Wipe Sampling Methodologies to Assess Exposure to Lead and Cadmium in Urban Canadian Homes
Lauren McDonald, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Pat Rasmussen, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Marc Chenier, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Christine Levesque, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Report of Mercury Deposition from Rain and Snow in Virginia
Douglas Mose, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
James Metcalf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Media Filtration of Metals in Runoff Water from a Small Arm Shooting Range, in situ
Arnljot E. Strømseng, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Kjeller, Norway
Marita Ljønes, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Kjeller, Norway
Espen Mariussen, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Kjeller, Norway

Impact of Spatial Interpolation Methods for the Soil Heavy Metal Contaminated Area Estimating
Yunfeng Xie, Chinese Academy of Science (CAS), Beijing, P.R.China
Tongbin Chen, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS), Beijing, P.R.China
Mei Lei, Doctor, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS), Beijing, P.R.China
Bo Song, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS), Beijing, P.R.China
Xiaoyan Li, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS), Beijing, P.R.China

Sampling and Statistical Analysis of Background Mercury Groundwater Concentrations in an Industrial-Commercial Area
A. Curtis Weeden, AECOM Environment, Westford, MA
Karen Madsen, AECOM Environment, Westford, MA
Brian Harootyan, AECOM Environment, Cincinnati, OH

Mercury Testing in Soil Gas and Ambient Air using Passive Vapor Sampling
James E. Whetzel, W. L. Gore and Associates, Inc., Elkton, MD

Wipe Sampling Methodologies to Assess Exposure to Lead and Cadmium in Urban Canadian Homes

Student Presenter

Lauren McDonald, M.Sc. Candidate, University of Ottawa, Earth Sciences Department,  140 Louis Pasteur, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada, Tel: 613-954-9781, Fax: 613-952-8133, Email: lmcdo034@uottawa.ca
Pat E. Rasmussen, Health Canada, 50 Columbine Dr, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9, Canada, Tel: 613- 941-9868, Fax: 613-952-8133, Email: pat_rasmussen@hc-sc.gc.ca
Marc Chénier, Health Canada, 50 Columbine Dr, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9, Canada, Tel: 613- 562-5800 x4761, Fax: 613-952-8133, Email: marc_chenier@hc-sc.gc.ca
Christine Levesque, Health Canada, 50 Columbine Dr, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0K9, Canada, Tel: 613-948-8425, Fax: 613-952-8133, Email: christine_levesque@hc-sc.gc.ca

Wipe sampling methods are widely used to quantify lead (Pb) loadings inside homes and to assess childhood exposures to Pb caused by ingestion of settled dust.  In the present study we expand the wipe sampling method to investigate other elements in addition to Pb, namely cadmium (Cd) and the soil tracer yttrium (Y).

Following the ASTM 1728 sampling protocol, 1372 wipe samples were collected from 222 homes using Ghost Wipes™.  Within each home, samples were collected from central locations in non-carpeted rooms, including the kitchen, entry way, living room, and bedrooms.  Field blanks and field duplicates were collected in each home.  All wipe samples were digested according to a modified version of the ASTM 1644 digestion protocol in which hydrofluoric acid was added to enhance extraction efficiency, and analyzed using ICP-MS.  Recoveries assessed using NIST certified reference materials were 93 ± 6% for Pb (n=66) and 88 ± 14% for Cd (n=66).

Results indicated that 41% of Pb values and 21% of Cd values were below the limit of detection (8.0 ng m-2 and 1.1 ng m-2 respectively).  A threshold value for Pb was identified at the inflection point of 1100 ng m-2 in the cumulative probability plot, which coincided with the 95th percentile.  Similarly, a threshold value for Cd was identified at 37 ng m-2.  Indoor sources (e.g. paint, hobbies) and tracked-in soil were identified as potential contributors to elevated Pb and Cd values (above threshold).  Spearman ranking indicated moderate to strong spatial associations amongst Pb, Cd, and Y. 

This is the first published dataset for background Pb and Cd wipe samples in urban Canadian homes.  The study shows that wipe sampling provides useful information on room-to-room variability of metals, shedding light on possible sources of metals in residential environments.

Report of Mercury Deposition from Rain and Snow in Virginia

 Douglas Mose, College of Science, and James Metcalf, College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: 703-273-2282, Fax: 703-273-2282, Email: dje42@aol.com

 Automated stations to collect rain and snow have been used for several years to quantify the weekly amount of mercury in rain and snow, and the weekly amount of precipitation, over much of the United States. Data from the Virginia collection sites in central and west-central Virginia are compiled and may be compared constantly to the on-line data reported from all the collection sites. While the sources for mercury in the atmosphere are numerous, most comes from coal-burning electrical power plants. While other infrequent but locally significant sources of mercury exist, none are known in central Virginia. Data show that the atmospheric content of mercury increases during prolonged intervals without precipitation (several weeks without any rain or snow), and that the atmospheric content of mercury is exceptionally low following unusually prolonged precipitation events (several days of very heavy rain or snow). The regional variations of atmospheric precipitation do not serve to identify any particular source of mercury (e.g., a particular power plant), but instead indicate significant mixing of atmospheric mercury.

Media Filtration of Metals in Runoff Water from a Small Arm Shooting Range, in situ

Arnljot E. Strømseng, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Instituttvn 20, N-2027 Kjeller, Norway. Tel: +47 63807868, Fax: +47 63807115 Email: arnljot.stromseng@ffi.no
Marita Ljønes, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Instituttvn 20, N-2027 Kjeller, Norway. Tel: +47 63807868, Fax: +47 63807115 Email: marita.ljones@ffi.no
Espen Mariussen, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Instituttvn 20, N-2027 Kjeller, Norway. Tel: +47 63807891, Fax: +47 63807115 Email: espen.mariussen@ffi.no

Small arm shooting ranges are major deposits of heavy metals such as lead (Pb) and copper (Cu), and antimony (Sb) from use of ammunition. Annually, deposition of Pb from site specific shooting ranges can vary between less than 100 kg to 15000 kg. Humans, as well as wildlife and domestic animals drinking or grazing on the contaminated area, may be exposed to hazardous amount of these elements. Leaching of elements from the berms to stream water may pose a threat to aquatic organisms. To reduce impact of metal runoff from a shooting range it was performed a field study with different filter media in order to evaluate the reductions in the concentrations of discharged elements. The tests were performed in situ with water from a polluted drainage stream, which receives contaminated water from three shooting ranges. The filter media were added to columns with dimension of 13 dm3 and tested for four weeks. A total of approximately 10000 L of water passed through the columns with a residential time of approximately 30 minutes. The filter media were as follows: thermally activated bone charcoal (Brimac, trade mark), olivine mixed with 5% zero valent iron (Feo) or hydroxyapatite (HA) (Ca5(PO4)3(OH)), and magnetite (Fe3O4). Water samples were taken from the inlet and outlet of the columns three or twice a week and subjected to membrane filtration. The Brimac, and olivine and iron mixture showed the best purification efficiency with a mean (± SD) reduction in total Pb-level in water of 85 ± 13 % and 87 ± 4 % respectively. Olivine mixed with HA and magnetite reduced the total Pb-level in water with 66 ± 15 % and 36 ± 23 % respectively. Preliminary results show that the Brimac and olivine-iron mixture reduced Cu concentration in the water with approximately 80 %, and Sb concentration with approximately 50 % and 40 % respectively.

Impact of Spatial Interpolation Methods for the Soil Heavy Metal Contaminated Area Estimating

Student Presenter

Yunfeng Xie, Postgraduate student, Environmental science, Center for Environmental Remediation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Science (CAS) 11A, Datun Road Anwai,Beijing.100101 P.R.China, Tel: 86-10-64888087, Fax: 86-10-64889303, Email: xieyf.07b@igsnrr.ac.cn
Tongbin Chen, Professor, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, Tel: 86-10-64889080, Tel: Email: chentb@igsnrr.ac.cn
Mei Lei, Doctor, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, 11A, Datun Road Anwai,Beijing.100101 P.R.CHINA, Tel: 86-10-64888087, Fax: 86-10-64889303, Email: leim@igsnrr.ac.cn
Bo Song, Doctor, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, 11A, Datun Road Anwai,Beijing.100101 P.R.CHINA, Tel: 86-10-64888087, Fax: 86-10-64889303, Email: songb@igsnrr.ac.cn
Xiaoyan Li, Professor, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, CAS, 11A, Datun Road Anwai,Beijing.100101 P.R.CHINA, Tel: 86-10-64888087, Fax: 86-10-64889303, Email: xyli@igsnrr.ac.cn

The spatial distribution of heavy metals in soils is the basis of pollution assessment and remediation. Most researchers usually based on GIS tools, using spatial interpolation models (inverse distance weighted, Kriging, etc.) to study the spatial distribution of heavy metals in soils. Therefore, the precision of spatial interpolation model directly relates the accuracy of pollution evaluation. There have a lot research on assessing the prediction methods for the creation of soil heavy metal maps and how to select the appropriate interpolation model. Howerver, the accuracy assessment methods are mainly based on estimated error of sampling sites, and neglect the error in conversing the sampling points to surface (spatial distribution).Assessment of heavy metal pollution focus on high pollution risk areas, high-risk areas often correspond to high heavy metal concentration region. Therefore, the paper use commonly used interpolation models (ordinary Kriging, universal Kriging, disjunctive Kriging, inverse distance weighted, polynominal regression) to acquire the spatial distribution of heavy metals in soils and to compare the precision of contaminated area estimated by different sampling pattern and models.The result show that the difference of contaminated area estimated by different models up to 3% ~ 10%. Inverse distance weighted estimated the largest contaminated heavy metal pollution area than other methods, and the area estimated by Universal Kriging and disjunctive Kriging is larger that ordinary Kriging. The greast difference between the results occures at high-low soil heavy metal concentration transition region. Therefore, at the transition region along the direction of soil heavy metal concentration fluctuate, increase sampling density is advised.

Sampling and Statistical Analysis of Background Mercury Groundwater Concentrations in an Industrial-Commercial Area

A. Curtis Weeden, Jr. P.G., AECOM Environment, 2 Technology Park Drive, Westford, MA 01886, Tel.: 603-673-2606, Fax: 978-589-3100, Email: curt.weeden@aecom.com.
Karen Madsen, AECOM Environment, 2 Technology Park Drive, Westford, MA 01886, Tel.: 978-589-3427, Fax: 978-589-3100; Email: karen.madsen@aecom.com.
Brian Harootyan, AECOM Environment, 135 Merchant Street, Suite 160, Cincinnati, OH 45246, Tel.: 513-772-7800 x237, Fax: 513-772-7888, Email: brian.harootyan@aecom.com.

In this paper, a statistical analysis is presented that indicates that background mercury concentrations were above the regulatory criterion.  In general, ecological screening values for mercury are very low (i.e., typically less than 30 ng/L [part per trillion]).  For example, the Great Lakes Initiative and EPA’s Region 5 RCRA ecological screening value is 1.3 ng/L for total mercury.  Determining whether or not mercury is a site related chemical of concern with part per trillion level screening values in groundwater is further complicated as atmospheric deposition of mercury may result in groundwater concentrations in the same range as ecological water quality criteria.   Because of this issue, a site-specific background mercury concentration was developed for a facility where the mercury water quality criterion is 1.3 ng/L.   A background study was conducted because concentrations on-site above the screening level value were thought to be due to atmospheric deposition. To assess background concentrations at the facility, which is located in an industrial-commercial area, nine up-gradient monitoring wells were installed and sampled quarterly for one year.  Samples were collected using EPA’s “Clean Hands/Dirty Hands” procedures (Method 1669) and samples were analyzed utilizing low level analytical methods for mercury (1631E).  Each quarterly data set as well as the entire data set was evaluated statistically.  Tests performed included determination of statistical distribution, identification of potential outliers, and calculation of a representative background concentration using non-parametric methods.  Results of the evaluation demonstrate that background mercury concentrations were above the regulatory criterion of 1.3 ng/L and that mercury concentrations at the facility should be compared to the statistically calculated site-specific background value rather than the default screening level value.  

Mercury Testing in Soil Gas and Ambient Air using Passive Vapor Sampling

James E. Whetzel, W. L. Gore and Associates, Inc., 100 Chesapeake Blvd., Elkton, MD,  21921, Tel: 410-506-4779, Fax: 410-506-4780, Email: jwhetzel@wlgore.com

Investigation of sites contaminated with elemental mercury can be extremely challenging due to irregular dispersion and vaporization. Typical sampling involves collection and analysis of soil samples. For large areas, a significant number of soil samples are required to ensure that the site is adequately characterized.

Passive vapor sampling is most often used to detect VOCs, but has recently been used to screen areas for the presence of volatile mercury in soil and has also been evaluated as a tool for air sampling.

Site investigations included an Engine Test Facility (ETF) and a former gold mining operation. At each location, the technique was chosen as a cost effective alternative to soil sampling.

Air sampling was performed in a laboratory where elemental mercury is routinely used for testing and mercury levels are fairly well known. Samplers were exposed for varying amounts of time to help understand effective detection limits.

This presentation will discuss the findings from site investigations and air sampling.

Top