Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of probabilistic risk assessment at a coking plant site contaminated by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Application of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Deterministic Risk Assessment (DRA) at a coking plant site was compared. By DRA, Hazard Quotient (HQ) following exposure to Naphthalene (Nap) and Incremental Life Cancer Risk (ILCR) following exposure to Benzo(a)pyrene (Bap) were 1.87 and 2.12 × 10−4. PRA revealed valuable information regarding the possible distribution of risk, and risk estimates of DRA located at the 99.59th and 99.76th percentiles in the risk outputs of PRA, which indicated that DRA overestimated the risk. Cleanup levels corresponding acceptable HQ level of 1 and ILCR level of 10−6 were also calculated for both DRA and PRA. Nap and Bap cleanup levels were 192.85 and 0.14 mg·kg−1 by DRA, which would result in only 0.25% and 0.06% of the exposed population to have a risk higher than the acceptable risk, according to the outputs of PRA. The application of PRA on cleanup levels derivation would lift the cleanup levels 1.9 times for Nap and 2.4 times for Bap than which derived by DRA. For this coking plant site, the remediation scale and cost will be reduced in a large portion once the method of PRA is used. Sensitivity analysis was done by calculating the contribution to variance for each exposure parameter and it was found that contaminant concentration in the soil (C s), exposure duration (ED), total hours spent outdoor per day (ET out), soil ingestion rate (IR s), the air breathing rate (IR a) and bodyweight (BW) were the most important parameters for risk and cleanup levels calculations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Okx J P, Hordijk L, Stein A. Managing soil remediation problems. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1996, 3(4): 229–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Blum WEH. European soil protection strategy. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2003, 3(4): 242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Medical Research Council, Institute for Environment and Health, Risk Assessment and Toxicology Steering Committee. Risk Assessment Approaches Used by UK Government for Evaluating Human Health Effects of Chemicals. Institute for Environment and Health. Leicester: Institute for Environment and Health, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  4. Elliott P L. Use of Risk-Based Decision-Making in UST Corrective Action Programs. Washington, D C: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  5. Viscusi WK, Hamilton J T, Dockins P C. Conservative versus mean risk assessments: implications for superfund policies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1997, 34(3): 187–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. US EPA. Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Mannual.Washington, D C: Office of Emergency and Remedial response, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  7. McKone T E. Alternative modeling approaches for contaminant fate in soils: uncertainty. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1996, 54(2–3): 165–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Travis C C, Obenshain K R, Regens J L, Whipple C G. Limitations of multimedia models for use in environmental decision making. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2001, 71(1): 51–60

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. US EPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume III-Part A. Washington D C, USA: Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lester R R, Green L C, Linkov I. Site-specific applications of probabilistic health risk assessment: review of the literature since 2000. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2007, 27(3): 635–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Öberg T, Bergbäck B. A review of probabilistic risk assessment of contaminated land. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2005, 5(4): 213–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bogen K T, Cullen A C, Frey H C, Price P S. Probabilistic exposure analysis for chemical risk characterization. Toxicological Sciences: an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2009, 109(1): 4–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bonomo L, Caserini S, Pozzi C, Uguccioni D A. Target cleanup levels at the site of a former manufactured gas plant in Northern Italy: deterministic versus probabilistic results. Environmental Science & Technology, 2000, 34(18): 3843–3848

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau. Environmental Site Assessment Guideline. Beijing: Beijing Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision, 2009 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  15. US EPA. Method 8270D: Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Virginia: National Technical Information Service, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  16. Environment Agency. CLEA Software (Version 1.05) Handbook. Bristol: Environmental Agency, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oregen Department of Environmental Quality. Guidance for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Human Health Risk Assessments. Portland, Oregen: Oregen Department of Environmental Quality, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  18. California E P A. CalTOX, A Multimedia Total-Exposure Model for Hazardous-Waste Sites Part III: The Multiple Pathway Exposure Model Sacramento: Office of Scientific Affairs, Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Environmental Protection Agency, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jiang L, Jia X Y, Xia T X, Yao J J, Liang J, Wang Q. Research on application of PRA in health risk assessment of soil in a coking plant site. Research of Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(2): 220–226 (in Chinese)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Avagliano S, Parrella L. Managing uncertainty in risk-based corrective action design: global sensitivity analysis of contaminant fate and exposure models used in the dose assessment. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 2009, 14(1): 47–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kirman C, Budinsky R A, Yost L, Baker B F, Zabik JM, Rowlands J C, Long T F, Simon T. Derivation of soil clean-up levels for 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-dibenzopdioxin (TCDD) toxicity equivalence (TEQD/F) in soil through deterministicand probabilistic risk assessment of exposure and toxicity. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2011, 17(1): 125–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. US EPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund VolumeI: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermanl Risk Assessment). Washington, D C: Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  23. US EPA. Assessing Dermal Exposure form Soil. Washington, D C: HazardWaste Management Division Office of Superfund Programs, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  24. BMEPB (Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau). Screening Levels for Soil Environmental Risk Assessment of Sites. Beijing: Beijing Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision, 2011 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ma J, Zhou Y Z. Soil pollution by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: A comparison of two Chinese cities. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2011, 23(9): 1518–1523

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Juhasz A L, Naidu R. Bioremediation of high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: a review of the microbial degradation of benzo[a]pyrene. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, 2000, 45(1–2): 57–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cullen A C. Measures of compounding conservatism in probabilistic risk assessment. Risk analysis: an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 1994, 14(4): 389–393

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kuusisto S M, Tuhkanen T A. Probabilistic risk assessment of a contaminated site. In: International Conference on Practical Applications in Environmental Geotechnology Ecogeo 2000, Finland. Finland: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy Press, 2001, 99–105

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sander P, Öberg T. Comparing deterministic and probabilistic risk assessments. A case study at a closed steel mill in southern Sweden. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2006, 6(1): 55–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Priha E, Hellman S, Sorvari J. PCB contamination from polysulphide sealants in residential areas—exposure and risk assessment. Chemosphere, 2005, 59(4): 537–543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bruce E D, Abusalih A A, McDonald T J, Autenrieth R L. Comparing deterministic and probabilistic risk assessments for sites contaminated by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part A, Toxic/Hazardous substances & environmental engineering, 2007, 42(6): 697–706

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wenning R J. Uncertainties and data needs in risk assessment of three commercial polybrominated diphenyl ethers: probabilistic exposure analysis and comparison with European Commission results. Chemosphere, 2002, 46(5): 779–796

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Jager T, Vermeire T G, Rikken M G J, van der Poel P. Opportunities for a probabilistic risk assessment of chemicals in the European Union. Chemosphere, 2001, 43(2): 257–264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Beijing Municipal Research Institute of Environmental Protection, Beijing, 100037, China

    Tianxiang Xia, Lin Jiang, Xiaoyang Jia, Maosheng Zhong & Jing Liang

  2. Beijing Key Laboratory for Risk Modeling and Remediation of Contaminated Sites, Beijing, 100037, China

    Tianxiang Xia, Lin Jiang, Xiaoyang Jia, Maosheng Zhong & Jing Liang

Authors
  1. Tianxiang Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lin Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaoyang Jia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maosheng Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jing Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tianxiang Xia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xia, T., Jiang, L., Jia, X. et al. Application of probabilistic risk assessment at a coking plant site contaminated by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 8, 441–450 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-013-0572-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-013-0572-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation