Comparing Deterministic and Probabilistic Risk Assessment at a Coking Plant Site in China

Abstract:

Article Preview

Application of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and deterministic risk assessment (DRA) at a coking plant site were compared. By DRA, Hazard Quotient (HQ) following exposure to Naphthalene (Nap) and Incremental Life Cancer Risk (ILCR) following exposure to Benzo(a)pyrene (Bap) are 1.87 and 2.12×10-4. PRA reveals valuable information regarding the possible distribution of risk, and the outputs show that Nap HQ ranges from 6.18×10-7 to 6.62 and Bap ILCR ranges from 8.67×10-10 to 6.89×10-4. Risk estimates of DRA locates at the 99.59th and 99.76th percentiles in the risk outputs of PRA, indicating the DRA overestimates the risk. Sensitivity analysis was done by calculating a contribution to variance for each exposure parameter and it is found that contaminant concentration in the soil (Cs), exposure duration (ED), soil ingestion rate (IRs) are the most important parameters for risk calculations

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 610-613)

Edited by:

Qunjie Xu, Yanzhong Ju and Honghua Ge

Pages:

798-803

Citation:

X. Y. Jia et al., "Comparing Deterministic and Probabilistic Risk Assessment at a Coking Plant Site in China", Advanced Materials Research, Vols. 610-613, pp. 798-803, 2013

Online since:

December 2012

Export:

Price:

$41.00

* - Corresponding Author

[1] Medical Research Council, Institute for Environment and Health, Risk Assessment and Toxicology Steering Committee: Risk Assessment Approaches Used by UK Government for Evaluating Human Health Effects of Chemicals, (1999).

[2] P.L. Elliott: Use of Risk-Based Decision-Making in UST Corrective Action Programs, (1995).

[3] T.E. McKone: Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Vol. 54 (1996), pp.165-181. (1996).

[4] C.C. Travis, K.R. Obenshain, J.L. Regens, et al: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Vol. 71 (2011), pp.51-60.

[5] US EPA: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume III-Part A (2001).

[6] L. Bonomo, S. Caserini, C. Pozzi, et al: Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 34 (2000), pp.3843-3848.

[7] Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau: Environmental site assessment guideline. (2009). (in Chinese).

[8] X.Y. Jia, L. Jiang, T.X. Xia, et al: Journal of Chemical Industry and Engineering, Vol. 62 (2011), pp.3525-3530. (in Chinese).

[9] Y. Hou, G.C. Hu: Chinese health yearbook 2010, People's Medical Publishing House Publishers (2011). (in Chinese).

[10] S. Avagliano, L. Parrella: Environmental Modelling and Assessment, Vol. 14 (2009), pp.47-57.

[11] Oregen Department of Environmental Quality: Guidance for use of probabilistic analysis in human health risk assessments(1999).

[12] S.G. Jin: Report of Nutrition and Health Condition of Chinese People X: 2002 Nutrition and Health data sets. People's Medical Publishing House Publisher (2008). (in Chinese).

[13] Z.S. Wang, T. Wu, X.L. Duan, et al: Research of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 22 (2009), pp.1171-1175. (in Chinese).

[14] US EPA: Assessing Dermal Exposure form Soil, (1995).

[15] A.C. Cullen: Risk Analysis, Vol. 14 (1994), pp.389-393.

[16] C. Kirman, R.A. Budinsky, L. Yost, et al: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, Vol. 17(2011), pp.125-158.

[17] E.D. Bruce, A.A. Abusalih, T.J. McDonald, et al: Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A Vol. 42 (2007), pp.697-706.

[18] S.M. Kuusisto, T.A. Tuhkanen: Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper Vol. 32(2001), pp.99-105.

[19] R.J. Wenning: Chemosphere, Vol. 46 (2002), pp.779-796.