Towards Development of Risk-Based, Soil and Groundwater Screening Values (Threshold Values) for Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PHC) in Libya and Tunisia by Considering Climate and Regional “Geographical” Factors

  • Salahadein Ahmed AlzienEmail author
  • Roger Brewer
  • Olfa Ben Said
  • Rafig Azzam
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)


Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination (PHC) is a widespread environmental problem that can be found in many countries. Several contaminated land management approaches have been developed so far, all of which include some form of site investigation, risk assessment and remediation processes. Most of these approaches are often based on risk-based land management concepts. Most countries have a common framework for a risk assessment procedure for contaminated sites which endanger human health, involve ecological risk, and risks to water resources and construction materials. Usually, risk assessment of contaminated land is triggered by suspicious soil or groundwater contamination which is identified by Screening Values (SVs) approach. SVs specify generic quality standards for contaminated land. The application of SVs varies from adjusting long-term quality objectives, through making further investigations, to applying remedial actions. SVs derivation methods have scientific, geographical, socio-cultural, regulatory and political categories. They therefore differ from country to country. However, a “one-size-fits-all” approach is often adopted and a single SV might be applied to all areas within a country. In this paper, the authors demonstrated how differences in climatic and environmental conditions within a country may require the use of region-specific SVs. Here, Exposure SVs for PHC in Libya and Tunisia were used.


Risk assessment Screening values Contaminated land Climate conditions Libya Tunisia USA 


  1. 1.
    Brewer, R., Nagashima, J., Rigby, M., Schmidt, M., O’Neill, H.: Estimation of Generic Subslab Attenuation Factors for Vapor Intrusion Investigations. Groundwater Monit. Rem. 34(4), 79–92 (2014). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carlon, C.: Derivation methods of soil screening values in europe. A review and evaluation of national procedures towards harmonisation. Eur. Comm., Jt. Res. Centre, Ispra, EUR 22805-EN, 306 pp (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, D., Chen, H.W.: Using the Köppen classification to quantify climate variation and change: An example for 1901–2010. Environ. Dev. 6, 69–79 (2013). Scholar
  4. 4. World Maps of Köppen-Geiger climate classification
  5. 5.
    Köppen-Geiger. Main Köppen-Geiger Climate Classes for US countie (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., Rubel, F.: World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol. Z. 15(3), 259–263 (2006). Scholar
  7. 7.
    USEPA. Soil screening guidance: technical background document (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    USEPA. Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for Superfund sites (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salahadein Ahmed Alzien
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roger Brewer
    • 2
  • Olfa Ben Said
    • 3
  • Rafig Azzam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Engineering Geology and HydrogeologyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Hawaii Department of HealthPearl CityUSA
  3. 3.Environment Biomonitoring Laboratory LBE, Faculty of SciencesBizerteTunisia

Personalised recommendations