conceptual model scenarios for the vapor intrusion … and johnson.pdf · the vapor intrusion...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Conceptual Model Scenarios for The Vapor Intrusion Pathway
Lilian Abreu, Ph.D. ARCADIS Inc.
San Francisco, CA
USEPA Vapor Intrusion WorkshopAEHS Conference, March 2010
San Diego, CA
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
Vapor Source
0.01
0.1
0.8
0.7
1E-3
0.9
0.9
0.90.20.1
0.010.10.20.3
2 © 2010 ARCADIS
Presentation Outline
• Objective• Vapor Intrusion (VI) Definition• Brief Description of A&J 3D VI Model • Vapor Fate & Transport Mechanisms• Effect of Site Conditions on VI• Remarks
3 © 2010 ARCADIS
Objective
• Provide an overview of key contaminant vapor fate and transport mechanisms for the vapor intrusion pathway
• Illustrate the effect of different site conditions on VOC concentration distribution in the subsurface and on the indoor air
4 © 2010 ARCADIS
Vapor Intrusion PathwayWhat is it?
1. Source (GW & Soil)2. Volatilization3. Migration through porous4. Infiltration through
building envelope5. Indoor sources can
confound
Contaminated Groundwater PlumeContaminated Groundwater Plume
Vadose Zone SoilsVadose Zone Soils
PAINT
Work BenchWork Bench
BasementBasement
Sewer line or other UtilitiesSewer line or other Utilities
Potentially exposed individualPotentially exposed individual
CracksCracks
CracksCracks
HVACHVACSystemSystem
11
22
33
44
55
Paint CanPaint Can
Courtesy of Chris Lutes
5 © 2010 ARCADIS
Foundation Entry Points
• Floor wall joints• Loose fitting pipes• Floor drains• Cracks in foundation
Abreu, 2005 (adapted from Loureiro, 1987)
6 © 2010 ARCADIS
Type of ContaminantsRecalcitrant
– Very persistent (No degradation or slow degradation under natural conditions)
– Chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g., PCE, TCE)– Degradation products can be more toxic (e.g., Vinyl
chloride)
Aerobically Biodegradable (see presentation in the afternoon) – Readily degradable under natural conditions in the
presence of oxygen– Petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., Benzene, Toluene)– Degradation products less toxic (e.g., H2O, CO2)– Methane byproduct under anaerobic conditions
7 © 2010 ARCADIS
• The three-dimensional transient model solves equations for:
• Soil gas flow
• Multi-species simultaneous vapor transport (e.g., O2, hydrocarbons)
• Reactions (e.g. degradation) in the vadose zone with user-defined kinetics
• Model simulates transient contaminant transport and heterogeneous subsurface conditions
• The model description and results have been published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at several conferences & workshops sponsored by EPA and API.
Abreu & Johnson 3D Model Overview
8 © 2010 ARCADIS
Configurations Handled by the Model
Can evaluate slab on grade or basement construction
Symmetrical scenario with source at the water table or within unsaturated zone
Nonsymmetrical scenario with source at the water table
Nonsymmetrical scenario with source within the unsaturated zone
9 © 2010 ARCADIS
Model Domain and Site Specific Inputs
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x (m)
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
Building type, footprint, crack location and size
Source location, size and strength
Soil characteristics and properties
Building pressurizationand air exchange rate Ground surface
cover type
Vapor source idealized as uniform concentrationOnly vapor transport, No GW transport
10 © 2010 ARCADIS
Presentation of ResultsVertical cross-sections through center of building showing:
Concentration distribution normalized by source-zone vapor concentration VI attenuation factor,
α = Cindoor/ Csource
11 © 2010 ARCADIS
Previously Existing Models1D models (e.g.; Johnson and Ettinger Model)
Simplistic geometry, one-dimensional transport, steady-state conditions, no biodegradation
A&J 3D Model Helped Advance Knowledge onsource-building lateral separation
site heterogeneous conditions,
Sub-foundation vs. near-foundation soil gas
oxygen limited aerobic biodegradation
State-of-Science Advancements
12 © 2010 ARCADIS
Key vapor fate and transport mechanisms
13 © 2010 ARCADIS
Transport due to concentration gradients
Dominant process close to the source
Diffusion
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0.9
0.1
0.01
0.1
0.01
water table
x (m)
1E-4
1E-3
vaporsource
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.30.1
0.01
water table
1E-3
1E-4
vapor source
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
Normalized Vapor Concentration Profiles
14 © 2010 ARCADIS
Advection
Transport due to air pressure gradients
More significant close to the building
Normalized Gauge Pressure Field & Qs
0 2 4 6 8 10 12-12-11-10
-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10
-3-2-10
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
0.01
0.050.10.2
0.050.10.20.3
x (m)0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0.0050.010.050.10.2
0.010.05
0.10.20.3
Qs = 3.1 L/min
Qs = 4.1 L/min
Qs = 1.1 L/min
Qs = 2.1 L/min
Crack on Perimeter of Slab Crack on Center of Slab
15 © 2010 ARCADIS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x (m)
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x (m)
-8
-6
-4
-2
0D
epth
bgs
(m)
a) Hydrocarbon
b) Oxygen
α bio = 1.1 x 10-13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x (m)
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x (m)
-8
-6
-4
-2
0D
epth
bgs
(m)
a) Hydrocarbon
b) Oxygen
α bio = 1.1 x 10-13
(Abreu and Johnson, 2005 & 2006)
Aerobic Biodegradation
Decomposition of contaminants by microorganisms within vadose zoneMay significantly affect contaminant fate & transportOxygen distribution within vadose zone is key
(see afternoon section)
16 © 2010 ARCADIS
Effect of different site conditions on the VI pathway
This presentation focus on recalcitrant compounds, the afternoon presentation focus on
aerobically biodegradable petroleum hydrocarbons
Steady-state conditions presented firstTransient conditions presented later
17 © 2010 ARCADIS
Source Vapor Concentration
Higher source concentration results in higher concentrations in subsurface gas and indoor air (if there is vapor intrusion and all other conditions are the same)
Vapor source Vapor source
Vapor source
(x1,000) (x100,000)
For recalcitrant compounds, normalized concentrations and α are independent of source concentration
18 © 2010 ARCADIS
Steady pressurization
If building is under-pressurized the air flows from soil into building and may lead to higher sub-slab and indoor air concentrations
If building is over-pressurized the air flows from building into soil and may lead to lower indoor air and sub-slab concentrations (if indoor air is clean)
Building Pressurization
Vapor source Vapor source
Vapor sourceVapor source
19 © 2010 ARCADIS
Increased source depth results in decrease in α(i.e., greater attenuation) • Non-linear relationship
Sub-slab concentrations and α for buildings with basements are slightly higher than slab-on-grade construction
Source Depth & Building Type
-3-2-10 0.10.2
0.70.9
0.10.20.5
0.7
0.9
0.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
α = 1.7Ε−3 α = 1.2Ε−3
α = 5.7Ε−4 α = 2.8Ε−4
0.8
0.6
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
x (m)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.10.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.20.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Vapor source Vapor source
Vapor sourceVapor source
20 © 2010 ARCADIS
A 20 m (66 ft) lateral distance separation results in decrease in α by five orders of magnitude
Source Lateral DistanceShallow Groundwater
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-3-2-10
1E-41E-5
0.011E-3
0.30.2
0.5
0.10.4
0.9
α = 4.2Ε−8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-3-2-10
1E-4 1E-50.01
1E-30.6
0.20.10.4
0.9
α = 1.9Ε−3
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
x (m)
Vapor source
Vapor source
21 © 2010 ARCADIS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1E-41E-5 0.011E-3
0.30.2
0.5
0.10.4
0.9
α = 1.3Ε−5
0.60.70.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1E-4
0.011E-3
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.40.7
0.9
0.8
α = 1.2Ε−3
Dep
th b
gs (m
)D
epth
bgs
(m)
x (m)
Vapor source
Vapor source
A 20 m (66 ft) lateral distance separation results in decrease in α by two orders of magnitude
Source Lateral Distance Deep Groundwater
22 © 2010 ARCADIS
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x (m)
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
1E-41E-5 0.011E-3
0.30.2
0.5
0.10.4
0.9
0.60.70.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
0.011E-3
0.2
0.60.1
0.1
0.7
0.9
0.8
1E-30.01
0.3
Changes in α with Source Position
α = 1.2 x 10-3 α = 8.4 x 10-4
α = 2.3 x 10-4 α = 1.3 x 10-5
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
α
3 m bgs (basement)3 m bgs (slab-on-grade)8 m bgs (basement)8 m bgs (slab-on-grade)
source zone no longer beneath building
Source Edge - Building Center Separation (m)
10 m x 10 m building footprintsource size 30 m x 30 m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
1E-4
0.011E-3
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.40.7
0.9
0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
x (m)
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
1E-4
0.011E-3
0.2
0.60.1
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.1
23 © 2010 ARCADIS
α
Source Depth & Lateral DistanceUnder equal
conditionsEffect of lateral distance separation is more significant for shallow source scenariosSource depth has small effect when building is above source areaBldg. construction has small impact
Abreu and Johnson, EST 2005
Shallow GW
Deep GW
24 © 2010 ARCADIS
Other Considerations…
Site conditions may lead to opposite finding:
Source locationSurface sealBuilding ventilationMultiple sourcesSoil lithology
Under equal conditions, α for slab-on-grade building is smaller than for basement
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
α = 1.2Ε−3 α = 6Ε−4
0.010.20.10.01
0.8
0.20.1
0.9
0.60.3 0.30.7
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0
x (m)
α = 2.2Ε−4α = 4.3Ε−5
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
α = 4.3Ε−5α = 1.7Ε−5
0.9
0.01
0.20.1
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.60.3
0.20.1
1E-31E-4
0.011E-31E-4
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
Impermeablecover
Vapor source
Vapor source
Vapor source
25 © 2010 ARCADIS
Building Conditions & Ventilation
Other building related factors also affect the indoor air concentrations (or αvalues)
Presence or absence of cracks Building ventilation (i.e., air exchange rate and building air flow rates)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0
α = 8.6Ε−4
No cracks or openingsIncomplete pathway
Building A
α = 0 α = 2.2Ε−4
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
Buildings B and C
α = 0 α = 6.4Ε−6 α = 4.3Ε−6
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
A B C
A B C
Full length perimeter cracks
Building B Cp (Pa) 1 7Qs (L/min) 1 7.3AER (1/h) 1 0.25Qbdg (m3/h) 300 75
Scenario 2
Vapor Source
0.90.80.7
0.5
0.6
0.90.80.7
0.1
0.20.5
0.6
0.01
1E-3
1E-4
1E-5
Building B Cp (Pa) 5 5Qs (L/min) 5.2 5.2AER (1/h) 0.25 1Qbdg (m3/h) 62.5 250
Scenario 1
Vapor Source
0.90.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.90.80.7
0.5
0.6
0.90.80.7
0.50.6
0.40.30.2
0.10.1 0.10.1
26 © 2010 ARCADIS
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
x (m)
y (m
)-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Vapor Source
6,000
Vapor Source
9,000
8,000
1,000
2,00
0
100
9,00
06,000
Vertical Cross-Section View
Plan View at 5 m bgs
1,000
100
1,00
0 2,0001,000
2,000100
Vapor source zone footprint
4,000
IA = 1.1 ug/m3
1,000
IA = 7.7 ug/m3
10,000
10,000
Multiple Sources
Identifying multiple sources and their locations is key in understanding contaminant distribution and identifying buildings with potentially higher VI risks
27 © 2010 ARCADIS
Layered Soils
Moist, fine-grained soils may act as diffusive barrier
Higher concentration belowLower concentration above
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
Qs = 3.2 L/min
Qs = 1.9 L/min
x (m)
Qs= 4 L/min
Sand
Sand
Silt
Sand
Silt
Vapor source
Vapor source
Vapor source
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.20.3
0.40.60.7
0.8
0.9
0.50.60.9
0.10.20.3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12-8
-6
-4
-2
0 α = 9.7Ε−4
α = 3.0Ε−4
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
x (m)
α = 1.2Ε−3
CMSCMS ResultsResults
28 © 2010 ARCADIS
Layered Soils & Lateral Source
High moisture content layer on ground surface may result in slight increase of lateral vapor migration
ResultsCMS
High moisture content layer above the vapor source may significantly decrease vapor migration
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
x (m)
Qs = 4 L/min
Qs = 3.8 L/min
Qs = 2.3 L/min
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1E-41E-5 0.011E-3
0.30.2
0.5
0.10.4
0.9
α = 1.3Ε−5
0.60.70.8
α = 4.3Ε−7
1E-51E-4
0.011E-3 0.1
0.9
1E-7 1E-6
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0.20.5
0.1 0.4
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.011E-3
α = 7.6Ε−5
0.2
x (m)
Vapor source
Vapor source
Vapor source
Sand
Silt
Sand
Sand
Silt
α = 4.3E-7
α = 7.6E-5
α = 1.3E-5
Qs= 3.8 L/min
Qs= 2.3 L/min
Qs= 4 L/min
29 © 2010 ARCADIS
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
A
B
Qs = 4 L/min Qs = 4 L/min
Qs = 3.9 L/minQs = 3.3 L/min
Qsoil = 3.5 L/min Qsoil = 4.0 L/min
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0 C
x (m)
Heterogeneous SubsurfaceCMS
x (m)
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0α = 1.2Ε−3 α = 1.2Ε−3
0.01
0.8
0.2 0.1
0.9
0.01
0.8
0.20.1
0.9
0.70.70.3 0.3
α = 1.1Ε−3α = 3.0Ε−4
0.01
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.1 0.3
0.01
0.1
0.1
0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100-8
-6
-4
-2
0α = 7.0Ε−5 α = 1.0Ε−3
0.01
0.1
0.8
0.7
1E-3
0.9
0.9
0.90.20.1
0.010.10.20.3
Silt
Sand
Sand
Results
Sand
Clay
Results in spatial variability of soil gas concentration distribution
Vapor source
Vapor source
Vapor source
Qs= 4 L/min
Qs= 3.5 L/min Qs= 4 L/min
Qs= 3.9 L/min
Qs= 4 L/min
Qs= 3.3 L/min
α = 1.2E-3 α = 1.2E-3
α = 1.1E-3α = 3.0E-4
α = 7.0E-5 α = 1.0E-3
30 © 2010 ARCADIS
Steady Wind LoadCan create non-uniform distribution of sub-slab concentrations
20 25 30 35 4020
25
30
35
40
y (m
)
101
0.1
20 25 30 35 40
0.11
110
150
x (m)
Hydrocarbon subslab concentration
20 25 30 35 4020
25
30
35
40
y (m
)
0
0.1
1
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
mg/L
NE wind (11 miles/h) North wind (11 miles/h)Kg = 1E-10 m2
Building footprintSlab on grade
31 © 2010 ARCADIS
Transient Transport by DiffusionProfiles & Time Since Source Release
Moisture content retards the migration of contaminants
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1 year
3 years
1 month .
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
0.01
1E-3
0.01
1E-70.20.1
0.01
0.30.40.5
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.30.40.50.6
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.20.1
0.01
0.3
0.20.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
Sandα = 1.4Ε−6 α = 8.0Ε−21
α = 4.3Ε−7α = 3.3Ε−5
α = 3.8Ε−5 α =9.0Ε−6
0.9
0.9
0.90.90.7
0.7
SiltEffect of Soil Moisture Content
32 © 2010 ARCADIS
Transient Transport by DiffusionProfiles & Time Since Source Release
Chemical sorption to soil particles retards the migration of the contaminant
Effect of foc & koc
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12-8
-6
-4
-2
0
1 year
3 years
1 month
Dep
th b
gs (m
)
x (m)
α = 3.3Ε−5
α = 3.8Ε−5
α = 7.7Ε−8
α =5.7Ε−6
1E-4
0.01
1E-3
0.01
1E-70.20.1
0.01
0.30.40.5
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.30.40.50.6
0.2
0.7
0.1
0.20.1
0.01
0.3
0.20.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
foc = 0.001, koc = 60 cm /g3 foc = 0.005, koc = 600 cm /g3
α = 1.4Ε−6 α = 1Ε−21
foc = fraction of organic carbon in soil
koc = sorption coefficient of chemical to organic carbon
33 © 2010 ARCADIS
Time to Reach Steady-State by DiffusionTime is affected by
Source depth & lateral distanceSoil moisture & focContaminant properties (koc)
Non-retarded Time to Reach Near SS
Johnson et al. (1999)
⎟⎟⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜⎜⎜
⎝
⎛ ⋅⋅++=
nHg
bocfnocK
nHg
wvR
φ
ρ
φ
φ ,1
Multiply τss/Rv byChemical retardation factor
clay
sand
34 © 2010 ARCADIS
Transient Pressure Fluctuations
Fluctuations in building pressurization can affect the transport of soil gas into buildings as the air flow direction is reversed
Atmospheric Pressure Fluctuations
101,225
101,250
101,275
101,300
101,325
101,350
101,375
0 5 10 15 20
time (h)
Abs
olut
e pr
essu
re (P
a)
Δ=100 Pa
Pressure difference indoor-sub-slab air
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
0 5 10 15 20
time (h)
Pind
oor-P
sub-
slab
(Pa)
kg = 1E-11 m2 kg = 1E-12 m2
(+) Building over-pressurized
Air flow through slab crack
-5
-2.5
0
2.5
5
0 5 10 15 20
time (h)
Air
flow
(L/m
in)
kg = 1E-11 m2 kg = 1E-12 m2
(+) Flow from subsurface to building
35 © 2010 ARCADIS
Fluctuations in Water Table Elevation
Groundwater sourceGroundwater source
Groundwater source
Contaminated soilClean soil
Rising Falling Original
Clean groundwater
Contaminated soil
Original Rising Falling
Contaminated groundwater
Contaminated groundwater
Residual soil source
Schematic illustration (Not model simulated)
Fluctuations in the water table elevation may affect the distribution of contaminants in the subsurface and the source-foundation separation
Soil Source
Groundwater Source
36 © 2010 ARCADIS
RemarksVOC concentration distribution in the subsurface may not be uniform and can exhibit spatial and temporal variability (including the sub-slab concentration distribution).Factors that influence subsurface contaminant distribution and indoor air concentration:
Source concentration, depth and lateral distanceSoil physical propertiesSite geology (i.e., subsurface heterogeneities)Building conditions (construction, pressure, AER)Surface seal (impermeable cover)Time since contaminant release occurredAerobic biodegradation (see afternoon presentation)
37 © 2010 ARCADIS
RemarksThese vapor intrusion conceptual model scenarios can help practitioners develop a site-specific conceptual model, plan VI investigations, and interpret the results.The presented simulations are based on idealized and simplified assumptions about conceptual model scenarios to illustrate VI processes. These scenarios may not be representative of site-specific conditions, but may be used to guide site-specific VI evaluations.