6 and 7 because they were duplicated from SI -2.

I could not figure out how we managed to come up with "Total" the first time. The version you are looking at includes EVERYTHING.

I just re-ran it taking out any "NA"'s in modl_acc to start, and it's smaller, but still doesn't match what we had originally. But...I think it makes the most sense.

I'd like to propose swapping 2&3 because it is so much more consistent with our workflow. We filter out the hit calls long before doing our analysis. So then:

> head(totals_final)
# A tibble: 6 x 8
  `OWC Class`       `Compound Name`       CAS    Total Active Considered Filtered min_ACC
  <chr>             <chr>                 <chr>  <int>  <int>      <int>    <int>   <dbl>
1 Antimicrobial Di~ Triclosan             3380-~   775    724        326       91    9.77
2 Antimicrobial Di~ Phenol                108-9~     5      3          1       NA   12.0 
3 Antimicrobial Di~ p-Cresol              106-4~    14     11          4        3    5.92
4 Antioxidants      Bisphenol A           80-05~   682    618        501       92    1.23

?

[ldecicco-USGS]

Holy cow! I did not think that would format so nicely in GitHub!

[srcorsi-USGS]

Yes, good point on the duplication from SI-2. Swapping 2&3 sounds good.