Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 16, pp 15844–15861 | Cite as

Screening of groundwater remedial alternatives for brownfield sites: a comprehensive method integrated MCDA with numerical simulation

  • Wei Li
  • Min Zhang
  • Mingyu Wang
  • Zhantao Han
  • Jiankai Liu
  • Zhezhou Chen
  • Bo Liu
  • Yan Yan
  • Zhu Liu
Research Article
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

Brownfield sites pollution and remediation is an urgent environmental issue worldwide. The screening and assessment of remedial alternatives is especially complex owing to its multiple criteria that involves technique, economy, and policy. To help the decision-makers selecting the remedial alternatives efficiently, the criteria framework conducted by the U.S. EPA is improved and a comprehensive method that integrates multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) with numerical simulation is conducted in this paper. The criteria framework is modified and classified into three categories: qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative criteria, MCDA method, AHP-PROMETHEE (analytical hierarchy process-preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation) is used to determine the priority ranking of the remedial alternatives and the solute transport simulation is conducted to assess the remedial efficiency. A case study was present to demonstrate the screening method in a brownfield site in Cangzhou, northern China. The results show that the systematic method provides a reliable way to quantify the priority of the remedial alternatives.

Keywords

Brownfield sites Groundwater remediation AHP-PROMETHEE Numerical simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would greatly thank Prof. Bertrand Mareschal (Université Libre de Bruxelles) who provides the Visual PROMETHEE (academic edition), and the authors are grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggested revisions.

Role of the funding source

This work was financially supported by the National Environmental Protection Public Welfare Industry Targeted Research Fund, People’s Republic of China (NO.201309003) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (NO. 41702276).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_1721_MOESM1_ESM.docx (46 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 31 kb)

References

  1. Apostolidis N, Hutton N (2006) Integrated water management in brownfield sites—more opportunities than you think. Desalin 188:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arjoon A, Olaniran AO, Pillay B (2013) Enhanced 1,2-dichloroethane degradation in heavy metal co-contaminated wastewater undergoing biostimulation and bioaugmentation. Chemosphere 93 (9):1826-1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson G, Doick KJ, Burningham K, France C (2014) Brownfield regeneration to greenspace: delivery of project objectives for social and environmental gain. Urban For Urban Green 13:586–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bambra C, Robertson S, Kasim A, Smith J, Cairns-Nagi JM, Copeland A, Finlay N, Johnson K (2014) Healthy land? An examination of the area-level association between brownfield land and morbidity and mortality in England. Environ Plan 46:433–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betrie GD, Sadiq R, Morin KA, Tesfamariam S (2013) Selection of remedial alternatives for mine sites: a multicriteria decision analysis approach. J Environ Manag 119:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brans JP (1982) L’ingenierie de la decision; Elaboration d’instruments d’aide a la decision. La methode PROMETHEE. In: Nadeau R, Landry M (eds) L’aide a la decision: nature, instruments et perspectives d’Avenir. Presses de l’Universite Laval, Quebec, pp 183–213Google Scholar
  7. Brans JP, Mareschal B (1992) Promethee-V—MCDM problems with segmentation constraints. Infor 30(2):85–96Google Scholar
  8. Brans JP, Mareschal B (1995) The PROMETHEE VI procedure. How to differentiate hard from soft multicriteria problems. J Decis Syst 4:213–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brans JP, Mareschal B (2005) PROMETHEE methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc, Berlin, pp 163–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brans JP, Vincke P (1985) Promethee. A preference ranking organisation method. Manag Sci 31(6):647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brombal D, Wang H, Pizzolc L, Critto A, Giubilatoc E, Guo G (2015) Soil environmental management systems for contaminated sites in China and the EU. Common challenges and perspectives for lesson drawing. Land Use Policy 48:286–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cao K, Guan H (2007) Brownfield redevelopment toward sustainable urban land use in China. Chin Geogr Sci 17:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cao H, Luan Z, Wang J, Zhang X (2009) Potential ecological risk of cadmium, lead and arsenic in agricultural black soil in Jilin Province, China. Stoch Env Res Risk A 23(1):57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cappuyns V (2013) Environmental impacts of soil remediation activities: quantitative and qualitative tools applied on three case studies. J Clean Prod 52:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlon C, Giove S, Agostini P, Critto A, Marcomini A (2004) The role of multi-criteria decision analysis in a DEcision Support sYstem for REhabilitation of contaminated sites (the DESYRE software) In: Proceedings of iEMSs 2004 international congress on complexity and integrated resources management. Osnabrueck (DE): International Environmental Modelling and Software SocietyGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlon C, Critto A, Ramieri E, Marcomini A (2007) DESYRE: decision support system for the rehabilitation of contaminated megasites. Integr Environ Assess Manag 3(2):211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen CF (2006) Applying the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach to convention site selection. J Travel Res 45:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen TY (2014) A PROMETHEE-based outranking method for multiple criteria decision analysis with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Soft Comput 18:923–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cinelli M, Coles RS, Kirwan K (2014) Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecol Indic 46:138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clement TP (1997) RT3D: a modular computer code for simulating reactive multi-species transport in 3-dimensional groundwater systems. Contract Report DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. U.S.Department of Energy. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Corrente S, Figueira JR, Greco S (2014) Dealing with interaction between bipolar multiple criteria preferences in PROMETHEE methods. Ann Oper Res 217:137–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Critto A, Agostini P (2009) Using multiple indices to evaluate scenarios for the remediation of contaminated land: the Porto Marghera (Venice, Italy) contaminated site. Environ Sci Pollut Res 16:649–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Critto A, Cantarella L, Carlon C, Giove S, Petruzzelli G, Marcomini A (2006) Decision support–oriented selection of remediation technologies to rehabilitate contaminated sites. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2(3):273–285Google Scholar
  24. Cui J, Shi J, Jin C, Jing C (2013) Arsenic levels and speciation from ingestion exposures to biomarkers in Shanxi, China: implications for human health. Environ Sci Technol 47:5419–5424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. China Water Risk (CWR) (2014) Soil pollution standards and proposed law. http://chinawaterrisk.org/notices/new-soil-pollution-standards/. (in Chinese). (last accessed on 05.08.14.)
  26. De Miguel E, Iribarren I, Chacón E, Ordoñez A, Charlesworth S (2007) Risk-based evaluation of the exposure of children to trace elements in playgrounds in Madrid (Spain). Chemosphere 66:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Moraes L, Garcia R, Ensslin L, Da Conceição MJ, De Carvalho SM (2010) The multicriteria analysis for construction of benchmarkers to support the clinical engineering in the healthcare technology management. Eur J Oper Res 200:607–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dehe B, Bamford D (2015) Development, test and comparison of two multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) models: a case of healthcare infrastructure location. Expert Syst Appl 42:6717–6727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Deng X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014) Supplier selection using AHP methodology extended by D numbers. Expert Syst Appl 41:156–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Don NC, Araki H, Yamanishi H, Koga K (2005) Simulation of groundwater flow and environmental effects resulting from pumping. Environ Geol 47:361–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eissa MA, Thomas JM, Pohll G, Hershey RL, Dahab KA, Dawoud MI, ElShiekh A, Gomaa MA (2013) Groundwater resource sustainability in the Wadi Watir delta, gulf of Aqaba, Sinai, Egypt. Hydrogeol J 21:1833–1851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. European Union. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. (2006/118/EC)Google Scholar
  33. Figueira JR, Greco S, Roy B, Słowiński R (2010) ELECTRE methods: main features and recent developments. In: Handbook of Multicriteria Analysis, vol 103, pp 51–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gao J, Li D, Zhang H, Chen Y, Shao C, Critto A, Pizzol L, Marcomin A (2011) Sustainable management of contaminated sites in China: application of DESYRE decision support system to a Chinese case study. In: Faerber T, Herzog J (eds) Solid waste management and environmental remediation: environmental remediation technologies, regulations and safety. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp 335–362Google Scholar
  35. Gavaskar A, Bhargava M, Condit W (2007) Final report—cost and performance review of electrical resistance heating (ERH) for source treatment. California: Naval facilities engineering command, Engineering service center. TR-2279-ENVGoogle Scholar
  36. Gong P, Liang S, Carlton E, Jiang Q, Wu J, Wang L et al (2012) Urbanisation and health in China. Lancet 379(9818):843–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gorsevski P, Donevska K, Mitrovski C, Frizado J (2012) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation techniques with geographic information systems for landfill site selection: a case study using ordered weighted average. Waste Manag 32:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Güneralp B, Seto KC (2008) Environmental impacts of urban growth from an integrated dynamic perspective: a case study of Shenzhen, South China. Glob Environ Chang 18(4):720–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Han D, Tong X, Currell MJ, Cao G, Jin M, Tong C (2014) Evaluation of the impact of an uncontrolled landfill on surrounding groundwater quality, Zhoukou, China. J Geochem Explor 136:24–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG (2000) MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular groundwater-water midel-user guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process. Open-File Report 00-92, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  41. Hartmann B, Török S, Börcsök E, Groma VO (2014) Multi-objective method for energy purpose redevelopment of brown field sites. J Clean Prod 84:202–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hough R, Breward N, Young S, Crout N, Tye A, Moir A et al (2004) Assessing potential risk of heavy metal exposure from consumption of home-produced vegetables by urban populations. Environ Health Perspect 112(2):215–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hsu JC, Hsieh CY, Yang Y-HK, Lu CY (2015) Net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulants: a multiple criteria decision analysis. PLoS One 10(4):1–15Google Scholar
  44. Huang B, Lei C, Wei CH, et al. (2014) Chlorinated volatile organic compounds (Cl-VOCs) in environment-sources, potential human health impacts, and current remediation technologies. Environ Inter 71:118–138Google Scholar
  45. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making methods and application survey. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, vol 186. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  46. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2016) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/, [consulted online August 2016]
  47. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (2016) IRIS Advanced Search. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/search/index.cfm?first_letter=H, [consulted online August 2016]
  48. Jacquet-Lagrèze E, Siskos Y (1982) Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making: the UTA method. Eur J Oper Res 10(2):151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Karasakal EK, Köksalan ME, Koksalan M (2009) Generating a representative subset of the efficient frontier in multiple criteria decision making. Oper Res 57:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kaufman M, Rogers D, Murray K (2005) An empirical model for estimating remediation costs at contaminated sites. Water Air Soil Pollut 167:365–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kilic HS, Zaim S, Delen D (2015) Selecting “The Best” ERP system for SMEs using a combination of ANP and PROMETHEE methods. Expert Syst Appl 42:2343–2352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Krishna AK, Mohan KR (2014) Risk assessment of heavy metals and their source distribution in waters of a contaminated industrial site. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:3653–3669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krishna AK, Satyanarayanan M, Govil PK (2009) Assessment of heavy metal pollution in water using multivariate statistical techniques in an industrial area: a case study from Patancheru, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh, India. J Hazard Mater 167:366–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee SW, Lee BT, Kim JY, Kim KW, Lee JS (2006) Human risk assessment for heavy metals and As contamination in the abandoned metal mine areas, Korea. Environ Monit Assess 119:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Li F, Fan Z, Xiao P, O K MX, Hou W (2009) Contamination, chemical speciation and vertical distribution of heavy metals in soils of an old and large industrial zone in Northeast China. Environ Geol 57(8):1815–1823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Li X, Liu L, Wang Y, Luo G, Chen X, Yang X, Hall MHP, Guo R, Wang H, Cui J, He X (2013) Heavy metal contamination of urban soil in an old industrial city (Shenyang) in Northeast China. Geoderma 192:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Li W, Wang M, Liu L, Wang H, Yu S (2015) Groundwater heavy metal levels and associated human health risk in the North China Plain. Arab J Geosci 8(12):10389–10398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lima ML, Romanelli A, Massone HE (2015) Assessing groundwater pollution hazard changes under different socio-economic and environmental scenarios in an agricultural watershed. Sci Total Environ 530-531:333–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Liu C, Luo C, Gao Y, Li F, Lin L, Wu C (2010) Arsenic contamination and potential health risk implications at an abandoned tungsten mine, southern China. Environ Pollut 158:820–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Liu YM, Li YC, Xiao RB (2013) Management experience of industrial contaminated sites in western countries and its implications for China. Ecol Environ Sci 22(8):1438–1443 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  61. Macary F.·Almeida Dias J.·Figueira JR,·Roy B. A multiple criteria decision analysis model based on ELECTRE TRI-C for erosion risk assessment in agricultural areas. Environ Model Assess 2014;19:221–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mareschal B (2015) Visual PROMETHEE Academic Edition [DB]. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  63. McDaniels TL, Gregory RS, Fields D (1999) Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal 19:497–510Google Scholar
