Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 184, Issue 4, pp 2193–2204 | Cite as

Construction of a chemical ranking system of soil pollution substances for screening of priority soil contaminants in Korea

  • Seung-Woo JeongEmail author
  • Youn-Joo An
Article

Abstract

The Korean government recently proposed expanding the number of soil-quality standards to 30 by 2015. The objectives of our study were to construct a reasonable protocol for screening priority soil contaminants for inclusion in the planned soil quality standard expansion. The chemical ranking system of soil pollution substances (CROSS) was first developed to serve as an analytical tool in chemical scoring and ranking of possible soil pollution substances. CROSS incorporates important parameters commonly used in several previous chemical ranking and scoring systems and the new soil pollution parameters. CROSS uses soil-related parameters in its algorithm, including information related to the soil environment, such as soil ecotoxicological data, the soil toxic release inventory (TRI), and soil partitioning coefficients. Soil TRI and monitoring data were incorporated as local specific parameters. In addition, CROSS scores the transportability of chemicals in soil because soil contamination may result in groundwater contamination. Dermal toxicity was used in CROSS only to consider contact with soil. CROSS uses a certainty score to incorporate data uncertainty. CROSS scores the importance of each candidate substance and assigns rankings on the basis of total scores. Cadmium was the most highly ranked. Generally, metals were ranked higher than other substances. Pentachlorophenol, phenol, dieldrin, and methyl tert-butyl ether were ranked the highest among chlorinated compounds, aromatic compounds, pesticides, and others, respectively. The priority substance list generated from CROSS will be used in selecting substances for possible inclusion in the Korean soil quality standard expansion; it will also provide important information for designing a soil-environment management scheme.

Keywords

Chemical ranking and scoring (CRS) Soil contaminant Soil quality guideline Toxic release inventory Human toxicity Ecological toxicity Exposure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. California EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2005). Use of California human health screening levels in evaluation of contaminated properties. Sacramento: EPA.Google Scholar
  2. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2006a). Canadian soil quality guidelines for the protection of environment and human health. Winnipeg: CCME.Google Scholar
  3. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2006b). A Protocol for the derivation of environmental and human health soil quality guidelines. Winnipeg: CCME.Google Scholar
  4. Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA) (2002). Guidelines on remediation of contaminated sites. Copenhagen: DEPA.Google Scholar
  5. Environment Agency (EA) (2002). Assessment of risks to human health from land contamination: An overview of the development of soil guideline values and related research. Bristol: EA.Google Scholar
  6. European Chemical Substances Information System (ESIS) (2008). http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esis/index.php?PGM=ein&DEPUIS=autre.
  7. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (FMENCNS) (1999). Federal soil protection and contaminated sites ordinance. Germany: FMENCNS.Google Scholar
  8. Hansen, B. G., Van Haelst, A. G, Van Leeuwen, K, & Van der Zandt, P. (1999). Priority setting for existing chemicals: European Union risk ranking method. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18(4), 772–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) (2008). http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB.
  10. Illinois EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (2007). Soil remediation objectives for industrial/commercial properties/residential Properties. Springfield: EPA.Google Scholar
  11. Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land (ICRCL) (1987). Guidance on the assessment and redevelopment of contaminated land. Surrey: ICRCL.Google Scholar
  12. Korean Release Prevention Research Centre (KCPRC) (2008). Chemical release database. http://www.ceicinfo.or.kr/data/list11.asp.
  13. Louisiana DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) (2003). Underground storage tank closure/change-in-service guidance document. Surveillance Division. Baton Rouge: DEQ.Google Scholar
  14. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) (2000). Circular on target values and intervention values for soil remediation. Hague: VROM.Google Scholar
  15. Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan (2005). Soil contamination countermeasures. Tokyo: Ministry Of The Environment Government Of Japan.Google Scholar
  16. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (2002). Risk evaluation procedures for voluntary cleanup and redevelopment of brownfield sites. Jackson: Mississippi Department Of Environmental Quality.Google Scholar
  17. Mitchell, R. R, Summer, C. L., Blonde, S. A., Bush, D. B., Hurlburt, G. K, Snyder E. M., et al. (2002). SCRAM: A scoring and ranking system for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic substances for the North American Great Lakes-resulting chemical scores and rankings. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 8(3), 537–557.Google Scholar
  18. National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) (1999). Schedule B(1) Guideline on the Investigation Levels for Soil and Groundwater. Adelaide: NEPC Service Corporation.Google Scholar
  19. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (NPCA) (1999). Guidelines for the risk assessment of contaminated sites. Oslo: NPCA.Google Scholar
  20. Snyder, E. M., Snyder, S. A., Giesy, J. P., Blonde, S. A., Hurlburt, G. K., Summer, C. L., et al. (2000). SCRAM: A scoring and ranking system for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances for the North American Great Lakes. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 7(1), 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. State of Delaware (2006). Part 261—Identification and listing of hazardous waste. Dover: Division of Air and Waste Management.Google Scholar
  22. State of Florida (1998). Guidelines for the management of recovered screen material from C&D debris recycling facilities in Florida. Tallahassee: Department of Environmental Protection.Google Scholar
  23. State of Maryland (2000). Cleanup standards for soil and groundwater. Baltimore: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
  24. State of Massachusetts (2006). Final Amendments Massachusetts Contingency Plan. Boston: Department of Environmental Protection.Google Scholar
  25. State of New Jersey (1999). Soil cleanup criteria. Trenton: Department of Environmental Protection.Google Scholar
  26. State of New York (2006). Development of soil cleanup objectives technical support document. Albany: New York State Department of Health.Google Scholar
  27. State of Oregon (1998). Guidance for ecological risk assessment: Levels I, II, III, IV. Portland, Oregon, USA: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.Google Scholar
  28. Swartjes, F. A. (1999). Risk-based assessment of soil and groundwater quality in the Netherlands: Standards and remediation urgency. Risk Analysis, 19(6), 1235–1249.Google Scholar
  29. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL) (1998). Derivation of trigger and clean up values for inorganic pollutants in the soil. Berne: SAEFL.Google Scholar
  30. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL) (2001). Guideline reuse of excavated soils. Berne: SAEFL.Google Scholar
  31. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) (2001). Guidance for conducting ecological risk assessments at remediation sites in Texas. Austin: Texas Risk Reduction Program.Google Scholar
  32. US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (US CSHIB) (2008). Complete investigations. http://www.csb.gov/.
  33. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHH) (2005). 2005 CERCLA priority list of hazardous substances that will be the subject of toxicological profiles and support document, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Atlanta: USDHH.Google Scholar
  34. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1994). Chemical hazard evaluation for management Strategies. Washington DC: Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
  35. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1996a). Soil screening guidance: User’s guide. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.Google Scholar
  36. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1996b). Soil screening guide: Technical documents. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.Google Scholar
  37. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2002). Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for Superfund sites. Washington DC: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.Google Scholar
  38. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2007). Estimation programs interface suite for Microsoft Windows, v3.20. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.Google Scholar
  39. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2008). ECOTOX database. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/.
  40. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (2006). Waste Regulations Chapter 160. Richmond: Voluntary Remediation Program.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental EngineeringKunsan National UniversityKunsanSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Environmental ScienceKonkuk UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations