Second moment method for evaluating human health risks from groundwater contaminated by trichloroethylene

Environmental Health Perspectives

Volumn 104, Issue 8, 1996, Pages 866-870

  Jacobs, Timothy L ^a   Warmerdam, John M ^a   Medina, Miguel A ^a   Piver, Warren T ^b  

^a Duke University   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

Contaminant transport; Groundwater flow; Health risk; Second moment method; Stochastic modeling; Trichloroethylene

Indexed keywords

GROUND WATER; TRICHLOROETHYLENE;

AQUIFER; ARTICLE; DOSE RESPONSE; HEALTH HAZARD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; STOCHASTIC MODEL; UNITED STATES; WATER CONTAMINATION;

EID: 0029756621     PISSN: 00916765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.96104866     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. IARC. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Supplement 7. Overall evaluations of carcinogenicity: an updating of IARC monographs, volumes 1-42. Lyon:International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1987.
2. ASTDR. Toxicological profile for trichloroethylene. Report no. ASTDR/TP-88/24. Atlanta, GA:Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1989.
3. U.S. EPA. Ambient water quality standards for trichloroethylene (TCE). Report no. EPA-440/580-077. Wasington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, 1980.
4. WHO. Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Vol. 1. Recommendations, 2nd ed. Geneva:World Health Organization, 1993.
5. Anderson EL. Carcinogen Assessment Group of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quantitative approaches to assess cancer risk. Risk Anal 3:277-295 (1983).
6. U.S. EPA. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Report no. EPA 600/8-87-045. Fed Reg 51(185):33992-34003.
7. Portier CJ. Quantitative risk assessment. In: Carcinogenicity and pesticides: principles, issues and relationships. ACS symposium series 414 (Ragsdale NN, Menzer RE, eds). Washington, DC:American Chemical Society, 1989;164-174.
8. Thompson KM, Burmaster DE, Crouch EAC. Monte Carlo techniques for quantitative uncertainty analysis in public health risk assessment. Risk Anal 12:53-63 (1992).
9. Portier CJ, Kaplan NL. Variability of safe dose estimates when using complicated models of the carcinogenic process: a case study - methylene chloride. Fundam Appl Toxicol 13:533-544 (1989).
10. Ang AH-S, Tang WH. Probability concepts in engineering planning and design. II. Decision, risk and reliability. New York:John Wiley, 1984.
11. Yao JTP, MacGregor JG. Structural reliability theory and design codes. ASCE Structures Congress, 25-29 October 1982, New Orleans, LA.
12. Jacobs TL, Medina MA, Lin K-L, Piver WT. Probabilistic-based optimal groundwater remediation planning and decision-making. Comput Methods Advances Geomechanics 2:1091-1096 (1994).
13. Konikow LF, Bredehoeft JD. Computer model of two-dimensional solute transport and dispersion in ground water. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, Book 7, 1978.
14. Medina MA Jr, Butcher J, Marin CM. Monte Carlo analysis and Bayesian decision theory for assessing the effects of waste sites on groundwater: applications. J Contam Hydrol 5:15-31 (1989).
15. Medina MA Jr, Jacobs TL, Lin W, Lin K. Ground water solute transport, optimal remediation planning, and decision making under uncertainty. Water Resour Bull 32:1-12 (1996).
16. Vogel TM, Criddle CS, McCarty PL, Transformation of halogenated aliphatic compounds. Environ Sci Technol 21:722-736 (1987).
17. Sabljic A, Piver WT. Quantitative modeling of environmental fate and impact of commercial chemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem 11:961-972 (1992).
18. Falconer DS. Introduction to quantitative genetics. London:Longman, 1981.
19. Johnson S. Hill Air Force Base, Utah: mathematical model of groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Salt Lake City, UT:JMM Consulting Engineers, 1989.
20. Deutsch C, Journel A. GSLIB: geostatistical software library and user's guide. New York:Oxford University Press, 1992.