Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 473–483 | Cite as

Vapour intrusion from the vadose zone—seven algorithms compared

  • Jeroen ProvoostEmail author
  • Annelies Bosman
  • Lucas Reijnders
  • Jan Bronders
  • Kaatje Touchant
  • Frank Swartjes


Background, aim and scope

Vapours of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emanating from contaminated soils may move through the unsaturated zone to the subsurface. VOC in the subsurface can be transported to the indoor air by convective air movement through openings in the foundation and basement. Once they have entered the building, they may cause adverse human health effects. Screening-level algorithms have been developed, which predict indoor air concentrations as a result of soil (vadose zone) contamination. The present study evaluates seven currently used screening-level algorithms, predicting vapour intrusion into buildings as a result of vadose zone contamination, regarding the accuracy of their predictions and their usefulness for screening purpose. Screening aims at identifying contaminated soils that should be further investigated as to the need of remediation and/or the presence of an intolerable human health risk. To be useful in this respect, screening-level algorithms should be sufficiently conservative so that they produce very few false-negative predictions but they should not be overly conservative because they might have insufficient discriminatory power.

Materials and methods

For this purpose, a comparison is made between observed and predicted soil air and indoor air concentrations from seven reasonably well-documented sites, where the vadose zone was contaminated with aromatic or chlorinated VOCs. The seven screening-level algorithms considered were: Vlier–Humaan (Be), Johnson and Ettinger model (USA), VolaSoil (NL), CSoil (NL), Risc (UK) and the dilution factor models from Norway and Sweden. Calculations are presented in two scatter plots (soil air and indoor air), each containing the predictions versus the observations. Differences between predicted and observed VOCs concentrations were evaluated on the basis of three statistical criteria to establish their accurateness and the usefulness for screening purposes. Results from the applied criteria are presented in a table and figures.


It was found that the screening-level algorithms investigated tended to overestimate soil air concentrations more than indoor air concentrations. Differences between predictions and observations were up to three orders of magnitude. The algorithms with the highest accuracy for predicting the soil air concentration are in ascending order the Johnson and Ettinger model (JEM), Vlier–Humaan and VolaSoil algorithms. For the indoor air, it is concluded that all algorithms have a tendency to overestimate the predicted indoor air concentrations, except for the JEM and Vlier–Humaan algorithms, which produced frequent underestimations.


Several earlier studies have investigated the accuracy of some of the screening-level algorithms for vapour intrusion and the results presented in the present study agree with the findings. However, the present study presents the accuracy of vapour intrusion algorithms via three statistical criteria that allow their ranking. The present study also determines the suitability of screening-level algorithms as screening tool. It is found that algorithms may rank differently as to accuracy and suitability as a screening tool.


The algorithms with the highest accuracy for predicting the indoor air concentration are the JEM and Vlier–Humaan algorithms. The most suitable algorithms to serve for screening purposes are CSoil, VolaSoil and Risc, since they are sufficiently conservative, have fewer false-negative predictions and still have sufficient discriminatory power.

Recommendations and perspectives

Given the over-predictions and under-predictions of the algorithms considered, a combination of modelling and measurements will often be required to produce multiple lines of evidence for the presence of an intolerable human health risk or the need for remedial actions at a site. Integrated programmes of modelling and field observations can reduce the uncertainty of predicted soil air and indoor air concentrations, and a tiered approach is presented in this study.


Accuracy Algorithm CSoil DF Norway DF Sweden Indoor air Intrusion JEM Model RISC Soil air Soil contamination Vadose zone Vapour Vlier–Humaan VOC VolaSoil 


