BETR North America: A regionally segmented multimedia contaminant fate model for North America

  • Matthew MacLeod
  • David G. Woodfine
  • Donald Mackay
  • Tom McKone
  • Deborah Bennett
  • Randy Maddalena
Research Articles

Abstract

We present the Berkeley-Trent North American contaminant fate model (BETR North America), a regionally segmented multimedia contaminant fate model based on the fugacity concept. The model is built on a framework that links contaminant fate models of individual regions, and is generally applicable to large, spatially heterogeneous areas. The North American environment is modeled as 24 ecological regions, within each region contaminant fate is described using a 7 compartment multimedia fugacity model including a vertically segmented atmosphere, freshwater, freshwater sediment, soil, coastal water and vegetation compartments. Inter-regional transport of contaminants in the atmosphere, freshwater and coastal water is described using a database of hydrological and meteorological data compiled with Geographical Information Systems (GIS) techniques. Steady-state and dynamic solutions to the 168 mass balance equations that make up the linked model for North America are discussed, and an illustrative case study of toxaphene transport from the southern United States to the Great Lakes Basin is presented. Regionally segmented models such as BETR North America can provide a critical link between evaluative models of long-range transport potential and contaminant concentrations observed in remote regions. The continent-scale mass balance calculated by the model provides a sound basis for evaluating long-range transport potential of organic pollutants, and formulation of continent-scale management and regulatory strategies for chemicals.

Keywords

Berkeley-Trent North America model BETR (Berkeley-Trent) North America model fugacity Geographical Information Systems (GIS) GIS long-range transport model North America persistent organic pollutants (POPs) POPs 

References

  1. Bennett D, McKone T, Matthies M, Kastenberg W (1998): General formulation of characteristic travel distance for semivolatile organic chemicals in a multimedia environment. Environmental Science and Technology 32, 4023–4030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyer A, Mackay D, Matthies M, Wania F, Webster E (2000): Assessing long-range transport potential of persistent organic pollutants. Environmental Science and Technology 34, 699–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cousins I, Mackay D (2001): Strategies for including vegetation compartments in multimedia models. Chemosphere 44, 643–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feijtel T, Boeije B, Matthies M, Young A, Morris G, Gandolfi C, Hansen B, Fox K, Holt M, Koch V, Schröder R, Cassani G, Schowanek D, Rosenblom J, Niessen H (1997): Development of a geography-referenced regional exposure assessment tool for European rivers — GREAT-ER. Chemosphere 34, 2351–2373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gobas F, Pasternak J, Lien K, Duncan R (1998): Development and field validation of a multimedia exposure assessment model for waste load allocation in aquatic ecosystems: Application to 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran in the Fraser River watershed. Environmental Science and Technology 32, 2442–2449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harner T, Bidleman T, Jantunen L, Mackay D (2001): Soil-air exchange model of persistent pesticides in the US cotton belt. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20, 1612–1621Google Scholar
  7. Hertwich E (2001): Intermittent rainfall in dynamic multimedia fate modeling. Environmental Science and Technology 35, 936–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hillery B, Hoff R, Hites R (1997): Atmospheric contaminant deposition to the Great Lakes determined from the integrated atmospheric deposition network. pp 227–291 in: Atmospheric deposition of contaminants to the Great Lakes and coastal waters. Baker JE, ed SETAC Press, Pensacola, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. HYSPLIT4 (HYbrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) Model (1997): Web address:http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ ready/hysplit4.html. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MDGoogle Scholar
  10. Jantunen L, Bidleman T, Harner T, Parkhurst W (2000): Toxaphene, chlordane, and other organochlorine pesticides in Alabama air. Environmental Science and Technology 34, 5097–5105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mackay D, Paterson S, Di Guardo A, Cowan CE (1996a): Evaluating the environmental fate of a variety of types of chemicals using the EQC model. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15, 1627–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mackay D, Paterson S, Kicsi G, Cowan CE, Di Guardo A, Kane DM (1996b): Assessment of chemical fate in the environment using evaluative, regional and local-scale models: Illustrative application to chlorobenzene and linear alkylbenzene sulfonates. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15, 1638–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mackay D, Shiu WY, Ma KC (2000): Physical chemical properties and environmental fate and degradation handbook. Chapman & Hall CRCnetBASE, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  14. Mackay D (2001): Multimedia environmental models: The fugacity approach. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McKone T (1993): CalTOX, a multimedia total-exposure model for hazardous waste sites. UCRL-CR-111456. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merck and Co Inc (1989): The Merck Index, 11th ed. Merck and Co Inc, Rahway, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. OMEE (Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy) (1993): Candidate substances for bans, phase-outs or reductions — multimedia revision. Hazardous contaminants branch and water resources branch, Queen’s printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  18. RIVM (Institute of Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands) (1996): EUSES — The European union system for the evaluation of substances. Available from the European Chemicals Bureau, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  19. Scheringer M (1996): Persistence and spatial range as endpoints of an exposure-based assessment of organic chemicals. Environmental Science and Technology 30, 1652–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scheringer M, Wegmann F, Fenner K, Hungerbuhler K (2000): Investigation of the cold condensation of persistent organic pollutants with a global multimedia fate model. Environmental Science and Technology 34, 1842–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schulze C, Matthies M, Trapp S, Schröder F (1999): Geo-referenced fate modeling of LAS in the Itter Stream. Chemosphere 39, 1833–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schulze C, Matthies M (2001): Geo-referenced aquatic fate simulation of cleaning agent and detergent ingredients in the Rur catchment (Germany). The Science of the Total Environment (in press)Google Scholar
  23. Wania F, Mackay D (1995): A global distribution model for persistent organic chemicals. The Science of the Total Environment 160/161, 211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wania F, Mackay D, Li YF, Bidleman T, Strand A (1999): Global chemical fate of α-hexachlorocyclohexane. 1. Evaluation of a global distribution model. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18, 1390–1399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wania F, Persson J, Di Guardo A, McLachlan M (2000a): CoZMoPOP, A fugacity-based multicompartmental mass balance model of the fate of persistent organic pollutants in the coastal zone. WECC Report 1/2000, available athttp://www.scar.utoronto.ca/ Google Scholar
  26. Wania F, Persson J, Di Guardo A, McLachlan M (2000b): The POPCYCLING-Baltic model, a non-steady state multicompartment mass balance model of the fate of persistent organic pollutants in the Baltic Sea environment. Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Reference number U-96069Google Scholar
  27. Woodfine D, MacLeod M, Mackay D, Brimacombe J (2001): Development of continental scale multimedia contaminant fate models: Integrating GIS. ESPR — Environmental Science and Pollution Research 8 (3) 164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew MacLeod
    • 1
  • David G. Woodfine
    • 1
  • Donald Mackay
    • 1
  • Tom McKone
    • 2
  • Deborah Bennett
    • 2
  • Randy Maddalena
    • 2
  1. 1.Canadian Environmental Modelling CentreTrent UniversityPeterboroughCanada
  2. 2.School of Public HealthLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations