Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 18, pp 17409–17424 | Cite as

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) levels in environmental media potentially impacted by reused or stored creosote-treated railway ties

  • Maëlle Cargouët
  • Nicolas Jeannee
  • Bertrand Vidart
  • Patrizia Gregori
Research Article
  • 72 Downloads

Abstract

Disused creosote-treated railway ties are reused in France and many other countries and, in particular, for landscaping and other residential uses. Given the lack of data on the environmental fate of creosote-derived compounds released from used railway ties, a survey of different environmental media (i.e. soil, sediment, surface water, plants and outdoor air) was carried out at six sites located in France where old creosote-treated railway ties are stored or reused for different purposes. Maximum total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations measured in soils ranged from 2 to 140 mg/kg dry weight. PAH impacts were limited both vertically and horizontally to several centimetres from the railway ties. At two sites, PAH levels in plants (up to 140 μg/kg fresh weight) appeared correlated to the levels measured in soils, suggesting a transfer from soils to the plants. PAHs in sediment were measured at concentrations of up to 280 mg/kg dry weight. As observed in soil, PAH concentrations decreased rapidly further away from the railway ties. Principal component analysis and hierarchical clustering on principal components indicate that PAHs detected in soils and sediments originated from unweathered to severely weathered creosote and could be strongly influenced by urban background. Results on outdoor air measurements show a degradation of air quality above old and fresh railway tie storage areas at a railway station and to a lesser extent in their vicinity. However, this degradation was low to moderate when compared to French regulatory values, ambient background levels reported in France, as well as health-based air comparison values.

Keywords

Creosote Railway ties PAHs Soil Sediment Plants Air Principal component analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the town of Clairmarais, Leïla Debiesse from Les Amis des Marais du Vigueirat, Damien Cohez from the regional nature reserve Tour du Valat and Philippe Brunet from Jardinot Le jardin du Cheminot.

Supplementary material

11356_2018_1910_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.9 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1.94 mb)

References

  1. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry - ATSDR (2007) Toxicological profile for benzene. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  2. Anses (2011) Toxicological reference value for inhalation of toluene. Opinion and collective expert report (in French)Google Scholar
  3. BG (2011) Mise à jour des études réglementaires - Analyses et essais en laboratoire sur la créosote de type C. Report reference FF0700.30-NT001. Prepared for SNCFGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolin C, Smith S (2013) Life cycle assessment of creosote-treated wooden railroad crossties in the US with comparisons to concrete and plastic composite railroad crossties. J Transport Technol 3:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Commission of the European Communities (2001) Commission directive 2001/90/EC. Off J Eur Communities L Legis 283:41Google Scholar
  6. Crépineau C, Rychen G, Feidt C, Le Roux Y, Lichtfouse E, Laurent F (2003) Contamination of pastures by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the vicinity of a highway. J Agric Food Chem 51:4841–4845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Danish EPA (1996) Odeuse Magistrateus 2. AFD Miljokontoret. Prepared for Miljo & Energi Ministeriet. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards NT (1983) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) in the terrestrial environment, a review. J Environ Qual 12:427–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission (2011) Commission directive 2011/71/EU amending directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to include creosote as an active substance in annex I thereto. Off J Eur Union L 195:46–51Google Scholar
  10. European Committee for Standardisation (2000) Derivates from coal pyrolysis – coal tar based oils: creosotes – specifications and test methods. Project Reference 00317007 prEN 14998; CEN/TC 317/WG 2Google Scholar
  11. Evans MS, Fazakas K, Keating J (2009) Creosote contamination in sediments of the Grey owl Marina in Prince Albert National Park, Saskatchewan, Canada. Water Air Soil Pollut 201:161–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser MP, Cass GR, Simoneit BRT, Rasmussen RA (1997) Air quality model evaluation data for organics. 4. C2-C36 non-aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ Sci Technol 31:2356–2367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. French Ministerial Order of 2 June 2003 amending the Ministerial Order of 7 August 1997 on limitations of the placing on the market and use of certain products containing dangerous substances. Off J Fr Rep n°150, text n°14 (in French)Google Scholar
  14. Gagne F, Trottier S, Blaise C, Sproull J, Ernst B (1995) Genotoxicity of sediment extracts obtained in the vicinity of a creosote-treated wharf to rainbow trout hepatocytes. Toxicol Lett 78:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallego E, Roca FJ, Perales JF, Guardino X, Berenguer MJ (2008) VOCs and PAHs emissions from creosote-treated wood in a field storage area. Sci Total Environ 402:130–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heikkilä P, Hämeilä M, Pyy L, Raunu P (1987) Exposure to creosote in the impregnation and handling of impregnated wood. Scand J Work Environ Health 13:431–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ikarashi Y, Kaniwa M, Tsuchiya T (2005) Determination of benzo[a]pyrene, Benz[a]anthracene and Dibenz[a,h]anthracene in creosotes and creosote-treated woods. J Health Sci 51:597–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. INERIS (2003) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Assessment of the dose-response relation for carcinogenic effects: toxic equivalent factor method and mixture method. INERIS-DRC-03-47026-ETSC-BDo-N°03DR177.doc (in French)Google Scholar
  19. IRIS (1991) Ethylbenzene. Integrated Risk Information System. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=51. Accessed 9 April 2018
  20. IRIS (1998) Naphthalene. Integrated Risk Information System. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=436. Accessed 9 April 2018
  21. IRIS (2003) Xylenes. Integrated Risk Information System. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=270. Accessed 9 April 2018
  22. Jang E, Alama MS, Harrison RM (2013) Source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban air using positive matrix factorization and spatial distribution analysis. Atmos Environ 79:271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiang YF, Wang XT, Wang F, Jia Y, Wu MH, Sheng GY, Fu JM (2009) Levels, composition profiles and sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban soil of shanghai, China. Chemosphere 75:1112–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kipopoulou AM, Manoli E, Samara C (1999) Bioconcentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in vegetables grown in an industrial area. Environ Pollut 106:369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lê S, Josse J, Husson F (2008) FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw 25:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li YT, Li FB, Chen JJ, Yang GY, Wan HF, Zhang TB, Zeng XD, Liu JM (2008) The concentrations, distribution and sources of PAHs in agricultural soils and vegetables from Shunde, Guangdong, China. Environ Monit Assess 139:61–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marcotte S, Poisson T, Portet-Koltalo F, Aubrays M, Basle J, de Bort M, Giraud M, Nguyen Hoang T, Octau C, Pasquereau J, Blondeel C (2014) Evaluation of the PAH and water-extractable phenols content in used cross ties from the French rail network. Chemosphere 111:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meudec A, Dussauze J, Deslandes E, Poupart N (2006) Evidence for bioaccumulation of PAHs within internal shoot tissues by a halophytic plant artificially exposed to petroleum polluted sediments. Chemosphere 65:474–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moret S, Purcaro G, Conte LS (2007) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) content of soil and olives collected in areas contaminated with creosote released from old railway ties. Sci Total Environ 386:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nadal M, Schuhmacher M, Domingo JL (2004) Levels of PAHs in soil and vegetation samples from Tarragona County, Spain. Environ Pollut 132:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Observatory on Indoor Air Quality (2007) National survey: indoor air quality in French dwellings (in French). DDD/SB 2006–57Google Scholar
  32. OEHHA (2007) Long-term health effects of exposure to ethylbenzene. Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  33. OEHHA (2008) Technical supporting document for the derivation of non-cancer reference exposure levels. Appendix D3. Chronic RELs and toxicity summaries using the previous version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment guidelines. Phenol. Pp 429-436Google Scholar
  34. RIVM (2001) Re-evaluation of human-toxicological maximum permissible risk levels. RIVM report no. 711701025, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  35. Samsoe-Petersen L, Larsen EH, Larsen PB, Bruun P (2002) Uptake of trace elements and PAHs by fruit and vegetables from contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 36:3057–3063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schulz CM, Fritz H, Ruthenschrör A (2014) Occurrence of 15 + 1 EU priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in various types of tea (Camellia sinensis) and herbal infusions. Food Addit Contam Part A 31:1723–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith PT (2008) Risks to human health and estuarine ecology posed by pulling out creosote-treated timber on oyster farms. Aquat Toxicol 86:287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stogiannidis E, Laane R (2015) Source characterization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by using their molecular indices: an overview of possibilities. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 234:49–133Google Scholar
  39. Stout SA, Magar VX, Uhler RM, Ickes J, Abbott J, Brenner R (2001) Characterization of naturally occurring and anthropogenic PAHs in urban sediments Wyckoff/Eagle Harbor Superfund site. Environ Forensic 2:287–300Google Scholar
  40. Stout SA, Leather JM, Corl WEIII (2003) A user’s guide for determining the sources of contaminants in sediments. In: Technical report, vol 1907. Spawar Systems Center, San Diego, pp 1–85Google Scholar
  41. Tao S, Cui YH, Xu FL, Li BG, Cao J, Liu WX, Schmitt G, Wang XJ, Shen WR, Qing BP, Sun R (2004) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in agricultural soil and vegetables from Tianjin. Sci Total Environ 320:11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thavamani P, Megharaj M, Naidu R (2012) Multivariate analysis of mixed contaminants (PAHs and heavy metals) at manufactured gas plant site soils. Environ Monit Assess 184:3875–3885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. USEPA (2008) Reregistration eligibility decision for creosote (case 0139). EPA 739-R-08-007Google Scholar
  44. Wan M (1991) Railway right-of-way contaminants in the lower mainland of British Columbia: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J Environ Qual 20:228–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang YC, Qiao M, Liu YX, Arp HP, Zhu YG (2011) Comparison of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon uptake pathways and risk assessment of vegetables from waste-water irrigated areas in northern China. J Environ Monit 13:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wild SR, Jones KC (1994) The significance of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons applied to agricultural soils in sewage sludges in the UK. Waste Manag Res 12:49–59Google Scholar
  47. Wiłkomirski B, Sudnik-Wójcikowska B, Galera H, Wierzbicka M, Malawska M (2011) Railway transportation as a serious source of organic and inorganic pollution. Water Air Soil Pollut 218:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. World Health Organization - WHO (2000) Air quality guidelines for Europe; second edition. WHO regional publications, European series no. 91. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  49. World Health Organization (2004) Coal tar creosote. Concise international chemical assessment. Document 62. GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AECOM FranceLa Garenne-ColombesFrance
  2. 2.GeovariancesAvon cedexFrance
  3. 3.Dassault SystèmesVélizy-Villacoublay cedexFrance
  4. 4.SNCF RESEAU, Département Lignes Voie EnvironnementLa Plaine Saint DenisFrance

Personalised recommendations