Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Assessment of soil remediation technologies by comparing health risk reduction and potential impacts using unified index, disability-adjusted life years

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The assessment methodology of soil remediation technologies including citizen’s opinions about environmental policy was developed to enable direct comparison between the resident health risk reduction by carrying out remediation (decreased primary risk) and the potential impacts of chemicals emitted during the remediation on national health, social assets, and primary production (secondary risk). Both risks were quantified with an unified index, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), by employing life cycle costing (LCC), economic input–output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA), and life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) database. Four remediation technologies were considered: excavation–disposal, high temperature thermal desorption (HTTD), biopile, and landfarming. There was almost no difference in the decreased primary risk among the four technologies, apart from landfarming, which had the smallest decreased primary risk. The secondary risk of the biological technologies (biopile, landfarming) was smaller than that of the physical and chemical technologies (excavation–disposal, HTTD). The ratio of the decreased primary risk to the secondary risk was largest in case of landfarming, which indicated that landfarming was most effective. The sum of the residual primary risks and secondary risk was small in the biological technologies, indicating that the biological technologies had smaller environmental impacts. Indexing both of decreased primary risk and secondary risk with DALYs enables non-experts who prioritize resident’s health to assess the soil remediation technologies and would facilitate the decision making in the selection of remediation technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bare JC (2014) Development of impact assessment methodologies for environmental sustainability. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(4):681–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnarumma L, Pompi V, Faraci A, Conte E (2009) Dieldrin uptake by vegetable crops grown in contaminated soils. J Environ Sci Health Part B 44:449–454

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Inoue Y, Katayama A (2004) Application of the rescue number to the evaluation of remediation technologies for contaminated ground. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 6:48–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Inoue Y, Katayama A (2011) Two-scale evaluation of remediation technologies for a contaminated site by applying economic input–output life cycle assessment: risk-cost, risk-energy consumption and risk-CO2 emission. J Hazard Mater 192:1234–1242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Itsubo N, Inaba A, Ii R, Ikaga T, Kubo T, Sakagami M, Nagata Y, Hama Y, Hayashi K, Hirosaki J, Motoshita M (2010) LIME2-an environmental impact assessment method supporting decision making. Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry, Tokyo (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kondo H, Amakawa E, Sato H, Yasuda K, Onuki K, Akiba M, Kanaya K (2003) Case study on detection of dieldrin in cucumbers cultivated in Tama region, Tokyo. Ann Rep Tokyo Metr Inst P H 54:132–135 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent A, Lautier A, Rosenbaum RK, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011a) Normalization references for Europe and North America for application with USEtox™ characterization factors. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:728–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2011b) Normalization in EDIP97 and EDIP2003: updated European inventory for 2004 and guidance towards a consistent use in practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:401–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemming G, Chambon JC, Binning PJ, Bjerg PL (2012) Is there an environmental benefit from remediation of a contaminated site? Combined assessments of the risk reduction and life cycle impact of remediation. J Environ Manag 112:392–403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschenes L, Samson R (2007) Environmental assessment of Brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models-part1: methodological approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:391–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Agriculutre, Forestry and Fisheries in Japan (2000) World Agriculutral Census 2000, Vol. 9, Report on Rural Communities. http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?bid=000001013531&cycode=0. Accessed 20 June 2012 (in Japanese)

  • Ohtani R, Seko S, Yoshikawa T, Tanaka H, Kusaka S (1981) Residue of aldrin and dieldrin in various soils and plants. (Turnip, Welsh Onion, Onion, Cucumber, Spinach and Potato). Bull Hyogo Pref Agric Cent Exp Ext Educ 29:59–64 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Otobe Y, Sato T (1998) Dieldrin absorption into several crops. Bull Hokkaido Pref Agric Exp Sta 75:21–24 (in Japanese)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reza B, Sadiq R, Hewage K (2014) Emergy-based life cycle assessment (Em-LCA) for sustainability appraisal of infrastructure systems: a case study on paved roads. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(2):251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryberg M, Vieira MDM, Zgola M, Bare J, Rosenbaum RK (2014) Updated US and Canadian normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Technol Environ Policy 16(2):329–339

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seike N, Otani T, Sakai M, Murano H (2010) Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No. 2010-38613 (2010.2.18)

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Integrated risk information system website. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris/subst/0225.htm. Accessed 20 June 2012

  • World Health Organization (WHO) (2009) Inventory of IPCS and other WHO pesticide evaluationis and summary of toxicological evaluations performed by joint meeting on pesticide residues (JMPR) through. http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/jmpr/pesticide_inventory_edition10.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2010

  • Yasutaka T, Makino M, Matsuda H (2008) Estimation of the probability of a potentially contaminated sites becoming a brownfield site in Japan. Environ Sci 21(4):291–306 (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mrs. Chisa Hiyama for her help in collecting and organizing data, and Mrs. Nana Watanabe for her help in calculating risk using the CalTOX model. This study was supported in part by a Grant-in-aid (Hazardous Chemicals) from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries of Japan (HC-09-2510-3), and by the EcoTopia Science Institute Director’s Discretionary Fund of Nagoya University (A Harmonization of the Environment in Asian Countries by the Consensus of Environmental Standard) during 2008–2012. This study was also partially supported by Core Research for Evolutionary Science and Technology (CREST) Program “Sustainable Groundwater Management Systems under Enhanced Geo-Thermal Energy Usage” of Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arata Katayama.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sakaguchi, I., Inoue, Y., Nakamura, S. et al. Assessment of soil remediation technologies by comparing health risk reduction and potential impacts using unified index, disability-adjusted life years. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17, 1663–1670 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0871-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0871-z

Keywords

Navigation