Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
PIBS ####
Table of Contents iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................1-2
1.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Relationship to Other Guidance Documents..............................................................1-3
1.3.1 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance ..................................................................1-4
1.3.2 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record of Site
Conditions (RSC), Ontario Regulation 153/04..........................................................1-6
1.4 Guidance Structure.....................................................................................................1-6
CHAPTER 9. RFERENCES
LIST OF APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - Comparison of Different Media for Vapour Intrusion Investigations
TABLE 2 - Model Input Parameters for Screening Level Risk Assessment
TABLE 3 - Selection of Soil Texture Class
TABLE 4 - Decision Matrix for Recommended Actions
TABLE 5 - Comparison of Soil Vapour Measurement Locations
TABLE 6 - Evaluation of Factors Affecting Below Building Hydrocarbon Vapour
Bioattenuation and Soil Vapour Data Representativeness
TABLE 7 - Soil Gas Sample Collection Containers and Devices
TABLE 8 - Summary of Common Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis Methods
TABLE 9 - Dominant Sources of VOCs in Residential Indoor Air
TABLE 10 - Compilation of Indoor Air Quality Data from Canadian Studies
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1 - Definition of Vapour Attenuation Factors
EXHIBIT 2 - Comparison of Generic Vapour Attenuation Factors
EXHIBIT 3 - Considerations for Cold Weather Sampling
EXHIBIT 4 - Preparation of Building for IAQ Sampling
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Soil vapour intrusion is the migration of volatile or semi-volatile chemicals
from contaminated groundwater and soil into overlying buildings. When
releases occur near buildings, volatilization of chemicals from the dissolved or
non-aqueous phases in the subsurface can result in the intrusion of vapour-
phase contaminants into indoor air. If the vapour intrusion pathway is viable
or complete, there may be the potential for unacceptable health risks to
occupants of buildings as a result of inhalation of these vapours. The focus of
this Guidance Document is an evaluation of the significance of vapour
intrusion with respect to potential chronic health risks due to long-term
exposure, as opposed to potential safety or acute risks which, in some cases,
may arise from accumulation of vapours in buildings or confined spaces.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
Specific objectives of the Guidance Document are outlined below:
In the United States, regulatory guidance of note for vapour intrusion includes
those developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA, 2002), Interstate Technical and Regulatory Council (ITRC) (2007),
California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances
Control (2005), American Petroleum Agency (2005), Electric Power Research
Institute (2005), Tri-Services Environmental Risk Assessment Working Group
(TSERAWG, 2008) and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(2005).
In 1992, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) published
standards for soil gas monitoring in the vadose zone. The standards were
subsequently re-approved in 2001. In March 2008, ASTM published their
standard E2600-08 “Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into
Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions”.
1.3.2 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record of
Site Conditions (RSC), Ontario Regulation 153/04.
The soil vapour screening and assesment process outlined in this Guidance
Document can also be used to identify the need for remediation of sources or
the implementation of risk management measures (RMM) as part of the
redeveleopment of brownfied sites.
Note that any submission of RA and RSC under the Ontario Regulation
153/04 must meet all the mandatory requirements specified in the regulation.
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS
This section provides a brief description of the soil vapour intrusion pathway and the
recommended phased approach to assess and interpret data and multiple lines of
evidence, and interact with the various stakeholders.
The CSM should also reflect the risk paradigm for assessment of contaminated
sites, which often includes both a descriptive and diagrammatic presentation
of contaminant sources, release and transport mechanisms, exposure media,
exposure pathways and receptors. The CSM should be continually updated as
new information becomes available for the site and will often be a useful
decision-making and communication tool for interested parties. Additional
details on CSM development along with a description of processes governing
the fate and transport of volatile compounds are provided in Chapter 3.
No Site Characterization
Are there sufficient data to develop CSM ?
1. Preliminary Screening
Incomplete Determine if volatile/toxic chemicals are in
Site not of concren Immediate action warranted
Exposure Pathway proximity of buildings; determine whether there is
acute or safety risk;
Yes
Are site
Are data adequate concentrations below
No Yes
NO
2. Screening level
Assessment
Soil, groundwater and soil vapour sampling and
testing
Yes
Yes
No
Vapour pathway
does not pose an 3. Detailed Assessment
unacceptable risk Typically includes modelling and sub-slab and
indoor air sampling
Yes
Note: It is of critical importance that data adequacy, consistency with CSM and all lines of evidence (contaminant concentrations,
geological conditions, biological factors) be carefully considered. Additional assessment may be warranted when within 10X of
standards or screening levels. For future scenario, exposure controls implemented as part of construction may be required.
A detailed vapour intrusion assessment includes all the key components of the
screening level assessment, but generally incorporates more detailed site-
specific data, which is often needed when more complex models are used. In
the case of sites where vapour intrusion is a concern, measurements of soil gas
and/or indoor air quality are generally incorporated into the assessment.
Contaminant fate and transport modelling may remain an important
component of a detailed assessment, but generally the assumptions employed
in the modelling exercise are less conservative and more representative of
actual site conditions than in a screening level assessment. The detailed
assessment may also include the derivation of toxicity reference values for
compounds lacking published values, or where new toxicity data are available.
Similar to the screening level assessment, additional monitoring of site
conditions may be warranted to assess whether conditions assumed continue to
apply, or if verification of risk estimates based on indoor air concentrations are
required.
The guidance is intended for application where there are currently occupied
buildings at existing residential and commercial sites, or where there is the
potential for the presence of occupied buildings in a future land use scenario.
The soil vapour intrusion assessment should typically be implemented in
sequential steps starting with characterization of the contamination source
through soil and groundwater sampling together with data collection (e.g.,
hydrogeological and soil properties) needed to understand contaminant
migration within both the unsaturated and saturated soil zones. Where
concentrations in soil and groundwater are below the applicable MOE soil
condition standards (MOE 2009a), no further assessment of soil vapour
intrusion may be necessary, although data adequacy and uncertainty should be
considered, particularly when measured concentrations are close to the
standards.
Given the limitations associated with the use of soil data for evaluating the
vapour intrusion pathway (see Section 4.4.1), it is recommended that soil
vapour characterization should generally be conducted whenever there is
contamination within the unsaturated soil zone. The soil vapour assessment
should begin with a characterization of soil vapour concentrations near to the
contamination source and where warranted, continue closer toward the
building, and finally, if indicated by the results of previous steps,
characterization of indoor air quality.
The described process for soil vapour intrusion assessment can assist in cases
where a risk assessment is conducted for the purpose of filing a record of site
condition (RSC) under the O.Reg. 153/04. However, it alone does not provide
all the information and evaluation required under the RSC regulation. In these
cases, the qualified person (QP) must follow the procedures and requirements
outlined in the O.Reg. 153/04 as amended and its related documents.
CHAPTER 3
A well developed CSM provides decision makers with an effective tool that
helps to organize, communicate and interpret existing data, while also
identifying areas where additional data are required. The CSM should be
considered dynamic in nature and should be continuously updated as each
stage of the investigation program is completed (USEPA, 2002).
Indoor
Air
Chemical
Vapour
Soil Contamination Transport
(residual or mobile NAPL)
Groundwater Contamination
For a secondary source where chemicals are present only as a dissolved phase
in groundwater, their distribution below the water table will determine their
potential to volatilize and eventually migrate to indoor air. If volatile
chemicals are present near the surface of the water table, volatilization will
readily occur. In contrast, if there is a layer of “clean” groundwater above
Environmental and seasonal factors that affect vadose zone transport processes
include precipitation, barometric pressure, wind, water table levels,
temperature, snow and frost cover.
The main driving forces for soil gas advection tend to be building
depressurization and barometric pressure fluctuations. The primary
mechanisms for building depressurization are (1) temperature differences
The zone of influence for soil gas flow from building pressure differences is
usually less than a few metres. The rate of soil gas flow will be highly
dependent on site specific conditions such as soil permeability, foundation
backfill properties, potential preferential pathways such as utility corridors,
and building foundation construction.
CHAPTER 4
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The tiered framework for vapour intrusion assessment consists of the
following components:
The above tiered process is consistent with recent developments in science and
regulatory policy for soil vapour intrusion assessment (e.g., Golder, 2007;
ITRC, 2007; Cal EPA, 2005; USEPA, 2002). The screening process is
summarized in the flow chart shown in Figure 1.
The site screening process should begin with the development of a conceptual
site model (CSM) and site characterization. The site characterization process
for evaluation of soil vapour intrusion will often be completed in phases and,
therefore, it is essential that the CSM be updated as new information is
obtained. This chapter provides a summary of the site characterization
process, while details are provided in Chapter 5. Key inputs to the screening
level and detailed vapour intrusion assessment process are vapour intrusion
attenuation factors, which are discussed in Section 4.3.2.
From subsequent investigation phases (i.e., Phase II and III ESA), there should
typically be information on the presence and extent of COPCs in soil and
groundwater, hydrogeological conditions, soil properties and possible
preferential pathways. The contamination migration, plume stability and
vertical and lateral extent of contamination should be delineated to enable
screening based on the distance criteria described under the preliminary
screening step below. Basic information on the existing and future receptors
and buildings at the site should be obtained to enable appropriate land use
designation and identification of possible precluding conditions for generic
screening.
Under the preliminary screening, the maximum site-wide media (e.g. soil
and/or groundwater) concentrations should generally be used for screening
purposes to determine whether a higher tier assessment is required, therefore,
it is important that the contamination source concentrations be properly
delineated. The delineation should be conducted by assuming that the lateral
and vertical extent of COPCs in soil or groundwater extends from the
sampling locations where volatile contaminants are present at concentrations
Early intrusive phases of the investigation will often include soil vapour data
obtained using field screening methods (e.g., photoionization detector or
combustible gas detector) at existing wells screened above the water table,
which can be useful for qualitative evaluation of potential vapour sources (soil
vapour testing using existing wells is further described in Section 5.4.3).
However, measurements taken by field screening equipment cannot be used
for delineation or to demonstrate that the applicable SCS for a COPC has been
met.
If there are no COPCs for the inhalation pathway, further consideration of this
pathway is not warranted. Otherwise, the investigator moves to the next step
in the preliminary screening phase.
4.2.3 Does the Site Represent a Safety or Acute Health Risk Concern?
The first step under preliminary screening is to identify whether there are
indications of safety or acute human health risks. The following factors
should be evaluated:
Site information indicating a safety or acute health risk may come to light in
various ways including reports from building occupants or owners.
Depending on site conditions, a more pro-active approach such as a door-to-
door survey involving the use of questionnaires designed specifically to
evaluate potential vapour-related concerns (such as those described above),
may be warranted.
If any of the above conditions are present, immediate action should be taken to
investigate possible safety and acute health risks and where necessary
implement mitigation measures. For reports of odours and physiological
effects, the outcome may depend on whether these effects could reasonably be
expected to be associated with subsurface contamination. Based on the
investigation, the testing of indoor air quality, exposure controls, and/or re-
location of receptors may be warranted.
There is also empirical data from several Colorado sites (USEPA 2008) where
indoor air testing indicated no significant indoor vapour concentrations in
single family homes that were located more than one to two residential lots
(i.e., roughly 30 m) away from the interpolated edge of the groundwater
plume.
Examples of situations where the 30 m lateral distance may not apply are
where a utility with high permeability backfill intersects a contamination zone
(e.g., NAPL), when the chemical vapours are unlikely to degrade, and where
the site is covered with buildings or paved surfaces.
• Gas under pressure: Sites where soil gas is under pressure should be
precluded from the screening process, which is often the case at
landfills where methane is produced and where trace VOCs may move
with the landfill gas.
Some soil and groundwater data are typically obtained as part of the initial
intrusive site investigation phase and therefore the use of these data for pre-
screening purposes is desirable. Site remediation confirmation testing also
often involves testing of soil samples. The main disadvantages are that soil
and groundwater data may not be representative of potential contaminants that
The main advantage associated with soil vapour media is that it provides a
direct measurement of the contaminant phase that may migrate into indoor air.
The main disadvantages are that the spatial and temporal variability in soil
vapour concentrations is often relatively high and that appropriate protocols
must be followed carefully to achieve data quality that is acceptable.
While there are advantages and disadvantages with different media, often the
best strategy is one based on a multiple lines-of-evidence approach where soil,
groundwater, soil vapour and, in some cases, indoor air, are tested. This allows
the identification of data relationships and comparison of analytical results to
generic standards and/or site-specific screening levels for each medium. This
can strengthen the conclusions of the study.
Limitations with each type of data are minimized if decisions are supported by
more than one type of data. The decision also depends on the variability and
amount of data available. Data adequacy is a critical consideration when
planning site characterization programs and interpreting the results,
particularly when sites are “screened out” of the site assessment process.
There are several key points that should be considered as part of the site
characterization and screening process:
1. Sufficient data should be obtained to characterize the spatial variability
in soil, groundwater and soil vapour concentrations such that a
reasonably detailed CSM describing the distribution and extent of
contamination can be developed.
2. The site characterization process for all media should begin with an
evaluation of contamination source areas to characterize maximum
concentrations. Initial screening of the site should generally be
conducted using the maximum concentration to avoid the risk of a
false negative determination (failing to identify a risk that is
unacceptable).
3. Data should be collected to assess vertical trends in concentrations in
addition to horizontal distribution. The vertical profile of hydrocarbon
and fixed gas (oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane) concentrations is
particularly helpful for assessing biodegradation of petroleum
hydrocarbons.
4. The number of samples (i.e., sample density) needed to delineate
plumes will tend to increase as the geological variability or complexity
increases.
5. Sufficient data should be obtained to characterize the temporal
variability in groundwater and soil vapour concentrations; this
typically requires a minimum of two sampling events in a selected
number of locations to characterize seasonal variability.
6. If individual buildings are screened at a site, sufficient characterization
must be completed to characterize variability surrounding the building.
The site characterization should identify COPCs for the study. The basis for
selection of COPCs should include toxicity and volatility, potential
biotransformation reactions and expected breakdown products (a.k.a. daughter
products), and potential marker compounds or tracers which may help in
evaluating the influence of background sources of chemicals in indoor air and
shallow soil vapour (see Section 7).
Soil Data
While soil data will often be obtained as part of site characterization programs,
there are significant uncertainties associated with use of the soil data that
should be recognized:
• Soil sampling, handling and preparation can result in significant (up to
several orders-of-magnitude) losses of chemicals through volatilization
and biodegradation. Such losses may be reduced through field
preservation using solvents (e.g., USEPA SW-846 Method 3035),
however, this also tends to cause higher laboratory reporting limits,
which may be above the levels protective of the vapour intrusion
pathway;
• Depending on the contaminant type and geologic conditions (texture,
moisture and fraction of organic carbon), there may be significant
spatial variation in soil concentrations, which are seldom evaluated in
most sampling programs;
• There are uncertainties associated with soil partitioning calculations
and predicted vapour concentrations are sensitive to the partitioning
coefficient between water and organic carbon, and the fraction organic
content in soil, a parameter that can be difficult to accurately
determine; and
• Poor correlations have been observed involving studies comparing soil
and soil vapour data particularly for chemicals associated with DNAPL
sources such as chlorinated solvents.
Since the use of soil chemistry information may result in large uncertainties in
the predicted indoor air concentrations, its use in the screening level
assessment process is not recommended. However, there may be some sites
with fine-grained soil where it is difficult to draw a soil gas sample and where
soil samples may be an alternative for assessing the vapour intrusion pathway.
Nevertheless, because of the uncertainties described above, other lines-of-
evidence should be considered before concluding that there is no vapour
intrusion risk.
Continuous soil cores, where feasible, and soil physical property data
(especially texture, moisture, and density) can provide valuable information
for development of the conceptual site model.
Groundwater Data
Soil vapour sampling and analysis avoids uncertainties related to mass transfer
and phase partitioning, and therefore is valuable data for assessing potential
vapour intrusion and indoor air concentrations. However, empirical data
collected to date indicates a higher degree of variability in soil vapour
concentrations, so special care is required during sample collection (design
and execution).
Multiple Lines-of-Evidence
EXISTING FUTURE
BUILDING BUILDING
The preferred method for determining the soil texture class is based on
lithological descriptions combined with grain size distribution tests. The US
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification system (USDA soil textural
triangle) should be used to determine the soil texture. Samples for grain size
analysis should be collected for each area where volatile contaminants have
been identified to be present in soil and/or groundwater, at elevated
concentrations. In general, the coarsest soil type from among the samples
should be used for calculation of the site attenuation factor.
For determining the soil textural type when using the modified generic risk
assessment (MGRA) model under the O. Reg. 153/04 as amended, please refer
to Table 4 (phase II ESA requirement for MGRA) of the regulation.
The two choices for land use for screening level assessment, which are also
the basis for selection of input parameters for the J&E model, are a residential
scenario and a commercial scenario.
The distance to the vapour contamination source is the distance between the
lowest part of the building foundation (including sumps, if present) and vapour
contamination source. The vapour contamination source is the water table
when contamination is limited to dissolved constituents in groundwater.
When estimating this distance, allowance for water table fluctuations should
be made by selecting the annual minimum water level depth below the slab.
When soil or soil vapour measurements are made, the distance is between the
building and measurement point, which should be located above the top of the
contamination source.
The vapour attenuation factor (“alpha” - α) is the ratio of the indoor air
concentration divided by the measured or estimated soil vapour concentration
at the point of interest (i.e., “ppbV/ppbV” or dimensionless ratio). The vapour
attenuation factor is the inverse of the dilution factor, which is used by CCME
to describe vapour intrusion (CCME, 2008). There are three primary types of
vapour attenuation factors or alphas:
Soil vapour-to-indoor air alpha (αv): This alpha is based on the measured
soil vapour concentration within the unsaturated zone (typically measured
beside the building) and represents transport through the unsaturated soil
zone. If the soil vapour concentration is estimated from a soil
concentration for a source above the water table, then the soil vapour-to-
indoor air alpha is the appropriate factor to apply for estimation of the
indoor air concentration.
The attenuation factors can be calculated for unconsolidated deposits using the
J&E model for residential and commercial exposure scenarios, for various soil
types and varying depth from the building foundation to contamination source.
The attenuation factor can apply to both a current and future building scenario.
The vapour attenuation factors for soil vapour and soil measurements include
only transport within the unsaturated soil zone, while for a dissolved
contamination source in groundwater, it also includes transport through the
capillary transition zone.
For soil vapour, the attenuation factors derived using the J&E model are
constrained such that site-specific screening levels may only be calculated
when soil vapour measurements are obtained at least 1 m below the current or
future building foundation. Where groundwater level monitoring data is
available and sufficient to determine the depth to the highest annual water
table, the site-specific screening levels can be derived from the J&E model
where the water table and capillary fringe are below the building gravel crush.
If the shallowest water table is expected to be within the gravel crush layer
beneath a floor slab or above the crush layer, then the J&E model can not be
used to determine the attenuation factor. Instead, alpha should be fixed at a
reasonably conservative empirically-derived value. For these cases, MOE
recommends an alpha of 0.02 for the Residential setting (Dawson, 2006) and
0.004 for the Commercial/Industrial setting. However, as more empirical data
become available the recommended subslab vapour empirical values should be
revised. When determining an appropriate empirical attenuation factor, the
qualified person needs to consider the most up-to-date information and
provide a rationale for the selection of any empirical values.
The MOE recommended empirical attenuation factors can also be used when
collecting subslab vapour data.
The properties of the backfill surrounding the building as well as the gravel
crush underlying the basement floor should be assumed to govern the effective
soil-air permeability. The effective vapour permeability is the bulk value for
the entire flow path from the ground surface down and under the foundation
footing, back up to the gravel crush, and along the gravel crush to the entry
crack. A gravel crush layer is required by Ontario Building Code and therefore
if the basement floor becomes cracked then soil gas will flow to the crack
through the gravel crush layer. This requires that the effective bulk
permeability for the travel path includes that of the gravel crush. The
following are the recommended properties for the gravel crush layer:
The soil gas advection rate (Qsoil) into a building is a function of the soil-air
permeability, building depressurization, building foundation properties and
building size. Building pressures are affected by several factors (e.g.
temperature, wind and operation of the heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) system inside a building) (Geosyntec 2010). The
method often used with the J&E model for estimating Qsoil through the
building envelope is an analytical solution for two-dimensional soil gas flow
to a small horizontal drain called the “Perimeter Crack Model”. The use of
this model can be problematic in that Qsoil values are sensitive to soil-air
permeability and consequently a wide range in flows can be predicted
(Geosyntec 2010). Also, users may input combinations of soil and
hydrogeologic parameters that are not self-consistent and that will produce
unreasonable Qsoil estimates (Johnson 2005). For the above reasons, the use
of the J&E “perimeter crack model” for calculating Qsoil is not recommended
by the MOE. The recommended Qsoil values are presented in Table 2. They
are consistent with reported values from empirical data from houses on coarse-
grained soils (~1 to 10 L/min - Golder 2008b).
A different soil type for the capillary fringe can be allowed to achieve better
characterization of contaminant transport from groundwater diffusing up
through the vadose zone to the receptor.
The calculated vapour attenuation factors developed with the J&E Model do
not assume biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours such as benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX). As described below, there is provision to
Commercial
Parameter Residential
/Industrial
Depth to underside of basement/foundation slab (cm) 158 11.25
hB, gravel crush thickness beneath basement/ foundation slab
(cm) 29.9 29.9
Enclosed space length (cm) 1225 2000
Enclosed space width (cm) 1225 1500
Effective enclosed space height (cm) 366 300
Air exchange rate per hour (hr-1) 0.30 1
Depressurization (Pa) 4 2
Lcrack, basement floor thickness (cm) 8 11.25
Floor-wall crack width (cm) 0.10 0.10
Ratio of Crack Area to Total Subsurface Area 0.0002 0.0002
Soil Temperature (oC) 15 15
Qsoil (L/min)
- coarse 8.45 9.8
- fine 1.0 1.5
Bedrock
The presence of fractured bedrock directly under the building foundation such
that there is no underlying soil is normally considered a precluding condition
for a screening level assessment. However, to provide additional flexibility,
an assessment may be completed using a conservative attenuation factor such
as the default value for subslab (i.e., 0.02) for both groundwater and soil
vapour provided that the basic site assessment requirements (Section 4.3.1) are
met and that there is a high level of confidence that sampling points intersect
contaminant pathways in the bedrock. This may entail mapping of fractures,
high-resolution sampling and repeat monitoring to adequately characterize
spatial and temporal variability. Consideration should be given to subslab
vapour characterization (when buildings are present) to improve the level of
confidence in the CSM.
An alternate approach for assessing GW2 pathway for bedrock sites overlain
by thicker unconsolidated deposits may be to obtain soil vapour samples
within the unconsolidated deposits. The minimum depth criteria for external
soil vapour samples needs to be met (i.e., minimum ½ the distance between
lowest point of building and vapour contamination source).
For commercial buildings, the mixing height for vapours within a building
with high ceilings (e.g., warehouse building) or a multi-storey building could
be greater than the default as a result of mixing within the building caused by
ventilation and leakage across floors. If the building ventilation is well
understood and there is evidence to support relatively uniform mixing of
vapours within a greater height, the default mixing height for commercial
buildings may be increased by up to a factor of two (i.e., mixing height of 6
m).
If there is information indicating that the above default air exchange rates are
not representative, the attenuation factors may be calculated adjusting the
exchange rate values. For residential buildings, the default air exchange rate
(0.3 hr-1) may only be reduced downward, and therefore, the adjusted
attenuation factor may only increase. The default air exchange rate should
apply to almost all buildings, but a lower rate may be warranted when there is
evidence for very low air exchange (e.g., sealed basement with poor
ventilation).
The air exchange rates may be higher than the default (1 hr-1) for some
commercial buildings or for building spaces that require higher than normal
ventilation rates (e.g., parking garages). If there is evidence to support a
higher ventilation rate through either design requirements, documented
measurements in a Test and Balance Report by a licensed mechanical
engineer, or the results of ventilation tracer test, the default air exchange rate
for commercial buildings may be increased accordingly.
The soil vapour attenuation factors calculated using the J&E model assume no
biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours such as benzene, toluene,
The laboratory studies and detailed case studies indicate that BTEX and
aliphatic hydrocarbon vapours are readily degraded in the presence of oxygen
(Ostendorf and Kampbell, 1991; Fischer et al., 1996; Laubacher et al., 1997;
Johnson et al., 1998; Hers et al., 2000; DeVaull et al., 2002). When there is
aerobic biodegradation and a sufficient thickness of non-contaminated soil
between the vapour source and building, there will typically be many orders-
of-magnitude attenuation in BTEX or aliphatic hydrocarbon vapour
concentrations (i.e., reduction to negligible levels). There is evidence for
lower bioattenuation rates for certain hydrocarbons such as methylpentanes
(present in relatively large proportions in certain jet fuels), indicating it is
important to determine the type of hydrocarbon present. The empirical
analysis of the attenuation between subsurface source concentrations and
indoor air, while confounded by indoor background sources of these same
compounds, indicated that in general the BTEX attenuation factors were
considerably lower than the factors for recalcitrant chlorinated hydrocarbons
such as trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1-dichloroethene (11 DCE).
The results of modeling studies indicate a key factor influencing the estimated
vapour attenuation factor is the oxygen available below the building. The key
site conditions that influence oxygen levels are hydrocarbon source
concentrations and distance from the building to the vapour source, with other
potentially important factors being the soil type and properties of the surface
cover at the site, which may influence the rate at which atmospheric oxygen
migrates to the subsurface. The hydrocarbon source concentrations have a
critical determining influence on hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation, since it
can be shown through empirical data and modeling studies that there will
generally be significant aerobic biodegradation within the unsaturated soil
zone below buildings when there is a dissolved hydrocarbon source, providing
there is sufficient oxygen present and a reasonable source-building separation
(up to about 5 m from separate phase hydrocarbon, but as little as one metre
from moderate to low dissolved phase hydrocarbon concentrations).
Transition dissolved Cg > 1 mg/L < 50 10X for separation distance* > 2 m
& NAPL mg/L TVOCs 100X for separation distance* >4m
NAPL Cg > 50 mg/L 10X for separation distance* > 3 m
100X for separation distance* >5m
Soil All 10X for separation distance* > 1 m
100X for separation distance* >3m
Notes: Above BAFs may only be applied when there is no significant capping effect and biodegradation
supported through oxygen profiles (see Section 5.3.4). Cg = BTEX + F1 + F2 + Methane (CH4)
*
Separation distance between source and the building foundation.
**
total VOCs
4.3.2.8 Back-calculate site specific screening levels for soil vapour and groundwater
Site-specific soil vapour screening levels (Csv) are back calculated as follows:
Where
3
CairT = the health based indoor air target concentration (µg/m ) (see
attachment VI), and
αv = the dimensionless soil vapour attenuation factor (adjusted based on
criteria described above) (dimensionless).
The groundwater screening levels developed for the vapour intrusion pathway
(Cgw) can be calculated as follows:
Where:
3
CairT = the health based indoor air target concentration (µg/m ),
αgw = the groundwater attenuation factor (adjusted based on criteria described
above) (dimensionless), and
H = Henry’s law constant (dimensionless).
• Are predictions consistent with the CSM and internally consistent for
different media and sampling locations?
The indoor air predictions from soil vapour should generally always take
precedence compared to those predicted from soil or groundwater. However,
when the predicted indoor air concentration from soil vapour is significantly
less than that predicted from soil or groundwater (i.e., >10X to 100X lower),
the conceptual site model and the field data should be careful evaluated.
Large differences between media would be expected when there is a fresh-
water lens on the water table, fine-grained high moisture content soil layers or
bioattenuation. Large difference in indoor air concentrations predicted from
soil vapour and groundwater sampling data may also be attributable to bias
and variability in the soil vapour and groundwater data.
The qualified person must evaluate the site complexity and distribution of
contamination sources and plumes, the observed spatial and temporal
variability to assess data quantity and quality. The data adequacy and
uncertainty must be carefully assessed particularly when used to screen sites
or buildings out of the assessment process.
4.3.3 Soil Vapour Screening Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment Model
The Modified Generic Risk Assessment (MGRA) Model provides the option
of generating soil vapour screening levels (SVSLs) for residential and
commercial land uses based on site specific soil types and depths to soil
vapour measurement. The MGRA model uses the same basic assumptions and
exposure scenarios used in the development of the generic soil condition
standards (MOE 2009a) for the vapour intrusion pathways (S-IA and GW2).
The SVSLs calculated by MGRA model can also be used to conduct screening
level soil vapour intrusion assessments for brownfield sites. For details on how
to use this model, as well as sampling and reporting requirements, please refer
to “A Guide to Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment (Tier 2)
Spreadsheet Model”, available at:
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/decomm/condition.htm.
Where it is not possible to obtain soil samples below the building or where a
future scenario is being evaluated, the use of water retention models may
provide for more accurate prediction of soil moisture conditions below a
building. As a starting point, a water retention estimation method can be used
(e.g. van Genuchten (VG) (van Genuchten, 1980)) assuming relatively dry
conditions below a building.
There are other methods for estimating water-filled porosity. For example, a
water retention curve can be generated from the measured grain size
distribution and volume mass properties of the soil using the method by
Fredlund and Wilson (1997), which builds the curve by successively
estimating a water retention curve for each particle-size group in the grain size
distribution. There are also software programs for estimation of water
retention parameters from soil grain size data (e.g., Rosetta model and
SoilVision model v.4.34). Consideration may also be given to dividing the
capillary transition zone into multiple layers to more closely approximate the
water-filled porosity.
As indicated in Section 4.3.2.4, the use of the “perimeter crack model” for
calculating Qsoil is not recommended by the MOE. In detailed soil vapour
intrusion assessments and/or site-specific risk assessments (Tier 3),
proponents may use alternative values for Qsoil (other than those
recommended by the MOE in Table 2) based on:
a specified value for Qsoil (based on values from tracer tests). The
tracer test concept is based on characterizing soil vapour
concentrations below the slab, indoors and outdoors. If the building
ventilation rate is known, and if advection is the main process for
vapour intrusion, then from mass flux considerations, Qsoil can be
calculated. The tracer could be a natural tracer like radon, measured
VOC concentrations (when indoor background contribution is
negligible), or an injected tracer such as He or SF6. If the proposed
Qsoil value is based on published literature, a detailed rationale must
be provided on why the proposed value is applicable to the site and
existing buildings.
In many cases, it will not be feasible to measure the Qsoil, using tracer tests.
For that the recommended approach is to start with the default soil gas flow
rates and to normalize Qsoil such that Qsoil/Qbuild remains roughly constant
and near the mid-point of the empirical range of subslab alpha’s. This is a
reasonable constraint based on comparison of model predictions to the subslab
vapour attenuation factor. There are other possible approaches or adjusting
the Qsoil based on the ratio of Qsoil to building foundation area or perimeter
crack length; however, the differences between these approaches and one
based on the Qsoil/Qbuild ratio are relatively small.
Soil air permeability tests can also be used to refine the estimated soil-air
permeability input in the Perimeter Crack Model, or other models used to
simulate soil gas flow. These tests can be performed by using a pump to
extract soil gas from a small well or probe and measuring pressure and flow.
There are several mathematical solutions that can be used to estimate soil air
permeability from this data, including those referenced in Johnson et al.
(1990) and Garbesi et al. (1995). It is noted that if the intent is to estimate
Qsoil (i.e., test near foundation soil), then both the test procedure and
interpretation may be complicated by the presence of the foundation and
disturbed soils.
Building Mixing Height
The screening level assessment defaults for building ventilation rates are an air
change rate of 0.30 hr-1 for residential scenario and air change of 1 hr-1 for
commercial scenario. The air exchange rate for residential buildings typically
ranges from 0.2 air changes per hour (ach) for airtight homes to 2.0 ach for
leaky homes (U.S. EPA, 1988). In an Ontario study, air change rates from 70
houses ranged from 0.06 to 0.77, with the lowest air exchange occurring in
summer with closed windows in R-2000 houses (Walkinshaw, 1987). In a
study completed in Saskatchewan and Tilsonburg, Ontario, the average
measured air change rate from 44 houses was 0.34 ach (SRC, 1992), while in a
study completed in the Greater Toronto area, the average air exchange rate
from 44 houses was 0.45 ach (Otson and Zhu, 1997). In regions with
relatively cold climates, the recent trend has been to construct “air-tight”
houses with reduced ventilation rates to minimize energy consumption and
costs (e.g., “R-2000” houses in Canada; Gusdorf and Hamlin, 1995, now
called energy star homes). In Canada, the minimum required ventilation rate
under the CSA F326 standard for “Residential Mechanical Ventilation
Systems” depends on the number and types of rooms in the house but usually
works out to about 0.3 air changes per hour.
Building Size
As part of a detailed assessment, the building size can be measured. For the
J&E model, the predicted indoor air concentrations decrease as the building
size increases, if all other inputs are held constant.
The crack ratio, expressed as the area of the cracks divided by the subsurface
foundation area, is difficult to measure or estimate. For several radon studies,
the back calculated crack ratio for residential houses ranged from 10-4 to 10-3
using field data from tracer tests and a soil gas flow model (Nazaroff (1992),
Revzan et al. (1991), and Nazaroff et al. (1985)). There have also been
attempts to measure crack widths, although this is practically difficult to do.
Figley and Snodgrass (1992) present data from ten houses where edge crack
measurements were made. At the eight houses where cracks were observed,
the cracks widths ranged from hairline cracks up to 5 mm wide, while the total
crack length ranged from 2.5 to 17.3 m. Most crack widths were less than 1
mm. The crack ratio used for regulatory or guidance purposes varies
significantly. The VOLASOIL (Dutch Ministry of Environment) model
recommends a crack ratio range of 10-6 (good foundation) to 10-4 (poor
foundation) while Johnson and Ettinger (1991) for illustrative purposes
selected a crack ratio of 0.001 to 0.01.
An overview of key issues for IAQ studies is presented below with details
provided in Chapter 6. An IAQ study requires proper planning. A
communications program, access agreements and pre-sampling survey and
occupant questionnaire are vital. In particular, the survey should identify
potential background sources for the chemicals of potential concern and
building properties or conditions that could influence vapour migration
pathways and indoor vapour concentrations. This information, together with
previous information obtained as part of subsurface investigation programs,
should be used to refine the CSM. Important factors to consider include data
on building type, building foundation construction, near-foundation soils,
potential preferential pathways (e.g., utilities, sumps, drains), building heating
ventilation and air condition (HVAC) system, building operation (e.g.,
operation of appliances, fans, etc.) and meteorological conditions (e.g.,
temperature, wind, barometric pressure).
The next step is to develop the IAQ program. For many sites, the scope will
include concurrent indoor air, subslab vapour and outdoor air testing since this
data can often help to distinguish between background and subsurface vapour
sources. Experience gained at sites indicates that the spatial and temporal
variability in indoor air and subslab vapour concentrations tends to be high. A
minimum of two to three subslab soil vapour samples per building is
recommended and multiple indoor air samples should also typically be
obtained. A larger number of subslab vapour samples or high volume
composite samples may be warranted for larger commercial or industrial
buildings. More than one sampling event under different climatic (e.g.,
summer/winter) and building conditions will also generally be required to
avoid basing a decision on potentially non-representative or incomplete data.
A complicating factor is that the timescales for temporal within building
variability can range from a few hours (HVAC operation, wind effects) to
months (seasonal temperature variations).
The conditions under which the indoor air sampling is to be performed should
also be defined. Typically, the building should be sampled under normal
When measured indoor air concentrations are less than acceptable risk-based
target concentrations, the data uncertainty and adequacy should be reviewed to
determine whether additional monitoring is warranted. When measured
indoor air concentrations exceed acceptable risk-based target concentrations,
exposure controls may be warranted, although potential contribution of
background sources to measured concentrations in indoor air should be
considered when evaluating the need for exposure controls. The multiple
lines-of-evidence approach described in Chapter 6 should be followed when
evaluating the potential influence of background on indoor air quality
measurements.
CHAPTER 5
The sampling design, which includes definition of the number of probes, their
location, when to sample and frequency of sampling, should consider the
characteristics of the contamination source, geologic heterogeneity, possible
temporal changes in site conditions, and where relevant, anthropogenic
features such as utility corridors, particularly where they intersect confining
soil layers. Repeat testing of soil vapour over different time periods to capture
possible seasonal variations will often be warranted.
Soil vapour samples obtained from near the vapour contamination source will
tend to be stable seasonally and are relatively unaffected by near-surface
processes (i.e., building, weather conditions), except in instances where a
LNAPL smear zone is present and water levels fluctuate dramatically over
time. Near source soil vapour concentrations are also less influenced by
biodegradation or biotransformation processes and will reach steady state
conditions relatively quickly. The variability in soil vapour concentrations will
tend to increase as the distance from the contamination source increases.
FIGURE 8. Results of 3-D Oxygen-Limited Soil Vapour Transport Modeling for High
Concentration Source (Cg = 100 mg/L) and Moderate Concentration Source (Cg = 20 mg/L) (from
Abreu and Johnson, 2005)
The following factors should be taken into account when designing a sampling
program that includes the collection of subslab soil vapour:
There are practical drawbacks associated with subslab sampling that should be
recognized. Subslab sampling is intrusive in that drilling or coring equipment
must be used inside the building and floor coverings may be damaged, which
may be disruptive or undesirable for owners and occupants. The work may
require an access agreement from the building owner. It may also be difficult
to determine subsurface utility locations below slabs, although geophysical
techniques (e.g., ground penetrating radar) may be used for this purpose. Due
to the challenges of subslab sampling, it is not always a practical line of
evidence. Future research may identify alternative sub-slab sampling methods
that will overcome these challenges.
2-3
m
Vertical profiles are generally used when the contamination source is below
the building. Again, three or more samples should be obtained from (i) just
above the contamination source, (ii) mid-point between upper and lower
sampling point, and (iii) a sampling point located near the building and/or a
sub-slab sample. The contamination source must be at least 1.5 m below the
building foundation (and preferably >3 m) for vertical profiles to be effective
in resolving vertical concentration trends.
The lateral spacing of deep soil gas probes needed to characterize soil vapour
source zones is highly dependent on site conditions and the number and size of
buildings where soil vapour intrusion is of potential concern. For large
disperse groundwater plumes, a soil gas probe spacing of several tens of
meters may be adequate. For smaller plumes and hydrocarbon sites where
steep concentration gradients are expected, more closely spaced probes are
warranted (e.g., 5 m to 15 m).
The number and location of subslab soil vapour samples that should be tested
will depend on site-specific conditions. For small to moderate sized houses, a
minimum of two to three subslab samples, preferably located in a central
location away from the foundation footings, is considered reasonable for
screening purposes. A greater number of samples are warranted for commercial
building. It is recognized that practical considerations (e.g., homeowner access)
will often dictate the location of subslab soil vapour samples. For larger
buildings, multiple samples are recommended to investigate the variability in
subslab soil vapour concentrations and for some buildings, it may be desirable
The design of a soil gas sampling program should consider the possible effect
of barometric pressure fluctuations. These fluctuations could influence
shallow soil vapour concentrations when there are thick coarse-grained
unsaturated zones. A conservative approach would be to collect soil vapour
samples when the barometric pressure is decreasing. However, it is generally
not practical to schedule soil gas sampling events to target the desired
barometric pressure. However, barometric pressure data for several days
before and after sampling should be obtained, when available.
Frost cover can also reduce soil gas flux through ground surface, increase
pressure gradients, and affect subsurface soil vapour concentrations.
Consideration should be given to repeat sampling when frost cover is not
present.
Soil gas samples should be tested for the hydrocarbon vapours of potential
concern, and as a minimum, for oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane. These
gases provide an indication of microbial activity occurring through aerobic or
anaerobic processes. For example, depleted oxygen and elevated carbon
dioxide levels are indicators of aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbons.
Consideration should be given to the analysis of certain hydrocarbon
compounds (e.g., cyclohexane, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane) that are more volatile
than the BTEX compounds, and potentially less biodegradable, and which
serve as useful tracers for hydrocarbon vapour transport (Sanders and Hers,
2006).
The above qualitative factors should be reviewed when evaluating the use of
external soil vapour data. If conditions suggest shallow data may not be
representative, then it is recommended that deep soil vapour data be used for
assessment purposes. Alternately, consideration could be given to sampling
and analysis of subslab soil vapour samples to confirm that bioattenuation is
also occurring below the building. If multiple buildings are potentially
affected, testing below a subset of building(s) in the highest source
concentration area may be sufficient to demonstrate bioattenuation is
occurring.
Conditions that Limit Below Building Conditions that Enhance Below Building
Bioattenuation and Lead to Non- Bioattenuation and Lead to Representative
Representative External Soil Vapour Data External Soil Vapour Data
• Higher source vapour concentrations • Lower source vapour concentrations
(e.g., LNAPL above water table): (e.g., dissolved groundwater plume):
Greater oxygen demand. Less oxygen demand so greater chance
vapours will be degraded by the time they
reach the building.
• Shallow depth to vapour • Deeper depth to vapour contamination
contamination source and larger source and smaller building size: Greater
building size: Less opportunity for opportunity for oxygen migration to
oxygen migration to below the below the building.
building.
• Foundation subsoils that are not well • Foundation subsoils that are well
connected to ground surface: Less connected to ground surface: Greater
opportunity for oxygen migration to opportunity for oxygen migration to
below the building due to near-building below the building through barometric
capping effect (e.g., low permeability pumping and wind-induced advection.
soils or high soil moisture).
• Contamination below entire building • Contamination below part of building
(laterally uniform concentrations): (lateral concentration gradients): Less
Greater oxygen demand. oxygen demand. Collect samples in
direction of highest concentrations.
Two common probe designs are rigid PVC pipe and “implants” constructed of
steel mesh screens connected to flexible tubing. For probes constructed of
continuous PVC pipe to ground surface, 19 mm (¾ inch) diameter pipe is
commonly available and suitable for soil gas probes (smaller diameter rigid pipe
is more difficult to obtain). While the slot size for groundwater wells is
typically No. 10 slot (0.01 inch), a larger slot size (up to No. 40 slot) may be
used for PVC soil gas probes since there is less potential for the filter pack to
intrude into the probe within the unsaturated zone. Commercially-available
implants are typically 0.15 to 0.3 m long, 12.5 mm (½ inch) in diameter, and
connected to ground surface using 6 mm (¼ inch) tubing. A potential
disadvantage of smaller diameter tubing (i.e., 6 mm or smaller) is frictional
losses if pneumatic tests are to be performed. A threaded cap should be placed
over top of the riser pipe and riser pipe segments should be flush-threaded with
o-ring seal. No glue should be used for construction of probes.
Coarse sand or fine gravel should be placed surrounding the screened portion
of the probe, and a bentonite seal (minimum 0.3 m thick) should be
constructed above the screened portion of the probe. Since soil gas probes are
installed in the unsaturated zone where soil moisture may be relatively low,
careful consideration should be given to the hydration of the bentonite seal. A
competent seal can be constructed through use of dry granular bentonite
(16 mesh) and addition of distilled water to the bentonite during installation.
Granular bentonite has a particle size much like the sand used for a filter-pack,
and so it will settle effectively within the borehole, but hydrates rapidly. Two
or three lifts of granular bentonite and water is usually sufficient to form a
competent seal. Bentonite chips or pellets do not hydrate quickly enough to
form a good seal by this method. Another effective method of sealing the
If multiple probes are installed in a single borehole, the borehole above and
below each probe should be sealed with granular bentonite. After allowing the
seal to set overnight, the integrity of the seal should be checked by drawing a
vacuum on each probe, and measuring the vacuum at adjacent probes. For a
competent seal, there will be little cross-communication in vacuum between
adjacent probes and any vacuum observed will develop slowly. Soil gas
probes should be completed with an air-tight valve or stopcock at surface to
prevent atmospheric air from entering the probe, and protected using a well
cover or other similar protective casing for security and weatherproofing. If
multi-level probes are used, each probe should be tagged with a permanent
label, using no glues, or markers. In general, a similar or higher level of care
and quality control to that employed for monitoring wells should be followed
when installing a soil gas probe.
The insert or tubing should stick up a few centimeters above the concrete floor
and a seal constructed of bentonite or other suitable inert material (e.g.,
modeling clay) should be placed around the insert or tubing. Although
permanent probes sealed in boreholes are preferred, both of the above methods
may be acceptable provided that a high level of care is taken to ensure an
adequate seal. Regardless of the sealant method, a leak tracer test is
recommended to verify the seal.
Tubing Study
A study of three tubing materials (PEEK, Teflon and Nylon) by Air Toxics Ltd. (Hayes
et al., 2006) evaluated (i) background artifacts generated by a 2-foot length of tubing,
and (ii) recovery of known 0.5 ppbV standard after gas flowed through a 2-foot length
of tubing. The background test generally indicated highest artifact concentrations for
Nylon tubing, which for toluene and benzene, on average, were 0.77 µg/m3 and 0.43
µg/m3, respectively. The concentrations for Teflon tubing were lower, except for 1,1-
Difluoroethane (average of 13.8 µg/m3). The recovery test indicated good recoveries
(70-130%) for all tubing, except for heavier molecular compounds for Nylon only,
where recovery for naphthalene was 31%. This study shows tubing can influence soil
vapour and air monitoring results, particularly given a short length of tubing was used
for the study. The study indicates that Teflon and PEEK may perform better than Nylon
for low-level analysis (note conversion of ppbV to µg/m3 assumed 20oC).
Only new materials should be used, except when temporary steel probes are
re-used. Steel probes should be decontaminated prior to use. Care should be
taken when storing and handling probe material to avoid contamination.
For security and to prevent damage to probes, metal well protectors or well
covers, with locking caps should be considered.
For finer-grained soils, the process of driving a steel probe may cause
deflection of the probe, movement and cracking of soil around the probe, and
hence the potential for short-circuiting during sampling. For driven probes,
the surface surrounding the probe should be sealed with bentonite prior to
sampling, or suitable alternate material that is inert (e.g., modeling clay). It is
important to avoid the lateral or vertical movement of probes once installed to
minimize any separation between the soils and the outside of the probes.
The probe surface seal integrity may be tested by introducing a tracer gas (e.g.,
helium) around the probe at the contact with the ground surface and then
analyzing the collected soil gas samples for the tracer gas.
TedlarTM Bags • Tedlar bags are available in volumes ranging from 10 ml to 10 litre;
typically a 0.5 to 1 litre bag is used for soil gas sampling.
• Tedlar bags can be filled using a: 1) small battery-powered electric
pump, 2) peristaltic pump or 3) vacuum chamber. Electric pumps
can become contaminated and thus cross-contamination is possible.
At higher vacuums, pumps do not function well and may leak. An
advantage of peristaltic pumps is that soil gas does not pass through
the pump. The vacuum chamber method involves placing a Tedlar
bag in a sealed chamber that is evacuated, which in turn causes the
bag to fill with soil gas. The vacuum chamber method is
advantageous in lower permeability soils in that there is least
potential for ambient air leakage (e.g., through leaking pumps or
connections).
• Studies indicate significant leakage of Tedlar bags over the first 24
to 48 hours after sampling (Wang et al., 1996; and Andino and
Butler, 1991).
• Tedlar bag samples should be analyzed as quickly as possible.
Although reported analytical holding times are up to seven days,
analysis of bags within 24 and 48 hours is recommended.
Glass Cylinders • Glass cylinders are available in a range of volumes; typically a 0.5
to 1 litre cylinder is used for soil gas sampling;
• The glass cylinder is placed in-line between the probe and pump.
• Glass cylinders are typically supplied by the analytical laboratory
filled with high-purity nitrogen.
• Once purging is completed, the cylinder should be inserted into the
sampling train. An additional five cylinder volumes should be
purged through the cylinder before simultaneously closing both
stopcocks.
• Glass cylinders should be analyzed as quickly as possible.
Although reported analytical holding times are up to seven days,
analysis of cylinders within 24 and 48 hours is recommended.
Gas-Tight • Gas-tight syringes are used to collect small volume gas samples
Syringes (typically 5 to 60 ml). Syringes may be glass/Teflon or plastic, but
there are large differences in sorptive properties.
• Gas-tight syringes are typically used for on-site gas
chromatography (GC) analysis.
• Samples should be analyzed within a short time (30 minutes) of
collection.
If the soil gas survey is limited to testing of soil gas samples using a field
photoionization detector (PID) or flame ionization detector (FID) measuring to
part-per-million levels, it may be appropriate to re-use the soil gas probes,
tubing and sampling containers (e.g., Tedlar bags). However, prior to
installing a probe and collecting each sample, a field blank sample comprised
of ambient air should be collected through the entire sampling train and tested
using the field PID or FID. If concentrations in the field blank are elevated
above background ambient levels, the equipment should be cleaned or new
equipment should be used.
If the soil gas survey involves collection of soil gas samples for part-per-
billion analysis, greater care must be taken with respect to decontamination
and verification of clean sampling equipment and containers. It is
Larger purge volumes and longer sampling times may be desirable if the intent
is to evaluate conditions beyond the immediate proximity of the soil gas probe
(Lewis et al., 2004; Lewis et al., 2005). If the approximate permeability and
soil gas flow regime is known, a volume-integrated concentration may be
obtained. The concentration trends over time as measured by direct reading
The soil air permeability has an important influence on sampling flow rate
since the vacuum generated increases as permeability decreases. One study
demonstrated that soil vapour concentrations were not sensitive to flow rate of
up to 10 L/min, in properly sealed probes in moderately permeable materials
(Creamer and McAlary, 2006). Conversely, it may not be practical to collect
samples at flow rates of 100 ml/min in fine-grained soil without imposing an
excessive vacuum. High vacuums make it more difficult to collect a soil gas
sample and increase the potential for leakage (if there are small leaks in seals).
Some guidance documents also suggest that high vacuums enhance the
volatilization or desorption of chemicals (ITRC, 2007; API, 2005). Where
possible, the vacuum during sampling should be less than 10 inches water
column (by adjusting the flow rate), although it may be possible to collect
samples at vacuums as high as 100 inches. The flow and vacuum can be
easily measured using a T-junction connected to a digital manometer and
rotameter to determine an appropriate sampling flow rate for a given geologic
material permeability (EPRI, 2005; ITRC, 2007). Practically, the sampling
rate is often dictated by the sampling device. For Summa canisters, use of a
flow regulator is good practice, and typically results in sampling rates between
about 5 and 100 ml/min. For most sorbent tubes, the analytical protocols
indicate that sampling rate should not exceed 200 ml/min.
Sample Collection
Samples for VOCs are typically collected in Summa canisters, although glass
bulbs, Tedlar bags, and glass and Teflon syringes may be acceptable for some
chemicals, and adsorbent media tubes filled with Tenax, PUF/XAD, or other
materials may be necessary for compounds that are not easily recovered from
whole-gas containers (compounds heavier than naphthalene are typically
analyzed by adsorbent media sampling).
Summa canisters should have their initial vacuum checked prior to use to
assure the canister did not leak enroute to the site, and a flow controller
attached prior to sample collection. The residual vacuum after sample
collection should also be recorded and verified upon receipt by the laboratory
to assure that the canister did not leak during return shipment.
Tedlar bags should be filled using a vacuum chamber, and not from the
exhaust of a pump to avoid cross-contamination issues.
Once purging is complete, soil gas samples from conventional soil gas probes
should generally be collected using the same sampling flow rate as for
purging. For subslab soil gas probes, it may be desirable to collect a subslab
gas sample concurrently with an indoor air sample to reduce influence short-
term variability and enable comparisons to indoor air data over the same time
period. Indoor air samples are typically obtained over a 24-hour period. The
soil gas sampling rate for a 6-litre subslab Summa sample collected over 24
hours is about 6 mL/minute. Sampling of probes at a site should be completed
over a relatively short time period (e.g., within one week) to provide an
internally consistent data set (Lahvis, 2002). If any water is drawn in the
sample container, re-collect the sample after taking measures to eliminate
water.
Soil gas samples obtained using syringes, steel canisters or glass cylinders
should not be placed in a chilled cooler for transport since volatiles may
condense out the vapour phase at lower temperature (Hartman, 2002).
Samples should not be subjected to excessive heat.
While field detectors are valuable for site screening, the limitations associated
with these instruments, including non-specificity to compounds of possible
interest and the effect of environmental factors and sampling methods, should
be clearly understood (Robbins et al., 1990). Field detectors should generally
not be directly connected to sampling probes when taking measurements,
unless it can be demonstrated that possible sampling flow rate constrictions
and vacuums generated by sampling will not affect the field detector response.
PIDs, in particular, are sensitive to variation in the sampling flow rate.
Samples should generally be obtained in Tedlar bags to facilitate readings
taken using field detectors. All instruments should be calibrated on a daily or
more frequent basis.
The use of sorbent tubes for sampling and analysis of soil vapour is relatively
complicated and there are numerous factors to consider. While a number of
methods are available, it is important to recognize that they are air methods
that have been modified for soil vapour.
Thermal desorption involves rapidly heating the sorbent to desorb the VOC,
while passing an inert carrier gas through the tube. The VOCs are carried by
the gas and concentrated on a smaller downstream trap, which usually is
cryogenically cooled. For thermal desorption, the whole sample is released
from the sorbent during the heated desorption step. While some of the earlier
thermal desorption units do not allow for the possibility for replicate analyses,
the newest units have the capability of re-collecting a portion of sample during
the primary desorption step to allow for re-analysis. Additionally, sample
introduction parameters can be modified such that less mass is loaded onto the
GC/MS in order to perform sample dilutions (this is important since soil
vapour concentrations, as compared to air, can be very high and potentially
The laboratory methods typically specify the type of sorbent to use. Coconut
shell charcoal is typically used for BTEX analysis (NIOSH 1501). For
chlorinated solvent compounds, some laboratories use the same method but
substitute newer more sorptive materials such as processed synthetic carbon
(e.g., Anasorb 747) or molecular sieve materials in place of the coconut shell
charcoal. For USEPA TO-17 analysis, tubes containing three materials with
differing sorptive properties (e.g., graphitized carbon black, carbon molecular
sieve) that are designed to optimize the collection process are used. Thermal
tubes designed to perform well under conditions of high humidity should be
selected. Sorbents used for semi-volatile (PAH) analyses (naphthalene and
heavier molecular weight compounds) often consist of TeflonTM-impregnated
glass fibres followed by a resin (XAD-2) sorbent (NIOSH 5515) or
polyurethane (PUF) foam cartridge (USEPA Method TO-13A). Since
trapping of particulates for soil vapour is usually not an objective, typically
only the XAD resin sorbent is used for semi-volatile analyses.
Pump Flow Rate: Since the concentration is sensitive to the flow rate, pumps
must be accurately calibrated and provide a constant flow rate throughout the
sampling duration. The pump flow rate must be checked prior to and during
sampling, since actual pump flow rates may vary considerably depending on
the soil air permeability and vacuum. A recent study (Golder Associates,
2007, unpublished) found a significant and roughly linear drop in pump flow
rate under vacuum conditions induced by soil (e.g., 11% drop in flow at 3.4
inches H20, 40% drop at 9 inches H20 and 93% drop at 16.5 inches H20).
Canister Method
Low detection limits can be achieved utilizing the Summa canister method
(USEPA Method TO-15) and, in general, the accuracy and precision of
analytical results generated are high. Nevertheless, there are significant issues
for this method as described below.
Analytical Methods: The analytical protocols for the Summa method are
USEPA TO-14A (non-polar compounds) (USEPA, 1999a) and USEPA TO-15
(polar and non-polar compounds) (USEPA, 1999b). USEPA Method TO-15 is
commonly used for soil vapour analyses since there are a number of
Hardware: Two types of canisters are available: Summa canisters, which are
electro-polished steel canisters and Silco canisters, where the steel is coated
with an inert fused silica layer. The silcosteel canisters internal surface is
intended to be non-reactive with sulphur compounds or compounds that react
with metal surfaces (e.g., polar compounds). However, there is debate
between practitioners on appropriate sampling device for sulphur compounds,
with some advocating the use of Tedlar bags. It is important that the canister
hardware be in good condition. For soil vapour sampling, a one-litre canister
is typically a sufficient volume.
A critical orifice is often used for short duration sampling for soil vapour (i.e.,
up to an hour), but it does not provide for a uniform flow since the flow rate is
a function of the pressure differential. This is not of significant concern for
soil vapour sampling; however, a residual vacuum should remain in the
canister after sampling is complete. For longer duration sampling (e.g., indoor
air sampling), a mass flow controller should be used to provide for a uniform
flow rate. Particulate filters consisting of sintered steel with 2 to 7 micron
pore sizes or deactivated glass frit are placed before the critical orifice. It is
essential that all fittings are tight during sampling.
Certain pre-cautions should also be taken when conducting soil vapour programs during cold
weather. Field instruments such as photoionization and flame ionization detectors and pumps are
not designed to operate when temperatures are below freezing. Field instruments may be kept
warm in a heated building or vehicle, with field samples collected and transported in Tedlar bags.
Sampling pumps may be kept warm by storing them in insulated coolers or insulated lunch bags
with heat packs. While the cold temperature performance of sorbent tubes is not well understood,
consideration should be given to heating and insulating of sorbent tubes during sampling and
keeping above-ground tubing as short as possible. There may also be condensation through
cooling of warmer soil gas during sampling. Condensation can be particularly problematic for
sorbent tube sampling and therefore sample tubing and bags should be closely observed for any
signs of condensation (e.g., through use of translucent tubing).
Method Selection
The development of a QA/QC plan will help to ensure that the desired data
quality is achieved. Standard operating procedures should be used for
sampling and analytical procedures, including the use of chain of custody
records and identifying sampling locations. Systematic data collection and
planning helps provide for defensible results and increased credibility.
Detection Limits
For risk assessments, the measured vapour concentrations are often used to
predict indoor air concentrations. Required detection limits may be back-
calculated using risk-based target indoor air concentrations combined with a
maximum expected attenuation factor between soil vapour and indoor air. For
subslab or near building soil vapour, a reasonable upper bound attenuation
factor is 0.02. An additional “safety factor” (about 5-10X) should be applied to
provide for greater flexibility in data interpretation and since there is increased
uncertainty near to the detection limit. The target detection limit is calculated as
follows:
The frequency of field and laboratory duplicate sample analyses, while often
each set at 10 percent of the samples analyzed, may depend on the total
number of samples analyzed and analytical method. When only a small
number of samples are tested, it may be desirable to increase the frequency of
testing or pool QC results from multiple programs before drawing conclusions
about data quality. Depending on whether the laboratory has a thermal
desorption unit with re-collection feature, collection of duplicate samples for
thermal desorption analyses may be advantageous in that it enables re-analysis
of a second sample.
While not a duplicate analysis, for sorbent tube analysis, both the front and
back sections of sampling tubes (or two tubes in series) should be analyzed
separately to evaluate for chemical breakthrough.
• Field transport blanks are sample containers that are shipped with the
other samples, but which are not used for collecting a sample. For
Summa canisters, testing a field transport blank involves filling the
canister with ultra high purity air or nitrogen, which should be supplied
by the laboratory in a separate canister. Such tests may be redundant
when other quality control tests are performed such as laboratory
certification of canisters and testing of the vacuum before and after
sampling, but is an additional quality control test that may be
warranted for some projects
• An equipment blank may be collected by drawing atmospheric air or
high purity inert gas through the sampling train and probe to be
Flux Chamber Test: The surface emission flux rate of volatile chemicals may
be measured by placing an open bottom box on top of bare ground or above a
crack on a concrete floor (where the box is appropriately sealed to the
concrete) and measuring the increase in volatile chemical concentrations in the
chamber over time (static test) or measuring concentrations in air extracted at
a steady rate from the chamber (dynamic test). Flux chamber tests are affected
by the methodology used and conditions at the time of sampling and are
relatively difficult tests to perform. The use or scaling of data for purposes of
a vapour intrusion assessment is also not straightforward, although flux
chamber tests may be useful when emissions to outdoor air are estimated.
CHAPTER 6
The basic steps for the design of an IAQ program are similar to those
described for soil vapour characterization and consist of (1) development of a
conceptual site model (CSM), with specific consideration of factors that
influence IAQ based on site conditions, (2) development of IAQ study
objectives, and (3) preparation of a sampling plan. As indicated for soil
vapour characterization, it is not possible to provide a standardized template
for IAQ program design, and instead key principles and factors that should be
considered in developing a sampling strategy are discussed below. A detailed
flow chart of the framework for an IAQ study is provided in Figure 12.
PREPARATORY TASKS
DEVELOP DETAILED
SAMPLING PLAN
Building Preparation
Sampling & analysis
YES NO
ADDITIONAL SAMPLING
NEEDED? END
TABLE 10. Compilation of Indoor Air Quality Data from Canadian Studies
Health Canada Greater Toronto, Saskatchewan and Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec City,
1991,1992a 1996b Ontario 1991, 1999c 1993d 2002, 2003e 2005f
Contaminant
95th 90th Geometric
Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Median Mean* Max Median Mean* Max Median Max
percentile percentile Mean
Benzene 5.4 67.9 3.42 45.8 15 42.3 2.85 3.99 10.67 54.61 2.15 2.85 5.21 20.99 1.18 1.22 22.37
Toluene 40.8 5730 15.2 186 23.9 110.5 15.51 25.04 88.10 156.43 5.53 11.54 25.47 112.93 24.72 26.47 436.33
Ethylbenzene 8.2 540 1.58 20.9 9.6 32.9 2.38 4.16 15.10 53.21 1.05 4.71 4.76 201.41 2.45 2.69 19.50
m,p-Xylene 20.7 1470 - - 21.6 74.2 8.22 16.33 41.05 317.19 3.59 7.5 16.35 138.97 9.17 9.85 77.08
o-Xylene 5.6 320 - - 5.7 20.3 2.49 4.95 17.38 70.17 1.22 5.08 6.48 205.11 3.03 3.43 26.43
Styrene 0.3 130 - - 4.1 11.3 1.30 8.37 37.02 176.61 0.46 0.69 1.49 6.53 0.69 0.65 14.03
1,3,5-
2.7 640 0.53 1.47 5.1 15 1.62 3.99 9.33 148.32 0.39 3.87 4.75 144.44 0.92 1.26 22.38
Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-
- - - - - - 5.09 10.05 32.96 123.20 2.21 3.97 6.73 56.60 2.61 3.45 68.09
Trimethylbenzene
Naphthalene - - 4.81 83.4 7.2 30 3.00 5.09 17.20 73.35 - - - - 1.12 1.45 23.02
n-hexane 124 5.24 108 14.5 99.4 4.88 7.94 26.90 114.86 - - - - 2.17 2.35 38.55
n-decane 31.4 6450 6.85 91.9 - - 4.98 14.50 53.83 200.85 2.17 5.28 8.09 84.60 6.48 6.42 203.25
n- undecane 6.00 15.61 57.49 313.12 - - - - - - -
n-dodecane - - - - 14.7 91.9 3.41 8.88 24.27 170.00 - - - - - - -
Dichlorobenzenes 18.9 1390 53.4 1600 12.8 337.5 - - - - - - - - - - -
1,2,4-
- - - - - - 0.09 0.23 0.66 2.30 - - - - - - -
Trichlorobenzene
1,4- Dichlorobenze - - - - - - 1.18 8.67 39.98 236.47 - - - - 0.36 0.58 286.57
Tetrachloroethene 2.7 313 1.59 9.55 8.2 30 1.10 3.06 14.84 33.61 0.47 1.15 3.25 9.23 0.69 0.92 179.30
Trichloroethene 0.5 165 - - 2.3 6.5 0.17 0.30 - 3.53 <0.02 0.06 0.19 0.87 0.35 0.37 4.68
1,1-Dichloroethene - - - - - - 0.04 0.15 0.77 2.02 <0.01 0.27 0.83 4.05 - - -
Vinyl Chloride - - - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - -
Dichloromethane - - - - - - 9.19 48.99 178.80 1209.91 1.87 14.98 43.21 408.37 7.04 7.93 1687.44
1,1,1- Trichloroethane - - - - - - 2.48 9.94 54.07 115.79 - - - - - - -
1,2-Dichloroethane <0.1 1.7 - - 7.4 25 - - - - <0.02 0.03 <0.02 0.71 - - -
Carbon Tetrachloride - - - - - - 0.48 0.57 0.90 4.51 - - - - - - -
Bromodichloromethane - - - - - - 0.17 0.28 0.77 1.32 - - - - - - -
1,3- Butadiene - - - - - - 0.15 0.24 0.65 2.40 <0.32 0.5 1.64 3.65 - - -
Cyclohexane - - - - - - 0.44 0.80 2.84 11.02 4.51 6.58 15.1 54.12 - - -
Isoprene - - - - - - 2.95 5.26 16.76 43.38 - - - - - - -
MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment
Chapter 6. Indoor Air Quality Testing _____________ ___ 6‐7
Health Canada Greater Toronto, Saskatchewan and Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec City,
1991,1992a 1996b Ontario 1991, 1999c 1993d 2002, 2003e 2005f
Contaminant
95th 90th Geometric
Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Median Mean* Max Median Mean* Max Median Max
percentile percentile Mean
Acetaldehyde - - - - - - 0.00 40.89 85.26 792.41 - - - - - - -
Hexanal - - - - - - 9.33 16.79 44.75 57.40 - - - - - - -
Acetone - - - - - - - - - - 28.48 44.44 76.4 455.87 - - -
Chloroform - - - - - - - - - - 1.19 1.72 4.39 8.23 3.15 3.18 18.59
2-propanol - - - - - - - - - - 3.32 18.14 68.76 238.17 - - -
2-butanol - - - - - - - - - - 1.48 2.54 6.66 16.45 - - -
Phenol - - - - - - - - - - 0.42 0.70 1.67 5.16 - - -
Carbon disulfide - - - - - - - - - - 0.13 0.34 0.86 3.29 - - -
1-butanol - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 4.25 5.96 139.66 - - -
4-methyl-2-pentanone - - - - - - - - - - 0.16 0.26 0.8 1.40 - - -
Acrylonitrile - - - - - - - - - - 0.06 0.27 0.26 8.89 - - -
2-butoxyethanol - - - - - - - - - - <0.28 2.85 7.06 41.44 - - -
Methyl methacrylate - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 0.05 0.06 1.12 - - -
Methyl tert-butyl ether - - - - - - - - - - <0.05 0.17 <0.05 3.32 - - -
Chlorobenzene - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.012 <0.01 0.04 - - -
3,5-dimethylaniline - - - - - - - - - - <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 4.71 - - -
1,2-dichlorobenze - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.11 - - -
1,3-dichlorobenze - - - - - - - - - - 0.15 0.77 1.05 16.19 - - -
2-ethoxyethanol - - - - - - - - - - <0.13 0.43 <0.13 27.14 - - -
2-methoxyethanol - - - - - - - - - - <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 - - -
1,2-dichloropropane - - - - - - - - - - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - - -
Ethylene dibromide - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - - -
1,1,2,2-
- - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - - -
tetrachloroethane
Cumene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.8 0.88 45.48
α-pinene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.95 9.74 800.68
d-limonene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28.54 28.06 329.89
p-cymene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.49 1.55 32.90
Concentrations in units of ug/m3
*
Arithmetic mean
a
Davis and Otson (1996)
b
Otson and Zhu. 1997.
MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment
Chapter 6. Indoor Air Quality Testing _____________ ___ 6‐8
c
Saskatchewan Research Council. 1992.
d
Hamilton 1993 Indoor Air Statistics
e
Zhu et al. (2005)
f
Héroux et al. (2008)
Davis, C.S. and R. Otson (1996) “Estimation of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from Canadian residences.” Volatile Organic Compounds in the Environment, ASTM STP 1261.
Héroux, M.-È., D. Gauvin, et al. (2007). "Housing characteristics and indoor concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Quebec City, Canada." Indoor and Built Environment 17: 128–
137.
Otson, R. and J. Zhu (1997) “I/O values for determination of the origin of some indoor organic pollutants.” Proc. Air & Waste Managements Association’s 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, June 8 to 13, 1997.
Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) (1992) “Volatile organic compound survey and summarization of results.” Report I-4800-1-C-92. Prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. April.
Zhu, J., R. Newhook, et al. (2005). "Selected volatile organic compounds in residential air in the city of Ottawa, Canada." Environmental Science & Technology 39: 3964-3971.
MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE
Chapter 6. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-9
For commercial buildings, design air exchange rates must meet minimum
requirements based on building occupancy, although actual ventilation system
efficiency may be variable depending on operation of the HVAC system.
Standards in Canada and the U.S. both specify minimum ventilation rates for
residential and commercial buildings. For example, ASHRAE (2007)
indicates that for office use, 20 standard cubic feet of outdoor air is blown into
the building per person to maintain sufficient fresh air supply, which
corresponds to an air exchange of about 0.72 ACH for typical occupancy.
Ventilation rates for institutional buildings are higher. The USEPA BASE
The residents of the home should be given the instructions listed below to follow 24 hours prior to and
during the sampling event:
• Do not open any windows, fireplace openings or vents.
• Do not operate ventilation fans unless special arrangements are made.
• Do not smoke in vicinity of sampler and or disturb sampler in any way.
• Do not use oil based paints or varnishes.
• Do not store containers of gasoline or oil within the house or attached garage
• (except for heating fuel oil tanks).
• Do not clean or polish furniture or floors with petroleum or oil-based products.
Wind force may create pressure differentials between upwind and downwind
sides of the building, which is another mechanism that causes the building
interior to be underpressurized. Changes in barometric pressure as a result of
meteorological conditions can also cause pressure differences between the
building interior and exterior. These pressure differences may occur at
varying temporal scales (hourly to seasonally), but in general, the most
significant pressure differences occur under severe winter conditions.
There may be other specific objectives of the IAQ study that would result in a
different sampling strategy. For example, if the goal is to evaluate potential
entry points for soil gas into a building, samples may be collected from close
to cracks or within utility openings. Samples collected to meet this objective
are typically referred to as “pathway” samples. If the objective of the IAQ
The study objectives can also be broadly defined in terms of the phase or level
of investigation. An initial preliminary investigation may consist of a limited
number of IAQ samples. If the preliminary investigation indicates a potential
indoor air quality concern, additional investigation may be appropriate.
Finally, if vapour intrusion mitigation systems are installed, follow-up IAQ
monitoring may be required for some period of time.
6.3.7 Define Number and Locations of Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples
The number and locations of indoor air samples will be dictated by several
factors. If a preliminary investigation of IAQ is being undertaken, a limited
number of samples may be sufficient. If the study objectives require a
statistical approach or analysis of results, multiple samples would be required.
The building characteristics including size, construction and ventilation
patterns will also influence the required number of samples. For example, if
the building is a small house with reasonably good ventilation, the indoor air
concentrations within the house may be relatively uniform.
Outdoor air will influence IAQ and may also contain chemicals at
concentrations that exceed risk-based concentrations. Therefore, it is good
practice to obtain outdoor air samples as part of the IAQ program. The
number of samples will be site specific, but several samples obtained from
multiple locations may be needed. As part of the outdoor air program, it is also
important to identify emission sources such as gasoline stations, major
highways, paving operations and remediation systems. It is important to
protect outdoor air samplers from the elements (rain or snow) and vandalism.
6.3.10 Preparing the Building for Sampling and Conditions during Sampling
A list of measures that should be considered when performing IAQ sampling
programs is provided in Exhibit 4. Building occupants should be informed of
the required measures or sampling conditions in advance of the sampling
event.
The main differences between soil vapour and indoor air sampling are that
lower detection limits, larger sample volumes and longer sampling durations
are generally required for indoor air testing. The required analytical reporting
limit will depend on the compound, but typically is less than 1 µg/m3.
Detection limits should be optimally at a minimum 10 times lower than
criteria/benchmark values of the target compounds. For some analytes, the
target risk-based indoor air concentration may be below a practically
achievable detection limit and/or below typical background levels in indoor or
ambient air. The low detection limits require that a high level of care be taken
to avoid cross-contamination both by the laboratory (e.g., cleaning of
sampling device) and by persons performing the sampling (e.g., handling and
storage of sampling device). When using canisters, it is important to consider
whether they can be cleaned and certified to the levels at which the analysis
will be performed.
For indoor air testing, Summa canisters (six litre) are frequently used (USEPA
TO-15). To provide the sensitivity required to achieve reporting limits at or
below risk-based target concentrations, GC/MS analysis may need to be
performed in selective ion model (SIM) for some compounds. For active
sorbent tube analysis, modified industrial hygiene methods involving solvent
extraction (e.g., modified OSHA 7 or NIOSH 5515) may not provide
sufficiently low detection limits. Instead, thermal desorption methods may be
required (e.g., USEPA Method TO-17). Summa canisters must retain at least 2
inches Hg of negative pressure to be considered valid sample.
1) Badge-style samplers (e.g., 3M OVM 3500 and SKC Ultra II) have been
used for decades for evaluation of workplace exposures to VOCs. In this
application, the reporting limits are typically in the part per million
(ppmV) range, samples are typically collected over an 8 hour period and
the absorbent medium is typically charcoal, which is extracted using
solvent (e.g., carbon disulphide, CS2) and analyzed using GC/MS
methods (GC/FID is not recommended). Recently, passive diffusive
badges have been used for indoor air quality studies involving longer
sampling periods and lower detection limits using sorbents that are
thermally desorbed (Chromosorb 106, Carbotrap Z) (OSHA, 2003, Coyne
et al., 2002, Hendricks, 2003). McClenny et al. (2006) report on the
results of a thermal desorption method involving the SKC Ultra-II filled
with Carbotrap C, where compound-specific method detection limits on
the order of 0.03 to 0.3 ppbV were reported. At these levels, badge-style
samplers can also be used for assessing VOC vapour concentrations at
levels protective of long-term exposures.
The stronger sorbents tend to also absorb water, which can be a problem in
the analysis and can be limiting for some applications. Weaker absorbents
such as Tenax do not retain water but more volatile compounds are not
strongly retained and may be lost from the sampling tube by back
diffusion. These types of processes can result in non-ideal behaviour of the
samplers, which means that the actual performance of the sampler in the
field may deviate from that calculated on the basis of the dimensions of
the sampler and the rate of diffusion of the analyte in air. International
standards are available describing the process of assessment of the sampler
performance and these involve a series of laboratory and field tests to
assess the uncertainty associated with the measurement of a particular
analyte under defined conditions.
Aluminium cap
PDMS membrane
Given that passive diffusive sampling methods have only recently begun to be
used for low-level indoor air analysis, considerations relating to their use and
results of selected research studies are summarized below:
• The sampling rate is compound specific; there are varying (up to
four) levels of validation studies. The highest level of validation
are laboratory testing programs designed to evaluate the stability of
the sampling rate under varying conditions and contaminant
mixtures, whereas the lowest level are estimates from the diffusion
coefficient of the analyte.
• The sampling rate is typically relatively stable over a certain time
interval, but will decrease once saturation of the media is
approached;
• In stagnant air, the sampling rate will decrease; one study indicated
a significant decline for sampling face air velocities that were less
than 50 cm/sec (OHSA, 1998). Another study indicated that
badges performed satisfactorily down to face velocities as little as 5
cm/sec, but reported that face velocities inside houses are typically
less than 2.5 cm/sec indicating the potential for a “starvation”
effect (SKC, 2006). A review of 28 studies between 1973 and 2003
where the effect of face velocity on sampling rate was evaluated
indicated that except for one study, significant underestimation in
sampling rate was reported (about 20 to 60%) in the wind velocity
range encountered in the indoor environment (Lee and Yun, 2004).
• Back-diffusion of compounds out of the sampler may occur for
some compounds;
• Humidity above 50 percent will reduce recovery of certain
compounds such as vinyl chloride, acetone and methyl ethyl ketone
(3M Bulletin 1028, 2000);
• Extraction recovery varies depending on compound; project
specific recovery tests are recommended by some badge
manufacturers (3M Bulletin 1028, 2001) to address varying
recovery for contaminant mixtures;
• There is an absence of established methods for low-level VOC
analysis and studies involving longer sampling durations; and,
• Detection limits for passive badge-type diffusion samplers are
typically about 1 µg/m3 or higher for common VOCs, although
lower detection limits can be achieved with newer badge or radial
samplers.
CHAPTER 7
The constituent ratio analysis works best for chemical groups with similar
physical-chemical and fate properties, such as tetrachloroethene and
trichloroethene. Where there are potential significant differences in physico-
chemical properties or biodegradation rates, this technique is less effective.
The ratio of measured indoor to outdoor air (I/O) concentration may also be
compared to literature values. For some chemicals (e.g., benzene), the I/O
ratio is normally relatively close to one (Hers et al., 2001); therefore, large
divergences may suggest a subsurface vapour source.
CHAPTER 8
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
Abreu, L. and P.C. Johnson, 2005. Effect of Vapor Source-Building Separation and
Building Construction on Soil Vapor Intrusion as Studied with a Three-Dimensional
Model. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 4550-4561.
American Petroleum Institute (API) (2005). Collecting and Interpreting Soil Gas Samples
from the Vadose Zone: A Practical Strategy for Assessing the Subsurface Vapour-to-
Indoor-Air Migration Pathway at Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites. November 2005.
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
(ASHRAE), 2001. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001. Ventilation for Acceptable
Indoor Air Quality.
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
(ASHRAE), 2001. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001. Ventilation for Acceptable
Indoor Air Quality.
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
(ASHRAE), 2007. Standard 62.1-2007. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air
Quality.
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2010. Standard Guide for Vapor
Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions.American
Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2003. ASTM Standard E-2121. Standard
Practice for Installing Radon Mitigation Systems in Existing Low-Rise Residential
Buildings. February 10.
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2001. ASTM E1465 - 08a Standard
Practice for Radon Control Options for the Design and Construction of New Low-Rise
Residential Buildings
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2000. Standard E-741-00 - Standard Test
Method for Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas
Dilution.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1995. Standard Guide for Risk-
Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites. E-1739-95.
American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992. Standard Guide for Soil
Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone. D5314-92 (Re-approved 2001). pp. 1161-1196.
Andino, J.M. and J.W. Butler. 1991. A study of the stability of methanol-fueled vehicle
emissions in Tedlar bags. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25: 1644-1646.
Atlantic Partnership in RBCA Implementation (Atlantic PIRI). 2003. Atlantic RBCA
(Risk-Based Corrective Action) Version 2.0 for Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlantic
Canada. User Guidance.
CHAPTER 10
APPENDIX I
This appendix is taken from draft Health Canada “Guidance Manual for Environmental Site
Characterization in Support of Human Health Risk Assessment”, September 2008 (prepared
by Golder Associates Ltd.). This Appendix is included with Health Canada permission, but
may not necessarily reflect its policy at this time.
A conceptual site model (CSM) is a visual representation and narrative description of the
physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring, or that have occurred, at a contaminated
site. A well developed CSM provides decision makers with an effective tool that helps to
organize, communicate and interpret existing data, while also identifying areas where additional
data is required. The CSM should be considered dynamic in nature and should be regularly
updated and shared as new information becomes available. An example of a CSM for soil vapour
intrusion is shown in Figure 1 below. The following sections present an overview of
contamination sources and fate and transport processes, followed by specific CSM’s of interest
for vapour intrusion (Exhibit 1).
Contamination Sources
Common contaminants of potential concern for soil vapour intrusion comprise a range of organic
chemicals including petroleum hydrocarbons from fuel products, coal-tar or creosote, and
chlorinated solvents.
Petroleum hydrocarbons are associated with fuels such as gasoline, jet fuel and diesel and are
mixtures of hundreds of compounds. While often the focus of risk assessments are benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), these compounds only represent a small fraction of
hydrocarbon vapours and there may be other specific compounds of interest such as hexane,
decane, trimethylbenzenes and naphthalene, depending on the fuel type. Typically, analytical
tests for hydrocarbon vapours will also include hydrocarbon fractions based on carbon chain
length (e.g., F1 and F2 as defined in CCME (2001)) and aromatic and aliphatic fractions.
Coal-tar, associated with former manufactured gas plants (MGP), and creosote, associated with
wood preservation, have similar organic contaminants of potential concern composed of
monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as BTEX, and PAHs. There is significant variation in
the volatility and mobility of PAH compounds ranging from naphthalene, considered a semi-
volatile, to five- and six-ring PAHs, which are essentially non-volatile. While some of the
heavier PAH compounds are identified as COPCs for the vapour intrusion pathway based on
conservative screening approaches (e.g., Health Canada and USEPA vapour intrusion guidance),
their vapour concentrations are relatively low and organic carbon partitioning coefficients (Koc)
tend to be higher. As a consequence, the mobility of heavier molecular weight PAHs via soil
vapour transport is limited and, for practical purposes, is not of potential concern for vapour
intrusion. Similar considerations apply to other heavier molecular weight organic chemicals with
similar properties.
Inorganic chemicals such as mercury may also pose a potential vapour inhalation risk since
elemental mercury has a high vapour pressure and mercury vapours are relatively toxic.
Soil gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and, in some cases, hydrogen sulphide, may be
generated as a by-product of the anaerobic decomposition of organic chemicals such as petroleum
fuels, waste material (e.g., refuse) and/or native organic matter (e.g., peat). The presence of these
gases may represent a potential safety hazard through explosion or asphyxiation. Methane is
explosive in the range of 5 to 15 percent by volume in air. Gas produced by microbiological
activity may generate pressure gradients that enhance subsurface vapour migration through
advection. Another source of pressure-driven gas is leaking natural gas lines. The CSM
subsequently described in this chapter does not address assessment of sites where there is
potential for significant pressure-driven gas flow.
Chemical transfer to the vapour phase may occur through partitioning of NAPL present above the
water table into soil gas (“vapourisation”) or partitioning of dissolved chemicals in soil-water
above the water table into soil gas (“volatilization”). The NAPL is referred to as a primary
source of vapours while a dissolved phase plume is referred to as a secondary source. Soil
contamination within the unsaturated zone also represents a potential source of vapours.
The distribution of NAPL relative to the water table will have a large influence on its potential to
volatilise and migrate to indoor air. If the NAPL is situated below the water table, then
volatilisation will be relatively limited since, as subsequently discussed in this chapter, the mass
transport through groundwater is relatively slow due to the low diffusion rate in water, and since
vertical dispersion tends to be limited.
For a secondary source where chemicals are present only as a dissolved phase in groundwater,
their distribution below the water table will also determine their potential to volatilize. If volatile
chemicals are present near the surface of the water table, volatilization will readily occur. In
contrast, if there is a layer of “clean” groundwater above contaminated water, then the rate of
volatilization will decrease.
Equilibrium partitioning models are typically used to estimate the distribution of chemicals
between different phases. Where NAPL is present above the water table, a two-phase model
based on the vapour pressure of the chemical is used to estimate the soil vapour concentration.
Raoult’s Law is used to account for partitioning for a multi-component mixture of chemicals,
which is a function of the mole fraction and vapour pressure, as follows:
Cv = 1000 * MW * X * VP / (R * T) [1]
where Cv is the soil vapour concentration (mg/m3), MW is the molecular weight (g/mole), X is the
mole fraction (dimensionless), VP is the vapour pressure (atm), R is the gas constant (m3-atm/K-
mole), and T is the temperature (K).
For dissolved chemicals in groundwater, the Henry’s Law constant is typically used to estimate
the vapour concentration in equilibrium with water, as follows:
Cv = 1000 * Cg * H’ [2]
where Cg is the groundwater concentration (mg/L) and H’ is the dimensionless Henry’s Law
constant. Since it is not possible to obtain a soil gas sample at the water table (i.e., due to the
capillary transition zone), the measured soil vapour concentration should be lower than that
predicted using the Henry’s Law constant. This is because there will be attenuation of chemical
concentrations by diffusion (and possibly biodegradation) within the capillary fringe and
transition zone between the water table and region where there are continuous gas-filled soil
pores. The attenuation within the capillary zone has implications for soil vapour intrusion
modeling and comparison of measured and predicted soil vapour concentrations.
Where there is soil contamination, but no NAPL, a three phase model 1 for partitioning between
sorbed, aqueous, and vapour phases can be used to estimate the soil vapour concentration, as
follows:
where Ct is the total soil concentration (mg/kg), Cw is the soil-water concentration (mg/L), Koc is
the organic carbon-water partition coefficient (L/kg), foc is the fraction organic carbon
(dimensionless), θw is the water-filled porosity (dimensionless), θa is the air-filled porosity
(dimensionless), H’ is the Henry’s Law constant (dimensionless) and ρb is the bulk dry density
(kg/L). If, under equilibrium, the three phases become saturated by the chemical, then the
remainder of the chemical will be in its pure form (i.e., NAPL). Guidance on calculation of the
soil saturation (“Csat”) concentration for NAPL is provided in USEPA (1996).
For non-ionizing organic chemicals, a linear equilibrium partitioning model is widely used to
predict absorption of organics into native organic carbon. Studies have shown that the sorption of
organics by soils is highly correlated with the foc (e.g., Chiou et al., 1979; Hassett et al., 1980;
Hassett and Banwart. 1989), provided the foc is above a critical level. USEPA (1996) suggests
that when foc is below about 0.001, adsorption to inorganic mineral surfaces becomes important.
While soil partitioning models are well established, the accuracy of such models to predict soil
vapour concentrations is poor. Therefore, it is generally not good practise to try to estimate soil
vapour concentrations from soil concentration data. Instead, they should be predicted from
groundwater data using Henry’s Law constant (when appropriate) or directly measured.
Fate and transport processes in the vadose zone that influence the movement of chemicals from a
contamination source toward a building include: diffusion; advection; dispersion; partitioning
between soil, water and gas phases; and, biodegradation reactions. Several of the fate and
transport processes that influence soil vapour intrusion are conceptually shown in Figure 1. In
this example, volatilization is occurring just above the top of the capillary fringe to create soil
vapours. These vapours are subsequently transported upwards toward the ground surface via
1
A four-phase model for partitioning between the sorbed, aqueous, soil-air and NAPL phases has been developed and
applied to the vapour intrusion pathway (Park and San Juan, 2000). The four-phase model better accounts for
mass and volume conservation between all four phases and may enable more accurate estimation of mole fraction
in the NAPL phase, for a multi-component mixture.
diffusion. Closer to the building, if the building is depressurized relative to atmospheric pressure,
advective soil gas transport may be the dominant process. The rate of volatilization at the
contamination source is controlled by the mass flux rate for chemical migration away from the
source. This will vary temporally as a result of fluctuations in various factors such as moisture
content, temperature and elevation of the water table.
Diffusion
Diffusion is the movement of molecules from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower
concentration, as influenced by their kinetic energy. The rate that a chemical will diffuse is a
function of the concentration difference, or gradient, and the compound- and temperature-
dependent diffusion coefficient. The mass flux, J (M/L2-T), is calculated by Fick’s Law, as
follows:
J = -Deff * δC / δZ [4]
Where Deff is the effective diffusion coefficient (L2/T), C is the vapour concentration
(mass/volume of gas) and z is the distance over which the concentration change is measured (L).
The diffusive flux is less in soil than in a gas-filled volume as a result of the tortuosity or non-
linear migration path for diffusing gas species. Mathematically, this is expressed as the effective
diffusion coefficient, typically estimated from the Millington-Quirk relationship (1961):
Diffusion coefficients in air (Da, L2/T) are about four orders-of-magnitude higher than in water
(Dw, L2/T); therefore, diffusion is much faster through the air-filled soil pores, than through
water-filled soil pores, and the second term in equation 4-9 tends not be important except under
nearly saturated conditions or for compounds with very low Henry’s Law constant (i.e.,
dimensionless H’ less than 0.001) (EPRI, 2005). When contamination is limited to dissolved
chemicals in groundwater, diffusion through the capillary fringe is often the rate-limiting process
because the moisture content in the capillary fringe is high, and may even be completely
saturated. The thickness of the capillary fringe increases with decreasing soil grain size.
Diffusion rates may also be highly sensitive to the presence of fine-grained, high moisture content
soil layers within the vadose zone. There may also be a “rain-shadow” below a building with
locally drier soils beneath the building (although drains and gutters may influence the soil
moisture distribution).
Sorption
As soil vapours migrate away from contamination source zones, the transport of soil vapours will
be retarded due to sorption to the soil matrix and transfer of chemicals into soil water. Soils with
higher native organic carbon will tend to have a greater sorption capacity. While partitioning into
soil water will occur rapidly, for some chemicals biodegradation may occur simultaneously to
reduce the concentration in soil water. This allows for the continuous partitioning of the chemical
into the soil water, thus reducing the concentration in the vapour phase.
Biodegradation
Different organic compounds will biodegrade at different rates, and with various oxygen
demands. For example, the aerobic biodegradation of volatile petroleum hydrocarbons in the
vadose zone (e.g., BTEX) has been demonstrated through several investigations (Ostendorf and
Campbell, 1991; Ririe et al., 1998; Roggemans et al., 2002; Hers et al., 2000; Hers et al., 2002).
Several of these studies indicate orders-of-magnitude bioattenuation of hydrocarbon vapour
concentrations over relatively small distances within the vadose zone. Since chlorinated solvents
such as PCE and TCE degrade primarily under anaerobic conditions through reductive
dechlorination (Wiedemeier et al., 1999), biotransformation of these compounds will usually be
limited due to the presence of oxygen within the unsaturated zone. There is evidence of aerobic
biodegradation of vinyl chloride.
Gas-phase advective transport can occur as a result of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure (e.g.,
barometric pumping), water movement, water table fluctuations, and density gradients due to
composition and temperature variations (soil gas advection due to building depressurization is
discussed in Section 4.4.4). For most geologic environments, diffusion is the dominant vadose
zone transport process; however, soil gas advection can be important where there are high
permeability, relatively deep unsaturated zone deposits (i.e., tens of metres deep) and/or
methanogenesis is significant. Choi and Smith (2005) through a modeling study found that
pressure-driven advective flux increased for deep, drier, permeable deposits; nevertheless, for all
combinations of scenarios, the diffusive flux was at least one order-of-magnitude greater than the
advective flux. Where there are relatively high soil gas advection rates, dispersion may also be
important. Dispersion is a mixing process that is caused by small-scale variations in air velocities
in soil. The effects of these velocity variations are similar to the effects of diffusion (Auer, 1996).
The primary process for soil vapour intrusion into buildings is typically soil gas advection,
although vapour migration will also occur as a result of diffusion through the building foundation.
Model sensitivity analyses suggest that soil gas advection will be the dominant mechanism when
the building depressurization (relative to ambient air) is greater than about 1 Pascal (Hers et al.,
2003; Johnson, 2005), which will be exceeded at many residential buildings.
Soil gas advection can occur through untrapped floor drains, edge cracks at the building wall and
floor slab interface (shown in Figure 1), unsealed entry points for utilities, expansion joints and
other cracks and openings, if present. Field research programs that include pressure data for soil
adjacent to the residential building foundation indicate that most of the soil gas flow occurs
within 1 to 2 m of the foundation (Garbesi et al, 1993; Hers et al., 2002). Therefore, the
properties of the backfill surrounding the foundation are important, as well as any nearby utility
corridors. Field measurements and model simulations indicate that for most sites, the
permeability of soil near the building will control the rate of soil gas flow, as opposed to the
permeability of the building foundation.
