Water Resources Management

, Volume 24, Issue 13, pp 3349–3369 | Cite as

An Integrated Simulation-Assessment Approach for Evaluating Health Risks of Groundwater Contamination Under Multiple Uncertainties

Article

Abstract

An integrated simulation-assessment approach (ISAA) was developed in this study to systematically tackle multiple uncertainties associated with hydrocarbon contaminant transport in subsurface and assessment of carcinogenic health risk. The fuzzy vertex analysis technique and the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) based stochastic simulation approach were combined into a fuzzy-Latin hypercube sampling (FLHS) simulation model and was used for predicting contaminant transport in subsurface under coupled fuzzy and stochastic uncertainties. The fuzzy-rule-based risk assessment (FRRA) was used for interpreting the general risk level through fuzzy inference to deal with the possibilistic uncertainties associated with both FLHS simulations and health-risk criteria. A study case involving health risk assessment for a benzene-contaminated site was examined. The study results demonstrated the proposed ISAA was useful for evaluating risks within a system containing complicated uncertainties and interactions and providing supports for identifying cost-effective site management strategies.

Keywords

Carcinogenic risk Fuzzy risk assessment Fuzzy vertex Latin hypercube sampling Monte Carlo simulation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Sefry SA, Şen Z (2006) Groundwater rise problem and risk evaluation in major cities of arid lands—Jedddah case in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Water Resour Manage 20(1):91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baudrit C, Guyonnet D, Dubois D (2007) Joint propagation of variability and imprecision in assessing the risk of groundwater contamination. J Contam Hydrol 93(1–4):72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair AN, Ayyub BM, Bender WJ (2001) Fuzzy stochastic risk-based decision analysis with the mobile offshore base as a case study. Mar Struct 14(1):69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brainard J, Burmaster DE (1992) Bivariate distributions for height and weight of men and women in the United States. Risk Anal 12(2):267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carrington CD, Bolger PM (1998) Uncertainty and risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 4(2):253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carslaw HS, Jaeger JC (1959) Conduction of heat in solids. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen SQ (2000) Comparing probabilistic and fuzzy set approaches for design in the presence of uncertainty. PhD Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen Z, Huang GH, Chakma A (2003) Hybrid fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for assessing environmental risks at contaminated groundwater systems. J Environ Eng 129(1):79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chu HJ, Chang LC (2009) Application of optimal control and fuzzy theory for dynamic groundwater remediation design. Water Resour Manage 23(4):647–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Galya DP (1987) A horizontal plane source model for groundwater transport. Ground Water 25(6):733–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guyonnet D, Bourgine B, Dubois D, Fargier H et al (2003) Hybrid approach for addressing uncertainty in risk assessments. J Environ Eng 129:68–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamed M, Bedient P (1999) Reliability-based uncertainty analysis of groundwater contaminant transport and remediation. USEPA Report EPA/600/R-99/028Google Scholar
  13. Hanss W (2002) The transformation method for the simulation and analysis of systems with uncertain parameters. Fuzzy Sets Syst 130:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang GH, Chen Z, Tontiwachwuthicul P et al (1999) Environmental risk assessment for underground storage tanks through an interval parameter fuzzy relation analysis approach. Energ Sourc 21(1–2):75–96Google Scholar
  15. Huntington DE, Lyrintzis CS (1998) Improvements to and limitations of Latin hypercube sampling. Probabilist Eng Mech 13(4):245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iman RL, Helton JC (1985) A comparison of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models. Technical Report SAND84-1461. Sandia National Laboratories, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  17. Iman RL, Helton JC, Campbell JE (1981) An approach to sensitivity analysis of computer models, Part 1. Introduction, input variable selection and preliminary variable assessment. J Qual Technol 13(3):174–183Google Scholar
  18. Kentel E, Aral MM (2004) Probabilistic-fuzzy health risk modeling. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 18(5):324–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kumar V, Mari M, Schuhmacher M et al (2009) Partitioning total variance in risk assessment: application to a municipal solid waste incinerator. Environ Model Softw 24:247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li JB, Huang GH, Chakma A, Zeng GM (2003) Integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling of petroleum contamination in subsurface. Energy Sources 25(6):547–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li JB, Liu L, Huang GH, Zeng GM (2006) A fuzzy-set approach for addressing uncertainties in risk assessment of hydrocarbon-contaminated site. Water Air Soil Pollut 171(1–4):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li JB, Huang GH, Zeng GM, Maqsood I, Huang YF (2007) An integrated fuzzy-stochastic modeling approach for risk assessment of groundwater contamination. J Environ Manag 82(2):173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li YP, Huang GH, Huang YF, Zhou HD (2009) A multistage fuzzy-stochastic programming model for supporting sustainable water-resources allocation and management. Environ Model Softw 24:786–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu L, Cheng SY, Guo HC (2004) A simulation-assessment modeling approach for analyzing environmental risks of groundwater contamination at waste landfill sites. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10(2):373–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maqsood I, Li JB, Huang GH (2003) Inexact multiphase modeling system for the management of uncertainty in subsurface contamination. Pract Period Hazard Toxic Radioact Waste Manag 7(2):86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maxwell RM, Pelmulder SD, Tompson AFB, Kastenberg WE (1998) On the development of a new methodology for groundwater-driven health risk assessment. Water Resour Res 34(4):833–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKay MD (1992) Latin hypercube sampling as a tool in uncertainty analysis of computer models. In: Proceedings of the 24th conference on winter simulation. Association for Computing Machinery, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21(2):239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mohamed AMO, Cote K (1999) Decision analysis of polluted sites—a fuzzy set approach. J Waste Manag 19:519–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mylopoulos YA, Theodosiou N, Mylopoulos NA (1999) A stochastic optimization approach in the design of an aquifer remediation under hydrogeologic uncertainty. Water Resour Manage 13(5):335–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nait-Said R, Zidani F, Ouzraoui N (2008) Fuzzy risk graph model for determining safety integrity level. International Journal of Quality, Statistics, and Reliability 2008:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pebesma EJ, Heuvelink GBM (1999) Latin hypercube sampling of Gaussian random fields. Technometrics 41:303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Qin XS, Huang GH (2008) Characterizing uncertainties associated with contaminant transport modeling through a coupled fuzzy-stochastic approach. Water Air Soil Pollut 197(1–4):331–348Google Scholar
  34. Qin XS, Huang GH, Huang YF, Zeng GM, Chakma A (2006) NRSRM: a decision support system and visualization software for the management of petroleum-contaminated sites. Energy Sources, Part A 28(1–3):199–220Google Scholar
  35. Qin XS, Huang GH, Chakma A (2007) A stepwise-inference-based optimization system for supporting remediation of petroleum-contaminated sites. Water Air Soil Pollut 185(1–4):349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Qin XS, Huang GH, Zeng GM, Chakma A (2008a) Optimization of dual-phase vacuum extraction to remove nonaqueous phase liquids in subsurface. Water Resour Res 44:W04422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Qin XS, Huang GH, Li YP (2008b) Risk management of BTEX contamination in ground water—an integrated fuzzy approach. Ground Water 46(5):755–767Google Scholar
  38. Qin XS, Huang GH, Yu H (2009) Enhancing remediation of LNAPL recovery through a response-surface-based optimization approach. Journal of Environmental Engineering (ASCE) 135(10):999–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Qin XS, Huang GH, Liu L (2010) A genetic-algorithm-aided chance-constrained programming model for regional air quality management under uncertainty. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 60(1):63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rinsky RA, Young RJ, Smith AB (1981) Leukemia in benzene workers. Am J Ind Med 2:217–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rinsky RA, Smith AB, Horning R (1987) Benzene and leukemia: an epidemiologic risk assessment. N Engl J Med 316:1044–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seuntjens P (2002) Field-scale cadmium transport in a heterogeneous layered soil. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 140(1–4):401–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Theodossiou NP (2004) Application of non-linear simulation and optimization models in groundwater aquifer management. Water Resour Manage 18(2):125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. USEPA (U S Environmental Protection Agency) (1992) Guidelines for exposure assessment. EPA 600Z-92-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  45. USEPA (U S Environmental Protection Agency) (2002) Toxicological review of xylenes (CAS No. 1330-20-7). National Center for Environmental Assessment, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  46. USOHEA (US Office of Health and Environmental Assessment) (1989) Exposure factors handbook. Report No. EPA /600/8-89/043. US Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  47. Wyss GD, Jorgensen KH (1998) A user’s guide to LHS: Sandia’s Latin hypercube sampling software. Technical Report SAND98-0210. Sandia National Laboratories, AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  48. Xu Y, Huang GH, Qin XS, Cao MF (2009a) SRCCP: a stochastic robust chance-constrained programming model for municipal solid waste management under uncertainty. Resour Conserv Recycl 53(6):352–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xu Y, Huang GH, Qin XS (2009b) An inexact two-stage stochastic robust optimization model for water resources management under uncertainty. Environ Eng Sci 26(12):1765–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu Y, Huang GH, Qin XS, Cao MF, Sun Y (2009c) An interval-parameter robust optimization model for supporting municipal solid waste management under uncertainty. Waste Manage 30(2):316–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xu Y, Huang GH, Qin XS, Huang Y (2009d) SRFILP: a stochastic robust fuzzy interval linear programming model for municipal solid waste management under uncertainty. J Environ Inform 14(2):1–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sino-Canada Center of Energy and Environmental ResearchNorth China Electric Power UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of ReginaSaskatchewanCanada
  3. 3.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  4. 4.Centre for Studies in Energy and EnvironmentUniversity of ReginaSaskatchewanCanada

Personalised recommendations