Abstract
Fate and transport of 72 chemicals in soil and groundwater were assessed by using a multiphase compositional model (CompFlow Bio) because some of the chemicals are non-aqueous phase liquids or solids in the original form. One metric ton of chemicals were assumed to leak in a stylized facility. Scenarios of both surface spills and subsurface leaks were considered. Simulation results showed that the fate and transport of chemicals above the water table affected the fate and transport of chemicals below the water table, and vice versa. Surface spill scenarios caused much less concentrations than subsurface leak scenarios because leaching amounts into the subsurface environment were small (at most 6% of the 1 t spill for methylamine). Then, simulation results were applied to assess point-source pollutant loadings to soil and groundwater above and below the water table, respectively, by multiplying concentrations, impact areas, and durations. These three components correspond to the intensity of contamination, mobility, and persistency in the assessment of pollutant loading, respectively. Assessment results showed that the pollutant loadings in soil and groundwater were linearly related (r 2 = 0.64). The pollutant loadings were negatively related with zero-order and first-order decay rates in both soil (r = − 0.5 and − 0.6, respectively) and groundwater (− 1.0 and − 0.8, respectively). In addition, this study scientifically defended that the soil partitioning coefficient (K d) significantly affected the pollutant loadings in soil (r = 0.6) and the maximum masses in groundwater (r = − 0.9). However, K d was not a representative factor for chemical transportability unlike the expectation in chemical ranking systems of soil and groundwater pollutants. The pollutant loadings estimated using a physics-based hydrogeological model provided a more rational ranking for exposure assessment, compared to the summation of persistency and transportability scores in the chemical ranking systems. In the surface spill scenario, the pollutant loadings were zeros for all chemicals, except methylamine to soil whose pollutant loading was smaller than that in the subsurface leak scenario by 4 orders of magnitude. The maximum mass and the average mass multiplied by duration in soil greatly depended on leaching fluxes (r = 1.0 and 0.9, respectively), while the effect of leaching fluxes diminished below the water table. The contribution of this work is that a physics-based numerical model was used to quantitatively compare the subsurface pollutant loading in a chemical accident for 72 chemical substances, which can scientifically defend a simpler and more qualitative assessment of pollutant loadings. Besides, this study assessed pollutant loadings to soil (unsaturated zone) and groundwater (saturated zone) all together and discussed their interactions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersen LJ (1987) Applicability of vulnerability maps. Proc Intl Conf “Vulnerability of Soil and Groundwater to Pollutants”, Noordwijk, The Netherlands (April 1987)
An Y-J, Lee W-M, Jeong S-W (2013) Chemical ranking and scoring methodology for the drinking and non-drinking groundwater pollutants: CROWN (Chemical Ranking of Groundwater PollutaNts). J Soil Groundwater Environ 18(1):16–25 (In Korean with English abstract)
Baker S, Driver J, McCallum D (2001) Residential exposure assessment: a sourcebook. Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers, New York
Blanchard P (2002) Assessments of aquifer sensitivity on Navajo Nation and adjacent lands and ground-water vulnerability to pesticide contamination on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4051
Boateng S, Cawlfied JD (1999) Two-dimensional sensitivity analysis of contaminant transport in the unsaturated zone. Groundwater 37(2):185–193
Caeiro S, Costa MH, Ramos TB (2005) Assessing heavy metal contamination in Sado Estuary sediment: an index analysis approach. Ecol Indic 5(2:151–169
Chilton J, Schmoll O, Appleyard S (2006) Assessment of groundwater pollution potential. In: Schmoll O, Howard G, Chilton J, Chorus I (eds) Protecting groundwater for health. Managing the Quality of Drinking-water Sources. World Health Organization and IWA Publishing, London, pp 375–409
Choi J, Harvey JW, Conklin MH (1999) Use of multi- parameter sensitivity analysis to determine relative importance of factors influencing natural attenuation of mining contaminants. U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program--Proceedings of the Technical Meeting Charleston South Carolina March 8–12,1999--Volume 1 of 3--Contamination From Hard-Rock Mining, Water-Resources Investigation Report 99-4018A
Falta RW, Pruess K, Finsterle S, Battistelli A (1995) T2VOC user’s guide. http://esd1.lbl.gov/files/research/projects/tough/documentation/T2VOC_Users_Guide.pdf
Focazio MJ, Reilly TE, Rupert MG, Helsel DR (2002) Assessing ground-water vulnerability to contamination: providing dcientifically defensible information for decision makers. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1224
Foster SSD (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollution, Proceedings and Information (No. 38, pp. 69-86)
Foster SSD, Hirata R, 1988. Groundwater pollution risk assessment. A methodology using available data. Pan Ame. Cent. for Sanit. Engin. and Envir. Scien.(cepis). Lima
Foster SSD, Hirata R, Gomes D, D’Elia M, Paris M (2002) Groundwater quality protection: a guide for water utilities, municipal authorities, and environment agencies. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
Gong Q, Yang L (2008) Calculating pollution indices by heavy metals in ecological geochemistry assessment and a case study in parks of Beijing. J China Univ Geosci 19(3):230–241
Guney M, Zagury GJ, Dogan N, Onay TT (2010) Exposure assessment and risk characterization from trace elements following soil ingestion by children exposed to playgrounds, parks and picnic areas. J Hazard Mater 182(1–3):656–664
Gyeonggi-do (2014) Hazardous chemical substances management plan of Gyeonggi-do in 2015–2019. (In Korean)
Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) (2008) Use of risk assessment in management of contaminated sites. RISK-2. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, Risk Assessment Resources Team. www.itrcweb.org
Iztileu AL, Grebeneva O, Otarbayeva M, Zhanbasinova N, Ivashina E, Duisenbekov B (2013) Intensity of soil contamination in industrial centers of Kazakhstan. In: CBU International Conference on Integration and Innovation in Science and Education, 7–14 April, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 374–380
Jeong S-W, An Y-J (2012) Construction of a chemical ranking system of soil pollution substances for screening of priority soil contaminants in Korea. Environ Monit Assess 184(4):2193–2204
Kim J, Han Y, Ham K, Choi K (1998) A database code for facility and contamination of underground storage tank in Korea. Korea Society of Water Quality. (In Korean)
Korea Environment Institute (KEI) (2013) System improvement for chemical accident responses. KEI Focus 1(2) (In Korean)
Lobo-Ferreira JP, 1999. The European Union experience on groundwater vulnerability assessment and mapping. – COASTIN a coastal policy research newsletter 1: 8–10
Mackay D (2001) Multimedia environmental models: the fugacity approach. CRC Press, Second Edition
Ohio EAP (2009) Difference between identified areas and exposure units in the VAP. Technical guidance compendium VA30007.09.003. http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/vap/tgc/VA30007-09-003.pdf
Orr MF, Wu J, Sloop SL, (2015) Acute Chemical Incidents Surveillance — Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance, Nine States, 1999–2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6402a1.htm
Pan F, Zhu J, Ye M, Pachepsky YA, Wu Y-S (2011) Sensitivity analysis of unsaturated flow and contaminant transport with correlated parameters. J Hydrol 397:238–249
Schierow L-J (2009) The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA): implementation and new challenges. Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service (CRS)
Sudicky E, Illman W, Frape S, Yeh TCJ (2013) Computational and experimental investigation of contaminant plume response to DNAPL source zone architecture and depletion in porous and fractured media. SERDP project ER-1610. http://www.eosremediation.com/download/Source%20Zones/NAPLs/ER-1610-FR.pdf
Yu S, Unger AJ, Parker B (2009) Simulating the fate and transport of TCE from groundwater to indoor air. J Contam Hydrol 107(3–4):140–161
Zaporozec A (2002) Groundwater contamination inventory: a methodological guide. IHPVI Series on Groundwater No 2. UNESCO, Paris
Acknowledgements
This subject was supported by the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) as “Soil and Groundwater Contamination Prevention Technology Development Program (GAIA Project),” and partially supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2015R1C1A1A01052036). Also, this work was supported by Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE) as “K-COSEM” Research Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yu, S., Hwang, SI., Yun, ST. et al. Comparison of point-source pollutant loadings to soil and groundwater for 72 chemical substances. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24, 24816–24843 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0106-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0106-z