  1. Abreu LDV, Johnson PC (2005) Effect of vapour source—building separation and building construction on soil vapour intrusion as studied with a three-dimensional numerical model. Environ Sci Technol 39:4550–4561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker J, Lijzen JPA, van Wijnen HJ (2008) Site-specific human risk assessment of soil contamination with volatile compounds, RIVM report 711701049Google Scholar
  3. BBL (2006) Conceptual site model for evaluating vapor intrusion and indoor air quality. Blasland, Bouck & Lee, New York,
  4. BP (2001) Risc v4.03—risk assessment model for soil and groundwater applications, user’s manual. BP Oil International, SunburyGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand E, Otte PF, Lijzen JPA (2007) CSOIL 2000: an exposure model for human risk assessment of soil contamination, a model description, RIVM report 711701054/2007. RIVM, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
  6. Devaull G (2007) Indoor vapor intrusion with oxygen-limited biodegradation for a subsurface gasoline source. Environ Sci Technol 41:3241–3248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eklund B, Folkes D et al (2007) An overview of state approaches to vapor intrusion. Environmental Manager, Air & Waste Management AssociationGoogle Scholar
  8. EPA (1993) Radon reduction techniques for existing detached houses. U.S. EPA ORDGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans D, Herbs I, Wolters RM, Boddington RTB, Hall DH (2002) Vapour transport of soil contaminants. Environment Agency, R&D technical report P5-018/TRGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer ML et al (1996) Factors affecting indoor air concentrations of volatile organic compounds at a site of subsurface gasoline contamination. Environ Sci Technol 30(10):2948–2957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick NA, Fitzgerald JJ (2002) An evaluation of vapour intrusion into buildings through a study of field data. Soil Sediment Contam 11(4):603–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Folkes DJ (2002) Design, effectiveness, and reliability of sub-slab depressurization systems for mitigation of chlorinated solvent vapor intrusion, US EPA ORD Seminar on Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  13. Fugler D, Adomait M (1997) Indoor infiltration of volatile organic contaminants: measured soil gas entry rates and other research results from Canadian houses. J Soil Contam 6(1):9–13Google Scholar
  14. Goss KU (2004) The air/surface adsorption equilibrium of organic compounds under ambient conditions. Environ Sci Technol 34:339–389Google Scholar
  15. Goss KU, Schwarzenbach RP (2001) Linear free energy relationship used to evaluate equilibrium partitioning of organic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 35(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hers I, Zapf-Gilje R, Evans D, Li L (2002) Comparison, validation, and use of models for predicting indoor air quality from soil and groundwater contamination. Soil Sediment Contam 11(4):491–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hers I, Zapf-Gilje R, Johnson PC, Li L (2003) Evaluation of the Johnson and Ettinger model for prediction of indoor air quality. Ground Water Monit Remediat 23(2):119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hohener P, Dakhel N, Christophersen M, Broholm M, Kjelden P (2006) Biodegradation of hydrocarbons vapors: comparison of laboratory studies and field investigations in the vadose zone at the emplaced fuel source experiment, Airbase Vaerlose, Denmark. J Contam Hydrol 88:337–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huijsmans KGA, Wezenbeek JM (1995) Validation of the CSoil model intended to quantify human exposure to soil pollution. Contam Soil 1:621–622Google Scholar
  20. ITRC (2007) Vapor intrusion pathway: a practical guideline. Interstate Technology and Regulatory CouncilGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson PC, Ettinger RE (1991) Heuristic model for predicting the intrusion rate of contaminant vapors into buildings. Environ Sci Technol 25(8):1445–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson PC, Ettinger RE (1997) Users guide for the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) model for subsurface vapor intrusion into buildings. US EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial ResponseGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson PC, Kemblowski MK, Johnson RL (1998) Assessing the significance of subsurface contaminant vapor migration to enclosed spaces. Site-specific alternative to generic estimates. J Soil Contam 8(3):389–421Google Scholar
  24. Johnson PC, Ettinger RA, Kurtz J, Bryan J, Kester JE (2002) Migration of soil gas vapors to indoor air: determining vapour attenuation factors using a screening-level model and field data from the CDOT-MTL Denver, Colorado site. Newsletter from the American Petroleum Institute, April 2002, no. 16Google Scholar
  25. Jury WA, Spencer WF, Farmer WJ (1983) Behavior assessment model for trace organics in soil. I. Model description. J Environ Qual 12(4):558–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jury WA, Russo D, Streile G, Abd HE (1990) Evaluation of volatilization by organic chemicals residing below the soil surface. Water Resour Res 26(1):13–20Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan MB, Brandt-Rauf P, Axley JW, Shen TT, Sewell GH (1993) Residential releases of number 2 fuel oil: a contributor to indoor air pollution. Am J Public Health 83(1):84–88Google Scholar
  28. Little JC, Daisey JM, Nazaroff WW (1992) Transport of subsurface contaminants into buildings: an exposure pathway for volatile organics. Environ Sci Technol 26:2058–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Loague KM, Green RE (1991) Statistical and graphical methods for evaluating solute transport models: overview and application. J Contam Hydrol 7:51–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Loureiro CO, Abriola LM (1990) Three-dimensional simulation of radon transport into houses with basements under constant negative pressure. Environ Sci Technol 24(9):1338–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mava (2002) Soil investigation and indoor air measurements In Vilvoorde-Machelen (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  32. Millington RJ, Quirk JP (1961) Permeability of porous solids. Trans Faraday Soc 57:1200–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naturvårdsverket (1996) Development of generic guideline values. Model and data used for generic guideline values for contaminated soils in Sweden. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, NV Report No. 4639, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  34. Nazaroff WW (1992) Radon transport from soil to air. Rev Geophys 30(2):137–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Provoost J, Nouwen J, Cornelis C, Van Gestel G, Engels R (2004) Technical guidance document, Part 4—background document for chemical properties and specifications, advise on behalf of the Flemish Public Waste Agency OVAM (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  36. Provoost J, Reijnders L, Swartjes F, Bronders J, Carlon C, D’Alessandro M, Cornelis C (2008) Parameters causing variation between soil screening values and the effect of harmonization. J Soils Sediments 8(5):298–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Provoost J, Reijnders L, Swartjes F, Bronders J, Seuntjens P, Lijzen J (2009) Accuracy of seven vapour intrusion algorithms for VOC in groundwater. J Soils Sediments 9(1):62–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rikken MGJ, Lijzen JPA, Cornelese AA (2001) Evaluation of model concepts on human exposure. Proposals for updating the most relevant exposure routes of CSOIL. RIVM report 711701022, RIVM, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  39. Ririe GT, Sweeney RE, Daugherty SJ (2002) A comparison of hydrocarbon vapour attenuation in the field with predictions from vapour diffusion models. Soil Sediment Contam 11(4):529–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. SFT (1995) Management for contaminated land: preliminary guidelines for executive procedures, report 97:01. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, Oslo, ISBN 82-7655-030-4Google Scholar
  41. SFT (1999) Management of contaminated land, report 99:06. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, Oslo, ISBN 82-7655-192-0Google Scholar
  42. Soresma (2004) Descriptive soil investigation at a site in Borsbeek. Soresma (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  43. Tillman FD, Weaver JW (2006) Uncertainty from synergistic effects of multiple parameters. In: Johnson and Ettinger (1991) vapour intrusion model. Atmos Environ 40:4098–4112Google Scholar
  44. Van Geert K et al. (2004) Soil and indoor air field measurements at 4 sites in Flanders. OVAM (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  45. van Wijnen HJ, Lijzen JPA (2006) Validation of the VOLASOIL model using air measurements from Dutch contaminated sites—concentrations of four chlorinated compounds. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), report number 711701041/2006Google Scholar
  46. Waitz MFW, Freijer JI, Kreule P, Swartjes FA (1996) The VOLASOIL risk assessment model based on CSOIL for soils contaminated with volatile compounds. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), report no. 715810014Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeroen Provoost
    • 1
    Email author
  • Annelies Bosman
    • 2
  • Lucas Reijnders
    • 3
  • Jan Bronders
    • 1
  • Kaatje Touchant
    • 1
  • Frank Swartjes
    • 4
  1. 1.Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO)MolBelgium
  2. 2.Department PIHHogeschool West-VlaanderenKortrijkBelgium
  3. 3.Department of ScienceOpen University Netherlands (OU NL)HeerlenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)BilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations