Home Air exchange rates and alternative vapor entry pathways to inform vapor intrusion exposure risk assessments
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Air exchange rates and alternative vapor entry pathways to inform vapor intrusion exposure risk assessments

  • Rivka Reichman , Mohammadyousef Roghani , Evan J. Willett , Elham Shirazi and Kelly G. Pennell EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 12, 2016

Abstract

Vapor intrusion (VI) is a term used to describe indoor air (IA) contamination that occurs due to the migration of chemical vapors in the soil and groundwater. The overall vapor transport process depends on several factors such as contaminant source characteristics, subsurface conditions, building characteristics, and general site conditions. However, the classic VI conceptual model does not adequately account for the physics of airflow around and inside a building and does not account for chemical emissions from alternative “preferential” pathways (e.g. sewers and other utility connections) into IA spaces. This mini-review provides information about recent research related to building air exchange rates (AERs) and alternative pathways to improve the accuracy of VI exposure risk assessment practices. First, results from a recently published AER study for residential homes across the United States (US) are presented and compared to AERs recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The comparison shows considerable differences in AERs when season, location, building age, and other factors are considered. These differences could directly impact VI assessments by influencing IA concentration measurements. Second, a conceptual model for sewer gas entry into buildings is presented and a summary of published field studies is reported. The results of the field studies suggest that alternative pathways for vapors to enter indoor spaces warrant consideration. Ultimately, the information presented in this mini-review can be incorporated into a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach for assessing site-specific VI exposure risks.

  1. Research funding: The project described was supported by Grant Number P42ES007380 (University of Kentucky Superfund Research Program) from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and by Grant Number 1452800 from the National Science Foundation. Conflict of interest: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation.

References

1. Eklund BM. International approaches to vapor intrusion: a preview of A&WMA’s third vapor intrusion specialty conference. Air and Waste Management Association News, 2007:32–4.Search in Google Scholar

2. Kapuscinski R. Highlights of and some perspectives about the OSWER Technical Guide and unmet VI R&D needs. Presented at EPA/AEHS Workshop: Recalcitrant Chemical VI: Reducing Intrusion Risks and Costs, Association of Environmental Health Sciences (AEHS), San Diego, CA, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. USEPA Draft guidance for evaluating the vapor intrusion to indoor air pathway from groundwater and soils. EPA 530-D-02-004, 2002. Available at: http://www.envirogroup.com/vaporintrusion/PDF/appd-f.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. OSWER technical guide for assessing and mitigating the vapor intrusion pathway from subsurface vapor sources to indoor air. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2015. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/oswer-vapor-intrusion-technical-guide-final.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA’s vapor intrusion database: evaluation and characterization of attenuation factors for chlorinated volatile organic compounds and residential buildings. EPA-530-R-10-002. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

6. Holton C, Luo H, Dahlen P, Gorder, K, Dettenmaier E, et al. Temporal variability of indoor air concentrations under natural conditions in a house overlying a dilute chlorinated solvent groundwater plume. Environ Sci Technol 2013;47:13347−54.10.1021/es4024767Search in Google Scholar

7. Johnson PC, Ettinger EA. Heuristic model for predicting the intrusion rate of contaminant vapors into buildings. Environ Sci Technol 1991;25:1445–52.10.1021/es00020a013Search in Google Scholar

8. Abreu LD, Johnson PC. Effect of vapor source – building separation and building construction on soil vapor intrusion as studied with a three-dimensional numerical model. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39:4550–61.10.1021/es049781kSearch in Google Scholar

9. Abreu LD, Johnson PC. Simulating the effect of aerobic biodegradation on soil vapor intrusion into buildings: influence of degradation rate, source concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:2304–15.10.1021/es051335pSearch in Google Scholar

10. Pennell KG, Bozkurt O, Suuberg EM. Development and application of a three-dimensional finite element vapor intrusion model. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2009;59(4):447−60.10.3155/1047-3289.59.4.447Search in Google Scholar

11. Bozkurt O, Pennel, KG, Suuberg EM. Simulation of the vapor intrusion process for nonhomogeneous soils using a three-dimensional numerical model. Ground Water Monit Remediat 2009;29(1):92–104.10.1111/j.1745-6592.2008.01218.xSearch in Google Scholar

12. Shirazi E, Roghani M, Pennell KG. Wind effects and vapor intrusion exposure risks. Poster presented at the Association of Environmental Health Sciences (AEHS), San Diego, CA, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

13. Luo H. Field and modeling studies of soil gas migration into buildings at petroleum hydrocarbon impacted sites. Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

14. Riley WJ, Robinson AL, Gadgil AJ, Nazaroff WW. Effects of steady wind speeds on radon-222 entry from soil into buildings. Atmos Environ 1996;30(7):1167–76.10.1016/1352-2310(95)00248-0Search in Google Scholar

15. Riley WJ, Robinson AL, Gadgil AJ, Nazaroff WW. Effects of variable wind speed and direction on radon transport from soil into buildings: model development and exploratory results. Atmos Environ 1999;33:2157–68.10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00374-4Search in Google Scholar

16. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE handbook of fundamentals. ASHRAE Inc., Atlanta, GA, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

17. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure factors handbook – 2011 Edition. Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-090/052F Washington, DC, 2011. Available at: www.epa.gov/ncea/efh/pdfs/efh-complete.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

18. Koontz MD, Rector HE. Estimation of distributions for residential air exchange rates. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.Search in Google Scholar

19. Isaacs K, Burke J, Smith L, Williams R. Identifying housing and meteorological conditions influencing residential air exchange rates in the DEARS and RJOPA studies: development of distributions for human exposure modeling. J Exposure Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013:23:248–58.10.1038/jes.2012.131Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Chan W, Nazaroff W, Price P, Sohn M, Gadgil A. Analyzing a database of residential air leakage in the United States. Atmos Environ 2005;39:3445–55.10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.01.062Search in Google Scholar

21. Reichman R, Pennell KG. The effect of air exchange rate on vapor intrusion exposure risks. Proceeding of Air Quality Measurement Methods and Technology, Air and Waste Management Association, Chapel Hill, NC, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

22. Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP). Focus: detecting and mitigating vapor intrusion. 2016;124(8):A141–6.10.1289/ehp.124-A141Search in Google Scholar

23. American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE report card for America’s infrastructure. 2013.Search in Google Scholar

24. United States Geological Survey. USGS Circular 1292, Chapter 5 – Additional Information for Selected VOCs, April 2006. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/vocs/national_assessment/report/chapter5.html.Search in Google Scholar

25. Jacobs J, Jacobs O, Pennell KG. One alternate exposure pathway of VOC vapors from contaminated subsurface environments into indoor air – legacy sewer plumbing systems. Feature article in the spring 2015 Groundwater Resources Association of California (GRAC) Newsletter. Available at: http://www.clearwatergroup.com/GRAC%20Hydrovision%20Spring%202015.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

26. Izzo VJ. Dry cleaners – a major source of PCE in ground water, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, 1992.Search in Google Scholar

27. Distler M, Mazierski P. Soil vapor migration through subsurface utilities, Presented at Air & Waste Management Association, Vapor Intrusion Specialty Conference, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

28. Riis CE, Christensen AG, Hansen MH, Husum H. Vapor Intrusion through sewer systems: migration pathways of chlorinated solvents from groundwater to indoor air. Presented at the Seventh Battelle International Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, 2010. Available at: http://indoorairproject.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/sgs-attachment-1.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

29. Pennell KG, Scammell MK, McClean MD, Ames J, Weldon B, et al. Sewer gas: an indoor air source of PCE to consider during vapor intrusion investigations. Ground Water Monit Rem 2013;33(3):119–26.10.1111/gwmr.12021Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

30. McHugh T, Kuder T, Fiorenza S, Gorder K, Dettenmaier E, et al. Application of CSIA to distinguish between vapor intrusion and indoor sources of VOCs, Environ Sci Technol 2011;45:5952–8.10.1021/es200988dSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

31. Gorder KA, Dettenmaier EM. Portable GC/MS methods to evaluate sources of CVOC contamination in indoor Air. Ground Water Monit Rem 2011;31(4):113–9.10.1111/j.1745-6592.2011.01357.xSearch in Google Scholar

32. Guo Y, Holton C, Luo H, Dahlen P, Gorder K, et al. Identification of alternative vapor intrusion pathways using controlled pressure testing, soil gas monitoring, and screening model calculations. Environ Sci Technol 2015;49:13472−82.10.1021/acs.est.5b03564Search in Google Scholar PubMed

33. Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO). Why more investigation is needed west of the MEW plume an introduction to groundwater and its contamination pathways. 2014.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-8-4
Accepted: 2016-9-22
Published Online: 2016-11-12
Published in Print: 2017-3-1

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Environmental challenges in Central and Eastern Europe
  4. Mini Reviews
  5. The CEECHE: a practical approach for reducing exposures and disease outcomes in Central and Eastern Europe
  6. Perinatal health in the Danube region – new birth cohort justified
  7. Building multi-country collaboration on watershed management: lessons on linking environment and public health from the Western Balkans
  8. An open-sourced statistical application for identifying complex toxicological interactions of environmental pollutants
  9. Air exchange rates and alternative vapor entry pathways to inform vapor intrusion exposure risk assessments
  10. Review Articles
  11. Sustainable exposure prevention through innovative detection and remediation technologies from the NIEHS Superfund Research Program
  12. Future of environmental research in the age of epigenomics and exposomics
  13. Linking childhood allergic asthma phenotypes with endotype through integrated systems biology: current evidence and research needs
  14. Impact of nutrition on pollutant toxicity: an update with new insights into epigenetic regulation
  15. Environmental PAH exposure and male idiopathic infertility: a review on early life exposures and adult diagnosis
  16. The association of peripubertal serum concentrations of organochlorine chemicals and blood lead with growth and pubertal development in a longitudinal cohort of boys: a review of published results from the Russian Children’s Study
  17. Epigenomic reprogramming in inorganic arsenic-mediated gene expression patterns during carcinogenesis
  18. Emerging roles of xenobiotic detoxification enzymes in metabolic diseases
  19. Recent advances on iron oxide magnetic nanoparticles as sorbents of organic pollutants in water and wastewater treatment
  20. Review of heavy metal accumulation on aquatic environment in Northern East Mediterrenean Sea part I: some essential metals
  21. Original Articles
  22. Sensemaking, stakeholder discord, and long-term risk communication at a US Superfund site
  23. Valuing environmental health for informed policy-making
  24. How serious are health impacts in one of the most polluted regions of Central Europe?
  25. The results of interconnection of the evidence of professional exposure to genotoxic factors (regex) and cancer registry in the Czech Republic
  26. The impact of selected environmental, behavioral and psychosocial factors on schoolchildren’s somatic and mental health
  27. Markers of lipid oxidative damage among office workers exposed intermittently to air pollutants including nanoTiO2 particles
  28. Determinants of ETS exposure in a sample of Slovak pregnant women
  29. Respiratory toxicity of Fe3O4 nanoparticles: experimental study
  30. Exposure of children to phthalates and the impact of consumer practices in Slovakia
  31. Metal contamination in environmental media in residential areas around Romanian mining sites
Downloaded on 16.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2016-0039/html
Scroll to top button