Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of risk modeling tools and a case study for human health risk assessment of volatile organic compounds in contaminated groundwater

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to promote the risk-based strategy in the investigation, assessment, and remediation of Chinese brownfield sites, the Health and Environmental Risk Assessment (HERA) software was developed. It is vital to validate the HERA model and compare the inter-model differences of HERA model against other available risk assessment tools. This paper discusses the similarities and differences between the Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) Tool Kit and the HERA model by evaluating the health risk of organic contaminated groundwater sources for a chemical works in China for the first time. Consequently, the HERA and RBCA models yielded the identical results for Site-Specific Assessment Criteria (SSAC) under the commercial redevelopment. However, the HERA estimated more conservative and stringent SSACs under the residential scenario based on the different exposure calculations. The inhalation of indoor vapors was the most predominated exposure pathway for all the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) determined using the RBCA and HERA models. According to the HERA model, inhalation of chloroform may cause the highest unacceptable carcinogenic risk at 2.31 × 10−3 under the residential scenario. Therefore, it is recommended that a risk-based remedial strategy be developed to ensure the safe and sustainable redevelopment of the site.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) (2004) Standard guide for risk-based corrective action. ASTM E-2081-00, Philadelphia, PA

  • Baciocchi R, Berardi S, Verginelli I (2010) Human health risk assessment: models for predicting the effective exposure duration of on-site receptors exposed to contaminated groundwater. J Hazard Mater 181(1–3):226–233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bardos P, Andersson-Skold Y, Blom, S, Keuning S, Pachon C, Track T (2008) Special Session 1 Brownfields, Bioenergy and Biofeedstocks Special Session 2 Green Remediation. 10th International UFZ-Deltares/TNO Conference on Soil-Water Systems. Milan, Italy

  • Cachada A, Pato P, Rocha-Santos T, Ferreira da Silva E, Duarte AC (2012) Levels, sources and potential human health risks of organic pollutants in urban soils. Sci Total Environ 430:184–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carlon C, Pizzol L, Critto A, Marcomini A (2008) A spatial risk assessment methodology to support the remediation of contaminated land. Environ Int 34:397–411. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2007.09.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M (2010) Analytical integration procedures for the derivation of risk-based generic assessment criteria for soil. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16:1295–1317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CRAG (Technical guidelines for risk assessment of contaminated sites) (2014) Beijing: Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China [in Chinese]. http://kjs.mep.gov.cn/hjbhbz/bzwb/trhj/trjcgfffbz/201402/t20140226_ 268358.htm. Accessed 2 January 2014

  • Critto A, Carlon C, Marcomini A (2003) Characterization of contaminated soil and groundwater surrounding an illegal landfill (S. Giuliano, Venice, Italy) by principal component analysis and kriging. Environ Pollut 122:235–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Faerber T, Herzog J (2010) Solid waste management and environmental remediation: environmental remediation technologies, regulations and safety. NOVA Science Publishers, New York, pp 335–362. ISBN 9781612092591

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan C, Wang GS, Chen YC, Ko CH (2009) Risk assessment of exposure to volatile organic compounds in groundwater in Taiwan. Sci Total Environ 407:2165–2174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • GSI (GSI Environmental Inc) (2014) http://gsi-net.com/en/software.html. Accessed 20 January 2014

  • IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) (2014) List of classifications by alphabetical order. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php. Accessed 10 June 2014

  • IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System) (2011) Full List of IRIS Chemicals. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm?fuseaction=iris.showSubstanceList. Accessed 13 July 2014

  • ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2012) Soil Quality—Assessment of Impact from Soil Contaminated with Petroleum Hydrocarbons. ISO 11504: 2012. Geneva, Switzerland

  • Jeffries J, Martin I (2009) Updated technical background to the CLEA model; science report: SC050021/SR3. Environmental Agency U.K., Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson PC, Ettinger RA (1991) Heuristic model for predicting the intrusion rate of contaminant vapours into buildings. Environ Sci Technol 25:1445–1452

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston JE, Gibson JM (2013) Screening houses for vapour intrusion risks: a multiple regression analysis approach. Environ Sci Technol 47:5595–5602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kitwattanavong MK, Prueksasit T, Morknoy D, Tunsaringkarn T, Siriwong W (2013) Health risk assessment of petrol station workers in the inner city of Bangkok, Thailand, to the exposure to BTEX and carbonyl compounds by inhalation. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 19:1424–1439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lapworth DJ, Baran N, Stuart ME, Ward RS (2012) Emerging organic contaminants in groundwater: a review of sources, fate and occurrence. Environ Pollut 163:287–303

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez E, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL (2008) Human health risks of petroleum-contaminated groundwater. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15(3):278–288

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Luo F, Song J, Chen M, Wei J, Pan YY, Yu HB (2013) Risk assessment of manufacturing equipment surfaces contaminated with DDTs and dicofol. Sci Total Environ 468:176–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma XM, Anand D, Zhang XF, Talapatra S (2011) Adsorption and desorption of chlorinated compounds from pristine and thermally treated multiwalled carbon nanotubes. J Phys Chem C 115(11):4552–4557

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MEPPRC (Beijing: Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China) (2009) Monitoring and analysis methods of water and wastewater, 4th edn. China Environmental Science Press, Beijing [in Chinese]

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuijsen M, Paustenbach D, Duarte-Davidson R (2006) New developments in exposure assessment: the impact on the practice of health risk assessment and epidemiological studies. Environ Int 32(8):996–1009

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) (2013) OEHHA Toxicity Criteria Database. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/tcdb/index.asp. Accessed 13 July 2014

  • Pinedo J, Ibanez R, Irabien A (2014) A comparison of models for assessing human risks of petroleum hydrocarbons in polluted soils. Environ Model Softw 55:61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren WX, Geng Y, Ma Z, Sun L, Xue B, Fujita T (2015) Reconsidering Brownfield redevelopment strategy in China’s old industrial zone: a health risk assessment of heavy metal contamination. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:2765–2775

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton K, Linder SH, Marko D, Bethel H, Lupo PJ (2007) Comparative assessment of air pollution-related health risks in Houston. Environ Health Perspect 115(10):1388–1393

    Google Scholar 

  • Stezar IC, Pizzol L, Critto A, Ozunu A, Marcomini A (2013) Comparison of risk-based decision-support systems for Brownfield site rehabilitation: DESYRE and SADA applied to a Romanian case study. J Environ Manag 131:383–393. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.022

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • TRRP (Texas Risk Reduction Programme) (2013) Toxicity and physical and chemical parameters summary table that used to derive the Texas State Protective Concentration Levels (PCL). http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/trrp/ trrppcls.html. Accessed 13 July 2014

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1996) Soil screening guidance: technical background document. EPA/540/R95/128. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2001) Risk assessment guidance for superfund vol. 3, part A, process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2012) Human health risk assessment. Strategic research action plan 2012–2016, 601/R-12/007. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei J, Chen M, Song J, Luo F, Han L, Li CP, Dong MG (2015) Assessment of human health risk for an area impacted by a large-scale metallurgical refinery complex in Hunan, China. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 21:863–881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou YY, Zhou HY, Tang YD, Yan ZG, Zhang CY, Jiang L, Li FS, Bai LP, Liu L (2012) Development of soil screening levels for contaminated sites assessment in Beijing. International Conference on Civil, Architectural and Hydraulic Engineering, Zhangjiajie, China

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The National High Technology Research and Development Program (863 Program, 2013AA06A208), the Science and Technology Service Network Initiative (STS, KFJ-EW-STS-091), the Public Health Research Funding from the Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China (201309005), and the National Science Foundation of China (41471404 and 51309214) are acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Soil Environment and Pollution Remediation, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, 210008, China

    Lu Han, Linbo Qian, Jingchun Yan, Rongqin Liu & Mengfang Chen

  2. School of Environmental Studies, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, China

    Rongqin Liu

  3. Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Yihua Du

Authors
  1. Lu Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linbo Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jingchun Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rongqin Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yihua Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mengfang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mengfang Chen.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Marcus Schulz

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(docx 91 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Han, L., Qian, L., Yan, J. et al. A comparison of risk modeling tools and a case study for human health risk assessment of volatile organic compounds in contaminated groundwater. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23, 1234–1245 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5335-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5335-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation