Research on application of PRA in health risk assessment of soil in a coking plant site

Research of Environmental Sciences

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 220-226

  Jiang, Lin ^a,b,c   Jia, Xiao Yang ^a,b,c   Xia, Tian Xiang ^a,b,c   Yao, Jue Jun ^a,b,c   Liang, Jing ^a,b,c   Wang, Qi ^a,b,c  

^a BEIJING MUNICIPAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION   (China)

^b National Urban Environment Pollution Control Engineering Techniques Research Center   (China)

^c Beijing Key Laboratory for Risk Modeling and Remediation of Contaminated Sites   (China)

Author keywords

Coking plant; Contaminated soil; Health risk assessment; PRA; Sensitivity analysis

Indexed keywords

BENZENE; COKE PLANTS; HEALTH RISKS; PYRENE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOILS;

CONTAMINATED SOILS; EXPOSURE DURATIONS; EXPOSURE PARAMETERS; HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT; PARAMETER SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION; PRA; PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT;

SOIL POLLUTION;

EID: 84877323658     PISSN: 10016929     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. National Research Council. Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process [M]. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1983.
2. 2004.
3. DB 11/T 656-2009, 2010.
4. 2006, 43(1): 142-151.
5. 2011, 23(3): 14-18.
6. US EPA. Risk assessment guidance for superfund (volume III): Part a. process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment [R]. Washington DC: US EPA, 2001.
7. US EPA. Risk assessment guidance for superfund (volume I): Part a. human health evaluation manual [R]. Washington DC: US EPA, 1989.
8. CARACAS. Risk assessment for contaminated sites in Europe (volume 1): scientific basis [M]. Nottingham: LQM Press, 1998.
9. National Research Council. Science and judgment in risk assessment [M]. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1994.
10. LEE R C, KISSEL J C. Probabilistic prediction of exposures to arsenic contaminated residential soil [J]. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 1995, 17: 159-168.
11. MORGAN M G, HENRION M, SMALL M. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
12. US EPA. Policy for use of probabilistic analysis in risk assessment [R]. Washington DC: US EPA, 1997.
13. GRIFFIN S, GOODRUM P E, DIAMOND G L, et al. Application of a probabilistic risk assessment methodology to a lead smelter site [J]. Human Ecology Risk Assessment, 1999, 5(4): 845-868.
14. PAUSTENBACH D J, MEYER D M, SHEEHAN P J, et al. An assessment and quantitative uncertainty analysis of the health risks to workers exposed to chromium contaminated soils [J]. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 1991, 7(3): 159-196.
15. TAKEDA S, KANNO M, MINASE N, et al. Estimates of parameter and scenario uncertainties in shallow-land disposal of uranium wastes using deterministic and probabilistic safety assessment models [J]. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 2002, 39(8): 929-937.
16. WANG Bin, YU Gang, HUANG Jun, et al. Probabilistic ecological risk assessment of OCPs, PCBs, and DLCs in the Haihe River, China [J]. The Scientific World Journal, 2010, 10: 1307-1317.
17. DOR F, EMPEREUR-BISSONNET P, ZMIROU D, et al. Validation of multimedia models assessing exposure to PAHs: the SOLEX study [J]. Risk Analysis, 2003, 23(5): 1047-1057.
18. BONOMO L, CASERINI S, POZZI C, et al. Target cleanup levels at the site of a former manufactured gas plant in northern Italy: deterministic versus probabilistic results [J]. Environ Sci Technol, 2000, 34: 3843-3848.
19. COPELAND T L, PAUSTENBACH D J, HARRIS M A, et al. Comparing the results of a Monte Carlo analysis with EPA's reasonable maximum exposed individual (RMEI): a case study of a former wood treatment site [J]. Regulatory Toxicology Pharmacology, 1993, 18(2): 275-312.
20. 2007, 28(7): 1409-1415.
21. 2012, 25(5): 526-532.
22. 2011, 62(12): 3525-3531.
23. 2012, 25(6): 717-723.
24. 2012 [2012-09-19]. http://www.crccsr.com/detail.asp?id=64.
25. 2011.
26. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Guidance for use of probabilistic analysis in human health risk [R]. Portland: DEQ, 1998.
27. BRUCE E D, ABUSALIH A A, MCDONALD T J, et al. Comparing deterministic and probabilistic risk assessments for sites contaminated by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [J]. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A, 2007, 42: 697-706.
28. 2008.
29. D/F) in soil through deterministic and probabilistic risk assessment of exposure and toxicity [J]. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 2011, 17: 125-158.
30. 2009, 22(10): 1171-1175.
31. Ministry for the Environment. Draft toxicological intake values for priority contaminants in soil [R]. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment, 2011.
32. 2012, 7(3): 277-284.
33. 2009, 22(12): 1445-1452.
34. KUUSISTO S M, TUHKANER T A. Probabilistic risk assessment of a contaminated site [J]. Geological Survey of Finland, 2001, 32: 99-105.
35. SANDER P, OBERG T. Comparing deterministic and probabilistic risk assessments [J]. Journal of Soils and Sendiments, 2006, 6(1): 55-61.
36. OBERG T, BERGBACK B. A review of probabilistic risk assessment of contaminated land [J]. Journal of Soils and Sendiments, 2005, 5(4): 213-224.
37. CULLEN A C. Measures of compounding conservatism in probabilistic risk assessment [J]. Risk Analysis, 1994, 14(4): 390-393.
38. WEIGAND H, TOTSCHE K U, HUWE B, et al. PAH mobility in contaminated industrial soils: a Markov chain approach to the spatial variability of soil properties and PAH levels [J]. Geoderma, 2001, 102(3/4): 371-389.
39. 2001: 96-97.