Assessment of Ecological Risks at Former Landfill Site Using TRIAD Procedure and Multicriteria Analysis

Risk Analysis

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 203-219

  Sorvari, Jaana ^a   Schultz, Eija ^a   Haimi, Jari ^b  

^a FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

Case study; Contaminated soil; Ecological risk assessment; Metal; TPH

Indexed keywords

ADDITIONAL SAMPLES; ALTERNATIVE METHODS; ASSESSMENT METHODS; CONTAMINATED SOILS; ECOLOGICAL BENCHMARKS; ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT; ECOLOGICAL RISKS; ECOTOXICITY TEST; ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION; FINLAND; HORMESIS; INTEGRATED RISKS; LANDFILL SITE; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS; PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS; PLANT SPECIES; REFERENCE SOIL; RISK-BASED; SAMPLING LOCATION; SOIL ANIMAL; SOIL INVERTEBRATES; TERRESTRIAL BIOTA; TPH; WEIGHTING TECHNIQUES;

ANIMALS; BIODIVERSITY; DECISION THEORY; ECOLOGY; METALS; PETROLEUM CHEMISTRY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOIL POLLUTION;

LAND FILL;

BIODIVERSITY; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HYDROCARBON; LANDFILL; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOIL BIOTA; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ECOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PLANT; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTING; WASTE DISPOSAL;

ANIMALS; ECOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PLANTS; REFUSE DISPOSAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS;

EUROPE; FINLAND;

ANIMALIA; INVERTEBRATA;

EID: 84873159028     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01858.x     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. EEA (European Environment Agency). Contamination from local sources, 2007. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/soil/soil-threats, Accessed on February 12, 2010.
2. Finnish Environment Institute. Maaperän pilaantumisen syyt ja esiintyminen Suomessa (Causes of soil contamination and scope in Finland), 2009. Available at: https://www.ymparisto.fiYmparistontilaKallio-jamaaperaMaaperanpilaantumisensyytjaesiintyminen Suomessa, Accessed on January 10, 2010.
3. MATTI database. Maaperän tilan tietojärjestelmä (Database on soil status). Available at: https://www.ymparisto.fi Palvelut jatuotteetTietojärjestelmätja-aineistot, update from February 20, 2012, Accessed on April 26, 2012.
4. Faber JH. European experience on application of site-specific ecological risk assessment in terrestrial ecosystems. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2006; 12:39-50.
5. Swartjes FA, Carlon C, de Wit NHSM. The possibilities for the EU-wide use of similar ecological risk-based soil contamination assessment tools. Science of the Total Environment, 2008; 406:523-529.
6. Schewald R. Proceedings of the CLARINET Workshop on Ecological Risk Assessment; April 17-19, 2001. Nunspeet, the Netherlands, S-TEC 2001, 2001.
7. Sorvari J, Assmuth T. Survey of previous site risk assessments. Pp. 902-903 in Proceedings of the Seventh International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, Vol. 2, ConSoil 2000; Sept 18-22, Leipzig, Germany Berlin, Germany : Thomas Telford Ltd, 2000.
8. Sorvari J, Antikainen R, Kosola M-L, Hokkanen P, Haavisto T. Eco-efficiency in contaminated land management in Finland-Barriers and development needs. Journal of Environmental Management, 2009; 90:1715-1727.
9. Pellinen J, Sorvari J, Soimasuo M. Ecological Risk Assessment of Contaminated Soil. Helsinki, Finland : Finnish Environment Institute, Environment Guide, 2007 [in Finnish with an English abstract].
10. Rutgers M, Bogte JJ, Dirven-van Breemen EM, Schouten AJ. Site-Specific Risk Assessment-Field Investigations with a Quantitative Triad Approach. Bilthoven, the Netherlands : National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM Report 711701026, 2001 [in Dutch with an English abstract].
11. Mesman M, Rutgers M, Bogte J, Dirven-van Breemen L, de Zwart D, Posthuma L, Schouten T. Site-specific ecological risk assessment: The Triad approach in practice. Conference Proceedings. Theme B: Identifications of Risks. Pp. 649-656 in Annokkee GJ, Arendt F, Uhlmann O (eds). Consoil 2003, 8th International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, May 12-16, 2003, Gent, Belgium. Karlsruhe : Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Germany, 2003. In cd.
12. Schouten AJ, Dirven-van Breemen EM, Bogte JJ, Rutgers M (eds). Site Specific Ecological Risk Assessment. Research with the TRIAD approach: Part 3. Bilthoven, the Netherlands : National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM rapport 711701036, 2003 [in Dutch with an English abstract].
13. Wagelmans M, van der Waarde JJ. Ecological risk assessment of soil pollution on a Triad approach. Conference Proceedings. Theme B: Identifications of Risks. Pp. 257-66 in Annokkee GJ, Arendt F, Uhlmann O (eds). Consoil 2003, 8th International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, May 12-16, 2003, Gent, Belgium. Karlsruhe : Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Germany, 2003. In cd.
14. Mesman M, Spijker J, Schouten AJ, Rutgers M. Ecological Risk Assessment at a Depot at the Community of Epe. Bilthoven, the Netherlands : National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM rapport 607035001, 2007 [in Dutch with an English abstract].
15. Dagnino A, Sforzini S, Dondero F, Fenoglio S, Bona, E, Jensen, J, Viarengo A. "Weight-of-evidence" approach for the integration of environmental "Triad" data to assess ecological risk and biological vulnerability. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2008; 4:314-326.
16. Wagelmans M. Pollutants in soils: What the actual risks and perspectives? Pp. 75-81 in Proceedings of the 10th International UFZ-Deltares/TNO Conference on Soil-Water Systems in cooperation with Provincia di Milano, ConSoil 2008; June 3-6, 2008. Milano, Italy In cd.
17. Klimkowicz-Pawlas A. An attempt to apply Triad approach for identification of ecological risk of PAHs contaminated area-The first stage. Ecotoxicology in the Real World, First Joint PSE-SETAC Conference on Ecotoxicology; Sept. 16-19, 2009; Kraków, Poland. Available at: http://www.eko.uj.edu.pl/ecotox/2009/program.htm, Accessed on January 11, 2010.
18. Karjalainen AM, Kilpi-Koski J, Väisänen AO, Penttinen S, van Gestel CAM, Penttinen O-P. Ecological risks of an old wood impregnation mill: Application of the triad approach. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2010; 5:379-389.
19. Long ER, Chapman PM. A sediment quality triad: Measures of sediment contamination, toxicity and infaunal community composition in Puget Sound. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1985; 16:405-415.
20. Chapman PM. Sediment quality criteria from the Sediment Quality Triad: An example. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1986; 5:957-964.
21. Chapman PM, Dexter RN, Long ER. Synoptic measures of sediment contamination, toxicity, and infaunal community composition (the Sediment Quality Triad) in San Francisco Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 1987; 37:75-96.
22. Chapman PM. The sediment quality triad approach to determine pollution-induced degradation. Science of the Total Environment, 1990; 97/98:815-825.
23. Pastorok RA, Sampson JR, Jacobson MA, Peek DC. Ecological risk assessment for river sediments contaminated by creosote. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 1994; 13:1929-1941.
24. Hall Jr LW, Dauer DM, Alden III RW, Uhler AD, DiLorenzo J, Burton DT, Anderson RD. An tntegrated case study for evaluating the impacts of an oil refinery effluent on aquatic biota in the Delaware river. Sediment Quality Triad Studies. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2005; 11:657-770.
25. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). ARCS Assessment Guidance Document. Chicago (USA): Great Lakes National Program Office, Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS) Program, EPA 905-B94-002, 1994, Chicago, IL: Great Lakes National Program Office.
26. Long ER. The use of the Sediment Quality Triad in classification of sediment contamination. Pp. 78-99 in Committee on Contaminated Marine Sediments (eds). Contaminated Marine Sediment: Assessment and Remediation. Washington, DC, USA : National Academy Press, 1989.
27. Hollert H, Heise S, Pudenz S, Brüggemann R, Ahlf W, Braunbeck T. Application of a Sediment Quality Triad and different statistical approaches (Hasse diagrams and fuzzy logic) for the comparative evaluation of small streams. Ecotoxicology, 2002; 11:311-321.
28. Jensen J, Mesman M (eds). Ecological Risk Assessment of Contaminated Land. Decision Support for Site Specific Investigation. Bilthoven, the Netherlands : National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM Report 711701047, 2006.
29. Menzie C, Henning MH, Cura J, Finkelstein K, Gentile J, Maughn J, Mitchell, D, Petron S, Potocki P, Svirsky S, Tyler P. A weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating ecological risks: Report of the Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence Work Group. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 1996; 2:277-304.
30. Barnthouse L. The strengths of the ecological risk assessment process: Linking science to decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2008; 4:299-305.
31. Smith EP. Lipkovich I, Ye K. Weight-of-evidence (WOE): Quantitative estimation of probability of impairment for individual and multiple lines of evidence. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2002; 8:1585-1596.
32. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA/630/R-95/002F, 1998.
33. Science Advisory Board for Contaminated Sites in British Columbia. Guidance for a Weight of Evidence Approach in Conducting Detailed Ecological Risk Assessments (DERAs) in British Columbia. Bellevue, USA : Exponent, 2010.
34. Rutgers M, Jensen J. Site-specific ecological risk assessment. Pp. 693-720 in Swartjes F (ed.). Dealing with Contaminated Sites-From Theory Towards Practical Application. Dordrecht, the Netherlands : Springer, 2011.
35. Environment Agency. Ecological Risk Assessment: A Public Consultation on a Framework and Methods for Assessing Harm to Ecosystems from Contaminants in Soil. Bristol, UK : Environment Agency, 2003.
36. Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom KS, Bridges T. Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental management: Review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Science of the Total Environment, 2009; 407:5199-5205.
37. Linkov I, Welle P, Loney D, Tkachuk A, Canis L, Kim JB, Bridges T. Use of multicriteria decision analysis to support weight of evidence evaluation. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31:1211-1225. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01585.x.
38. Triantaphyllou E, Baig K. The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four MCDA methods. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2005; 52:213-226.
39. Sorvari J. Application of risk assessment and multi-criteria analysis in contaminated land management in Finland. Monographs of the Boreal Environment Research, 2010; no. 37. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland. Available at: http://www.environment.fi/publications, Accessed on June 8, 2012.
40. Critto A, Torresan S, Semenzin E, Giove S, Mesman M, Schouten AJ et al. Development of a site-specific ecological risk assessment for contaminated sites. Part I. A multi-criteria based system for the selection of ecotoxicological tests and ecological observations. Science of the Total Environment, 2007; 379:16-33.
41. Semenzin E, Critto A, Carlon C, Rutgers M, Marcomini A. Development of a site-specific ecological risk assessment for contaminated sites. Part II. A multi-criteria based system for the selection of bioavailability assessment tools. Science of the Total Environment, 2007; 379:34-45.
42. Salminen JM, Tuomi PM, Suortti A-M, Jørgensen KS. Potential for aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons in boreal subsurface. Biodegradation, 2004; 15:29-39.
43. Salminen JM, Hänninen PJ, Leveinen J, Lintinen PTJ, Jørgensen KS. Occurrence and rates of terminal electron-accepting processes and recharge processes in petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated subsurface. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2006; 35:2273-2282.
44. Jørgensen KS, Björklöf K, Schultz E, Sorvari J, Salminen J, Huotari T, Reinikainen J, Hänninen P, Leveinen J, Heino M, Lintinen P. Demonstration of the use of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as a remediation technology-DEMO-MNA. In Proceedings of the 1st Joint Nordic Meeting on Remediation of Contaminated Sites-NORDROCS, September 20-21, 2006. Malmö, Sweden, 2006. Available at: http://www.renaremark.se/nordrocs/presentations/, Accessed on September 2, 2010.
45. Jørgensen K, Björklöf K, Reinikainen J, Huotari T, Hänninen P, Huhta P, Leveinen J, Jarva J, Vanhala H, Salminen J, Schultz E, Sorvari J, Holm K, Joutti A, Hellstén P, Heino M, Lintinen P. Demonstration of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as a remediation technology-DEMO-MNA. Pp. 2100-2108 in Uhlmann O, Annokkée GJ, Arendt F (eds). Proceedings of ConSoil 2005; 2005 Oct. 3-7. Bordeaux, France Karlsruhe: FZK, 2005.
46. 40 by Gas Chromatography. Genéve, Switzerland : The International Organization for Standardization, 2004.
47. Newman J. The soil fauna other than protozoa. Pp. 500-525 in Wild A (eds). Russell's Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. Essex, UK : Longman Scientific and Technical, 1988.
48. Reinikainen J. Derivation Basis of Threshold and Guideline Values for Soil. Helsinki, Finland : Edita Publishing Ltd, 2007. The Finnish Environment 23 /2007 [in Finnish with an English abstract]. Available at: http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=251703, Accessed on March 15, 2010.
49. Sorvari J, Reinikainen J. Annex 2. Country Reports. Finland. Pp. 157-63 in Carlon C (eds). Derivation Methods of Soil Screening Values in Europe. A Review and Evaluation of National Procedures Towards Harmonization. Ispra, Italy : Joint Research Centre, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 22805-EN, 2007.
50. Lijzen JPA, Baars AJ, Otte PF, Rikken MGJ, Swartjes FA, Verbruggen EMJ, van Wezel AP. Technical Evaluation of the Intervention Values for Soil/Sediment and Groundwater. Human and Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment and Derivation of Risk Limits for Soil, Aquatic Sediment and Groundwater. Bilthoven, the Netherlands : National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, RIVM Report 711701 023, 2001.
51. Verbruggen EMJ, Poshumus R, van Wezel AP. Ecotoxicological Serious Risk Concentrations for Soil, Sediment and (Ground)Water: Updated Proposals for First Series of Compounds. Bilthoven, the Netherlands : National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM Report 711701 020, 2001.
52. Carlon C (eds). Derivation Methods of Soil Screening Values in Europe. A Review and Evaluation of National Procedures Towards Harmonization. Ispra, Italy : Joint Research Centre, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 22805-EN, 2007.
53. Verbruggen EMJ, Beek M, Pijnenburg J, Traas TP. Ecotoxicological environmental risk limits for total petroleum hydrocarbons on the basis of internal lipid concentrations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2008; 27:2436-2448.
54. ISO 11269-2. Soil Quality-Determination of the Effects of Pollutants on Soil Flora-Part 1: Effects of Chemicals on the Emergence and Growth of Higher Plants. Genéve, Switzerland : International Organization for Standardization, 1995.
55. ISO 17126. Soil Quality-Determination of the Effects of Pollutants on Soil Flora-Seedling Emergence, Screening Test with Lettuce (Latuca sativa L.). Genéve, Switzerland : International Organization for Standardization, 2005.
56. ISO 20079. Water Quality-Determination of the Toxic Effect of Water Constituents and Waste Water on Duckweed (Lemna minor)-Duckweed Growth Inhibition Test. Genéve, Switzerland : International Organization for Standardization, 2005.
57. ISO 16387. Soil Quality-Effects of Pollutants on Enchytraeidae (Enchytraeus sp.)-Determination of Effects on Reproduction and Survival. Genéve, Switzerland : International Organization for Standardization, 2004.
58. ISO 11268-1. Soil Quality-Soil Quality-Effects of Pollutants on Earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Part 1: Determination of Acute Toxicity Using Artificial Soil Substrate. Genéve, Switzerland : International Organization for Standardization, 1993.
59. ISO 11268-2. Soil Quality-Soil Quality-Effects of Pollutants on Earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Part 2: Determination of Effects on Reproduction. Genéve, Switzerland : International Organization for Standardization, 1999.
60. Edwards W. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics; 1977; 7:326-340.
61. Saaty TL. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York, USA : McGraw-Hill, 1980.
62. Pöyhönen M, Hämäläinen RP. On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 2001; 129:569-585.
63. GTK (Geological Survey of Finland). TAPIR, Valtakunnallinen taustapitoisuusrekisteri. (TAPIR, the National background concentration register), 2009. Available at: http://www.gtk.fi/tapir/, Accessed on January 30, 2010.
64. Van den Berg R, Bockting GJM, Crommentuijn GH, Jansen PJCM. Proposals for Intervention Values for Soil Clean-Up: Second Series of Chemicals. Bilthoven, the Netherlands : National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM Report 715810004, 1994.
65. Van Vlaardingen PLA, Posthumus R, Posthuma-Doodeman CJAM. Environmental Risk Limits for Nine Trace Elements. Bilthoven, the Netherlands : National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM Report 601501029/2005, 2005.
66. CCME. Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil: Scientific Rationale Supporting Technical Document. Canada : Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, PN 1399, 2008.
67. Lukkari T, Haimi J. Avoidance of Cu and Zn contaminated soil by three ecologically different earthworm species. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 2005; 62:35-41.
68. Weisman W (eds). Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental Media, Vol. 1. Amherst, USA : Amherst Scientific Publishers, Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series, 1998.
69. Mikkonen, A. Poikkitieteellistä bioremediaatiotutkimusta Neste Oilin öljypelloilla (Interdisciplinary bioremediation research at Neste Oil oilfields). Presentation in the annual, national contaminated land remediation conference (MUTKU päivät), March 22-23, 2010. Hämeenlinna, Finland Available at: http://www.mutku.fi/uutiset/mutku-p-iv-t-2010, Accessed on April 19, 2010.
70. Insinööritoimisto Paavo Ristola. Trollbergetin kaatopaikkaselvitys 1996 (Study on the landfill site Trollberget 1996). Hollola, Finland : Insinööritoimisto Paavo Ristola, Report 11238 (unpublished), 1996.
71. Björklöf K, Salminen J, Sainio P, Jørgensen K. Degradation rates of aged petroleum hydrocarbons are likely to be mass transfer dependent in the field. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 2008; 30:101-107.
72. Rusk JA, Hamon RE, Stevens DP, McLaughlin MJ. Adaptation of soil biological nitrification to heavy metals. Environmental Science and Technology, 2004; 38:3092-3097.
73. Fisker KV, Sørensen JG, Damgaard C, Ladegaard Pedersen K, Holmstrup M. Genetic adaptation of earthworms to copper pollution: Is adaptation associated with fitness costs in Dendrobaena octaedra? Ecotoxicology, 2011; 20:563-573.