  64. Ministry of Envirnonemtal Protection, the People’s Republic of China (1993) Quality standard for groundwater. GB14848-1993. China Standard Press, (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  65. Ministry of Envirnonemtal Protection, the People’s Republic of China (2006) Standard examination methods for drinking water-General Princeples. GB5750.1-2006. China Standard Press, (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  66. Ministry of Envirnonemtal Protection, the People’s Republic of China (2014) Technical guidelines for risk assessment of contaminanted sites HJ25.3-2014. China Standard Press, Beijing (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  67. Ministry of Environmental Protection, Ministry of Land and Resources, the People’s Republic of China (2014) National Soil Pollution Survey Bulletin. http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201404/t20140417_270670.htm. (in Chinese). (last accessed on 04.17.14.)
  68. Ministry of Environmental Protection, the People’s Republic of China (2016) Wuran Dikuai Turang Huanjing Guanli Banfa (Provisional Rules for the Environmental Management of Contaminated Sites). http://www.zhb.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/bl/201701/t20170118_394953.htm. (in Chinese). (last accessed on 12.31.16.)
  69. Morio M, Schädler S, Finkel M (2013) Applying a multi-criteria genetic algorithm framework for brown field reuse optimization: improving redevelopment options based on stakeholder preferences. J Environ Manag 130:331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Morway ED, Niswonger RG, Langevin CD, Bailey RT, Healy RW (2013) Modeling variably saturated subsurface solute transport with MODFLOW-UZF and MT3DMS. Groundwater 51(2):237–251Google Scholar
  71. Muhammad S, Shah MT, Khan S (2011) Health risk assessment of heavy metals and their source apportionment in drinking water of Kohistan region, northern Pakistan. Microchem J 98:334–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nobre RMC, Nobre MMM (2004) Natural attenuation of chlorinated organics in a shallow sand aquifer. Journal of Hazardous Materials 110 (1-3):129-137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Palta MM, Ehrenfeld JG, Groffman PM (2014) “Hotspots” and “hot moments” of denitrification in urban brownfield wetlands. Ecosystems 17:1121–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pizzol L, Zabeo A, Critto A, Giubilato E, Marcomini A (2015) Risk-based prioritization methodology for the classification of groundwater pollution sources. Sci Total Environ 506-507:505–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Qian Y, Gallagher FJ, Feng H, Wu M, Zhu Q (2014) Vanadium uptake and translocation in dominant plant species on an urban coastal brownfield site. Sci Total Environ 476-7:696–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rahman MM, Asaduzzaman M, Naidu R (2013) Consumption of arsenic and other elements from vegetables and drinking water from an arsenic-contaminated area of Bangladesh. J Hazard Mater 262:1056–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rahman MR, Shi ZH, Cai C (2014) Assessing regional environmental quality by integrated use of remote sensing, GIS, and spatial multi-criteria evaluation for prioritization of environmental restoration. Environ Monit Assess 186:6993–7009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rasmussen P, Sonnenborg TO, Goncear G, Hinsby K (2013) Assessing impacts of climate change, sea level rise, and drainage canals on saltwater intrusion to coastal aquifer. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:421–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reimann T, Geyer T, Shoemaker WB, Liedl R, Sauter M (2011) Effects of dynamically variable saturation and matrix-conduit coupling of flow in karst aquifers. Water Resour Res 47:W11503Google Scholar
  80. Ren W, Xue B, Ma Z, Geng Y, Sun L, Zhang Y (2012) Characters and potential ecological risks of heavy metals in soil of Chinese brownfield redevelopment site-case of Tiexi old industrial area at Shenyang City. Sustain Dev 2(3):159–166 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  81. Ren W, Xue B, Geng Y, Sun L, Ma Z, Zhang Y et al (2014) Inventorying heavy metal pollution in redeveloped brownfield and its policy contribution: case study from Tiexi District, Shenyang, China. Land Use Policy 13:138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ren W, Geng Y, Ma Z, Sun L, Xue B, Fujita T (2015) Reconsidering brownfield redevelopment strategy in China’s old industrial zone: a health risk assessment of heavy metal contamination. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:2765–2775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rizzo E, Pesce M, Pizzol L, Alexandrescu FM, Giubilato E, Critto A, Marcomini A, Bartke S (2015) Brownfield regeneration in Europe: identifying stakeholder perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs. Land Use Policy 48:437–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Roy PK, Roy SS, Giri A, Banerjee G, Majumder A, Mazumdar A (2015) Study of impact on surface water and groundwater around flow fields due to changes in river stage using groundwater modeling system. Clean Techn Environ Policy 17:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process—planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  86. Saaty TL (1987) The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9(3–5):161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2001) Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Inter Ser Opera Res Manag Sci 34:1–25Google Scholar
  88. Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S (2009) Environmental decision-making under uncertainty using intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (IF-AHP). Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 23(1):75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shao J, Li L, Cui Y, Zhang Z (2013) Groundwater flow simulation and its application in groundwater resource evaluation in the North China Plain, China. ACTA Geo Sinica (English Edition) 87(1):243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sharma MK, Jain CK, Rao GT, Rao VVS (2015) Modelling of lindane transport in groundwater of metropolitan city Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Environ Monit Assess 187:295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Singhal V, Goyal R (2014) Groundwater model to predict the impact due to textile units at Pali. Arab J Geosci 7:5185–5192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Stezar IC, Pizzol L, Critto A, Ozunu A, Marcomini A (2013) Comparison of risk-based decision-support systems for brown field site rehabilitation: DESYRE and SADA applied to a Romanian case study. J Environ Manag 131:383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Swickard TJ (2008) Regulatory incentives to promote private sector brownfield remediation and reuse. Soil Sediment Contam 17(2):121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tesfamariam S, Sadiq R (2006) Risk-based environmental decision-making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP). Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 21:35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (2005) Overview of in situ bioremediation of chlorinated ethene DNAPL source zones [R]. Washington DC: The interstate technology and regulatory council, bioremediation of DNAPLs teamGoogle Scholar
  96. Tony M, Wagner M, Khoury H, Rindress D, Papastavros T (2011) Bridging health technology assessment (HTA) with multicriteria decision analyses (MCDA): field testing of the EVIDEM framework for coverage decisions by a public payer in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res 11:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1988) Guidance for conducting remedial investigations and feasibility studies under CERCLA. EPA/540/G-89/004Google Scholar
  98. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume I-human health evaluation manual (Part A). EPA/540/1–89/002Google Scholar
  99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991a) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume I-human health evaluation manual (Part B, development of risk-based preliminary remediation goals). EPA/540/R-92/003Google Scholar
  100. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1991b) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume I-human health evaluation manual (Part C, risk evaluation of remedial Alternatives)Google Scholar
  101. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume I-human health evaluation manual (Part D, Standardized planning, reporting, and review of superfund report)Google Scholar
  102. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume I-human health evaluation manual (Part E, supplemental guidance for dermal risk assessment). EPA/540/R/99/005Google Scholar
  103. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume I-human health evaluation manual (Part F, supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment). EPA-540-R-070-002Google Scholar
  104. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. Office of Water. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  105. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2016a) Brownfields and land revitalization. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/. [consulted online August 2016]
  106. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2016b) Superfund history. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-history/. [consulted online August 2016]
  107. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.) Remediation technology descriptions for cleaning up contaminated sites. https://www.epa.gov/remedytech/remediation-technology-descriptions-cleaning-contaminated-sites. (consulted online 01.17.)
  108. U.S. Geological Survey (2016) http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/modflow/. (consulted online 08.16)
  109. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wang M, Bai Y, Chen W, Markert B, Peng C, Ouyang Z (2012) A GIS technology based potential eco-risk assessment of metals in urban soils in Beijing, China. Environ Pollut 161:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wang P, Huang S, Han Z, et al. (2015) A chemical site's pollution risk prediction to the proposed reservoir based on solute transport simulation. Geosci 29(2):307-15.(in Chinese)Google Scholar
  112. Xinhua (2014) Huanbaobu fubuzhang chang zhoujian: turang zhiwu xingdongjihua niannei youwang chutai (Vice-Minister of Environmental Protection Chang Zhoujian: Soil Pollution Prevention and Remediation Action Planexpected to be unveiled by the end of the year). http://news.xinhuanet.com/fortune/2014-03/04/c 126216260. (in Chinese). (last accessed on 08.05.14)
  113. Xu X, Huang G, Qu Z, Pereira LS (2011) Using MODFLOW and GIS to assess changes in groundwater dynamics in response to water saving measures in irrigation districts of the upper Yellow River basin. Water Resour Manag 25:2035–2059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Xu Z, Hu BX, Davis H, Cao J (2015) Simulating long term nitrate-N contamination processes in the Woodville Karst Plain using CFPv2 with UMT3D. J Hydrol 524:72–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Yakirevich A, Weisbrod N, Kuznetsov M, Villarreyes CAR, Benavent I, Chavez AM, Ferrando D (2013) Modeling the impact of solute recycling on groundwater salinization under irrigated lands: a study of the Alto Piura aquifer, Peru. J Hydrol 482:25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Yao Y, Zheng C, Liu J, Cao G, Xiao H, Li H, Li W (2015) Conceptual and numerical models for groundwater flow in an arid inland river basin. Hydrol Process 29:1480–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Yihdego Y, Becht R (2013) Simulation of lake–aquifer interaction at Lake Naivasha, Kenya using a three-dimensional flow model with the high conductivity technique and a DEM with bathymetry. J Hydrol 503:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Yu X, Ghasemizadeh R, Padilla I, Irizarry C, Kaeli D, Alshawabkeh A (2015) Spatiotemporal changes of CVOC concentrations in karst aquifers: Analysis of three decades of data from Puerto Rico. Science of The Total Environment 511:1-10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Zammouri M, Siegfried T, El-Fahem T, Kriâa S, Kinzelbach W (2007) Salinization of ground water in the Nefzawa oases region, Tunisia: results of a regional-scale hydrogeologic approach. Hydrogeol J 15:1357–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Zhang Y, Li G (2013) Long-term evolution of cones of depression in shallow aquifers in the North China Plain. Water 5:677–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Zheng C, Wang PP (1999) MT3DMS: a modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems; documentation and user’s guide. Contract Report SERDP-99-1, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, VicksburgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shenzhen Academy of Environmental SciencesShenzhenChina
  2. 2.College of Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Institute of Hydrogeology and Environmental GeologyChinese Academy of Geological SciencesHebeiChina
  4. 4.Beijing Institute of Hydrogeology and Engineering GeologyBeijingChina
  5. 5.School of EnvironmentTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  6. 6.College of Environmental Science and EngineeringLiaoning Technical UniversityLiaoningChina

Personalised recommendations