Abstract
A sensitivity analysis (SA) was conducted on the analytical models considered in the risk-based corrective-action (RBCA) methodology of risk analysis, as developed by the American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM), to predict a contaminant‘s concentration in the affected medium at the point of human exposure. These models are of interest because evaluations regarding the best approach to contaminated site remediation are shifting toward increased use of risk-based decision, and the ASTM RBCA methodology represents the most effective and internationally widely used standardized guide for risk assessment process. This paper identifies key physical and chemical parameters that need additional precision and accuracy consideration in order to reduce uncertainty in models prediction, thereby saving time, money and engineering effort in the data collection process. SA was performed applying a variance-based method to organic contaminants migration models with reference to soil-to-groundwater leaching ingestion exposure scenario. Results indicate that model output strongly depends on the organic-carbon partition coefficient, organic-carbon content, net infiltration, Darcy velocity, source-receptor distance, and first-order decay constant.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.References
American Society for Testing and Materials E 1739-95: 2001a, ‘Standard guide for risk-based corrective action applied at petroleum release sites’, ASTM Ann. Book Stand. 11.04, 908–959.
American Society for Testing and Materials E 2081-00: 2001b, ‘Standard guide for risk-based corrective action, E 2081-00’, ASTM Ann. Book Stand. 11.04, 1164–1257.
Archer, G. E. B., Saltelli, A. and Sobol, I. M.: 1997, ‘Sensitivity measures, ANOVA-like techniques and the use of bootstrap’, J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 58, 99–120.
Connor, J. A., Bowers, R. L., Paquette, S. M. and Newell, C. J.: 1997, ‘Soil attenuation model for derivation of risk-based soil remediation standards’, Groundwater Services Inc., Houston, Texas.
Delle Site, A.: 2001, ‘Factors affecting sorption of organic compounds in natural sorbent/water systems and sorption coefficient for selected pollutants. A review’, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 30(1), 187–439.
Domenico, P. A. and Robbins, G. A.: 1985, ‘A new method of contaminant plume analysis’, Ground Water 23, 476–485.
Domenico, P. A. and Schwartz, F. W: 1998, Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York.
Howard, P. H., Boethling, R. S., Jarvis, W. F., Meylan, W. M. and Michalenko, E. M.: 1991, Handbook of Environmental Degradation Rates, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
Jury, W. A., Gardner, W. R. and Gardner, W. H.: 1996, Soil Phisics, 5th ed., Wiley, New York.
McKay, M. D.: 1997, ‘Nonparametric variance-based methods of assesing uncertainty importance’, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety 57, 267–279.
McKone, T. E.: 1996, ‘Alternative modeling approaches for contaminant fate in soils: Uncertainty, variability, and reliability’, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety 54, 165–181.
Ratto, M., Tarantola, S. and Saltelli, A.: 2001, ‘Estimation of importance indicators for correlated inputs’, ESREL 2001, Torino, Italy, September 16–20.
Spear, R. C.: 1997, ‘Large simulation models: Calibration, uniqueness and goodness of fit’, Environ. Model. Softw. 12, 219–228.
Tarantola, S.: 2002, ‘Variance-based methods for sensitivity analysis’, SAMO 2002, Venice, Italy, June 12–15.
Travis, C. C., Obenshain, K. R., Regens, J. L. and Whipple, C. G.: 2001, ‘Limitations of multimedia model for use in environmental decision making’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 71, 51–60.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 1996, Soil Screening Guidance Technical Background Document, 2nd ed., EPA/540/R95/128.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Avagliano, S., Vecchio, A. & Belgiorno, V. Sensitive Parameters In Predicting Exposure Contaminants Concentration In A Risk Assessment Process. Environ Monit Assess 111, 133–148 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-8218-1
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-8218-1