Depressurization of the building airspace relative to the ambient (outdoor) air pressure can be
caused by a number of factors including temperature differences between indoor and outdoor air
(i.e., “stack effect”), wind-loading and operation of the building heating, ventilation and air-
conditioning (HVAC) systems. The operation of HVAC systems can cause a building to be
depressurized through insufficient combustion air for furnaces or unbalanced heating and
ventilation systems where the exhaust air flow rate exceeds the intake flow rate. Commercial
buildings may be either positively or negatively pressurized depending on HVAC system design,
operation and environmental conditions. Diffusion through the building foundation will readily
occur through cracks and openings in the foundation. Diffusion rates through intact building
materials are relatively low, but will depend somewhat on material type (e.g., poured concrete
slab, concrete block wall). Plastic moisture vapour barriers placed during the construction of
slabs may reduce diffusion to some degree, but will have little effect on reducing advection, since
significant soil gas flows can occur through small openings.
Summary
Diffusion is the dominant process for soil vapour transport in many geologic settings, although
aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours can be an important mechanism for vapour
attenuation. Closer to a building, advective processes may be dominant. Soil vapour intrusion is
influenced by building characteristics, geologic setting and anthropogenic features. There can be
significant temporal variation in soil vapour intrusion due to environmental and building related
The USEPA has developed a number of on-line assessment tools for groundwater and soil vapour
that include, for example, calculators for determining the groundwater hydraulic gradient,
retardation factors for solute transport, plume diving, diffusion coefficients, Johnson and Ettinger
alpha calculator and unit conversions. (http://www.epa.gov/athens/onsite/)
Fresh-Water Lens
For chemicals present only in groundwater (i.e., dissolved phase sources), their distribution below
the water table will determine their potential to volatilize and migrate to indoor air. If volatile
chemicals are present near the surface of the water table, volatilization will readily occur. In
contrast, if there is a layer of “clean” groundwater above contaminated water, then the rate of
volatilization will decrease since mass transport is controlled by diffusion and dispersion in
groundwater. At some sites in wetter areas, the layer of clean water has been observed to
increase in thickness with increasing down-gradient distance from a contamination source (i.e.,
“fresh-water lens formation”) (Figure 2). Water table fluctuations and upward vertical gradients
may prevent the formation of a fresh water lens.
Precipitation
infiltration
NAPL Source
If vapours are diffusing from contamination in the unsaturated zone, they will partition into
groundwater (Figure 3). This process combined with water table fluctuations can result in an
interface zone groundwater plume, which is a shallow plume located within the capillary fringe
and groundwater just below the water table (Rivett, 1995). There is both lateral and vertical flow
and solute transport within the capillary fringe (Silliman et al., 2002), which contrasts with the
common conceptualization of primarily downward vertical fluid flow through the unsaturated
zone, with a transition to fully three-dimensional flow only below the water table. Volatilisation
from an interface plume may be significant.
If there is a water table decline of sufficient extent, higher levels of dissolved contamination or
NAPL, if present, will become exposed to soil gas (Figure 4). This will result in increased
volatilization rates. In addition, the beneficial effect of a fresh water lens may be lost if there is a
significant drought and the water table drops by a distance larger than the thickness of the fresh-
water lens. Long-term water level data should be reviewed where available to assess the potential
significance of water table fluctuations on volatilization rates and when to sample soil gas.
NAPL Source
Capillary Transition Zone
Organic chemicals released near ground surface may result in a contamination source in the
unsaturated zone, which can potentially diffuse laterally toward adjacent buildings (Figure 5).
For unsaturated zone sources, vapour diffusion in all directions will occur, which tends to result
in a rapid decline in soil vapour concentrations with increasing lateral distance from the source,
particularly for smaller contamination sources. The presence of anthropogenic features such as
paved surfaces, concrete slabs and fine-grained fill materials can reduce soil vapour flux to the
atmosphere and may promote lateral diffusion of soil vapour. There will also tend to be greater
lateral than vertical diffusion due to depositional history and soil layering, although the effect for
most soils is relatively minor.
For the Health Canada vapour intrusion guidance, buildings more than 30 m from contamination
were excluded from the screening process partly based on modeling studies that included lateral
diffusion and which indicated a significant decline in predicted vapour concentrations over this
distance (Mendoza, 1995; Abreu, 2005; Lowell and Eklund, 2004). A semi-logarithmic chart of
concentration versus log of distance may help estimate the distance where soil vapour
concentrations fall below levels of potential concern.
Preferential Pathways
The presence of preferential pathways such as utility conduits with granular backfill, which
intersect a contamination source and connect to the building, may result in enhanced soil vapour
intrusion. Since most buildings have subsurface utility penetrations, their presence alone is not
typically of concern. Of relevance are pathways that facilitate enhanced movement of soil vapour
toward and into a building. VOCs will readily partition into air when contaminated groundwater
is in contact with sumps or drain tiles, which is a scenario of concern for indoor air quality.
After a spill has occurred, sorption into native organic carbon will initially cause concentrations
to be transient as soil vapour migrates from the source. After a period of time, an approximate
steady state vapour profile will develop after sorption sites are filled (assuming no
biodegradation). There are also transient effects through partitioning into soil moisture, which
may be significant for soluble chemicals such as MTBE. The time for a steady state profile to
develop will depend on chemical and soil properties and the thickness of the uncontaminated soil
layer. The time for steady state conditions can be estimated through an analytical solution for
one-dimensional steady-state diffusion and sorption based on linear partitioning into native
organic carbon. For example, based on solutions to this equation provided by Johnson et al.
(1998), for trichloroethylene, the approximate time required for a steady state diffusion profile to
develop would be approximately 0.5 years, for a depth to contamination of 3 m, and 5.7 years, for
a depth to contamination of 10 m. 2 The time to steady state may have implications for design of
soil gas sampling programs (i.e., sampling location and when to sample).
Many petroleum-based hydrocarbons are readily degraded to carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
presence of oxygen (O2) and ubiquitous soil microbes. Oxygen is supplied from the atmosphere
through diffusion, barometric and diurnal pumping, and infiltrating water containing dissolved
oxygen. Aerobic biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons is a rapid process and often occurs
over relatively thin layers within the subsurface (Figure 6). Aerobic biodegradation is typically
primarily controlled by oxygen levels; other potentially important factors include the presence of
requisite microbes, moisture content, availability of nutrients and pH. Since anaerobic
biodegradation of hydrocarbons may also occur in oxygen-depleted zones, methane (CH4) may be
generated. Methane will also undergo aerobic biodegradation, so its presence represents an
addition demand on oxygen within the subsurface environment. Significant bioattenuation of
hydrocarbon vapours will occur when the downward flux of oxygen is sufficient to satisfy the
requirements for aerobic biodegradation. Where the hydrocarbon flux exceeds the oxygen
supply, for example, below a building, an anaerobic zone (sometimes referred to as an “oxygen
shadow”) may develop.
The key factors affecting biodegradation are source concentrations (“strength”) and separation
distance between the source and building. The size and depth of the building may also be
important depending on whether oxygen can readily penetrate through the foundation or whether
most oxygen replenishment is from beside the building. Processes such as barometric pumping
may also serve to increase oxygen transfer to below the building. Sites with shallow and high
levels of contamination with larger buildings or paved surfaces beside buildings conceptually
present the greatest potential for an oxygen shadow to develop.
Chlorinated solvents also can be biodegraded, but the process tends to occur under anaerobic
conditions (except for vinyl chloride) and is much slower than the aerobic biodegradation of
BTEX.
2
The input parameters for this calculation are water-filled porosity equal to 0.1, total porosity of 0.3 and organic carbon
fraction of 0.006.
Barometric Pumping
A potentially important mechanism for soil gas advection is “barometric pumping,” caused by
cyclic changes in atmospheric pressure. These changes create a “piston-like” force on soil gas,
causing compression of soil gas when the air pressure increases, and expansion when it decreases.
This may result in a cyclic up and down movement of contaminant vapours in the affected
interval. Typically, the maximum variation in barometric pressure is about three percent over a
24-hour period (Massman and Farrier, 1992).
Assuming gas compression according to the ideal gas law, atmospheric air will be pushed into
surface soil to a depth up to about three percent of the total depth of the unsaturated zone. For a
10 m thick homogeneous unsaturated soil column, this means that the top 0.3 m of soil would be
affected by the complete barometric flushing of soil gas.
The magnitude of the pumping effect decreases with increasing depth, and also is affected by
pressure dampening and time-lag in the pressure response, which can be significant for finer-
grained deposits. There are unpublished accounts of barometric pumping causing significant
movement of soil gas in deep (greater than 100 m), unsaturated, fractured bedrock deposits where
a “breathing” phenomena has been observed (i.e., air flowing in and out of wells). “Breathing
wells” have been linked to several deaths in Canada (see the Canadian Ground Water Agency
website for a link to an associated article on this phenomena:
http://www.cgwa.org/press/breathing_wells.htm ).
Close to a building, barometric pumping may result in the movement of atmospheric air in and
out of foundation subsoils. Barometric pressure fluctuations may also result in episodic soil gas
intrusion. If there is a low permeability surface seal adjacent to buildings, cross-foundation slab
pressure gradients may be generated when the barometric pressure decreases. One study reported
measured transient cross-slab differential pressures of up to 500 Pascals (Adomait and Fugler,
1997).
The heating of a building, either by furnace, radiator, or other sources (i.e., sunlight on the roof)
creates a “stack effect” as warm air rises in the building (Figure 7). This causes an outward air
pressure in upper storeys and inward air pressure near the base of the building. Warm air that
escapes is replaced by air infiltrating through doors and windows and soil gas migrating through
the foundation. The magnitude of the depressurization at the base of the building is proportional
to the height of the building, although tall buildings are designed with features to minimize cross-
floor leakage of air and excessive depressurization.
Elevator shafts may represent both a preferential pathway for soil gas intrusion at the base of the
building (a drain is often present in the elevator pit) and for upward movement of air within the
building. The force of wind on the side of a building will cause a positive pressure on the
windward side of the building and a negative pressure on the lee side thus potentially resulting in
a depressurised building.
Foundation Construction
Conceptually, different foundation construction could lead to different processes for soil vapour
intrusion. For example, higher soil gas advection rates would be expected for houses with
basements, due to higher depressurization and larger subsurface foundation surface area for
intrusion. For houses with crawlspace foundations, the degree to which the crawlspace is
ventilated by outside air and the influence of cross-floor mixing and leakage between the
crawlspace and main floor could affect soil vapour intrusion rates. In cold climate areas,
crawlspaces are more likely to be well sealed to reduce the influx of cold air into the house.
Buildings with earthen floors are especially prone to vapour intrusion since there is a large
surface area for migration of soil vapour into the overlying structure; however, openings around
utilities and a perimeter crack, often observed at the interface between the foundation wall and
floor slab, also represent potentially significant entry routes for soil gas migration.
Although working hypotheses have been developed, the influence of foundation type on soil
vapour intrusion is still poorly understood. However, there is empirical data indicating that soil
vapour intrusion can be significant for several different types of building foundations including
basements, crawlspaces and slab-on-grade construction. The importance of the foundation for
vapour intrusion may depend on the distance from the contamination source to the building; for
larger distances the foundation may have little effect on vapour intrusion rate; for smaller
distances or where contamination is close to or in direct contact with the building (e.g., sumps,
wet basements), the foundation properties will tend to be significant.
Condominiums or commercial buildings may have one or more levels of below-grade parking.
Since ventilation rates are high for parking garages, there will tend to be greater dilution of
vapours that may migrate into the garage than for other building types.
Potential temporal factors influencing soil vapour intrusion are complex. Higher building
depressurization and soil gas intrusion rates would be expected during the heating season. Winter
frost or higher soil moisture in near surface soils may limit the surface flux of volatiles to the
atmosphere. As a consequence, the migration of soil vapour toward drier soils below the building
may be enhanced. In some cases, intensive snowmelt or rain and wetting fronts can induce
advective movement of soil gas, which may, in turn, cause nonequilibrium mass transfer of the
contaminants between the water and the gas phases (Cho et al., 1993).
Surface soils with high moisture content may also reduce migration of atmospheric oxygen into
soil, which may reduce aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours. An off-setting factor is
that during summer, near surface ground temperatures may be higher leading to slightly higher
volatilization rates, since the Henry’s Law Constant is temperature dependent. The amplitude in
seasonal temperature variation decreases with increasing depth below ground surface, and at
many sites, temperature effects will be insignificant.
The influence of seasonal factors on building ventilation, which acts to dilute vapours, is difficult
to predict. While natural ventilation through open doors or windows may be reduced in winter,
there may be increased air exchange through building depressurization and operation of a furnace.
There can also be significant short-term variability unrelated to seasonal factors caused by diurnal
temperature fluctuations, occupant use (e.g., opening windows and doors), wind, and barometric
pressure variations. On balance, the above factors suggest that in Canada, soil vapour intrusion
would tend to be greatest during winter months based on climatic conditions.
While the usual paradigm for soil vapour transport is upward migration from a contamination
source located at or near the water table, if there is a surface contamination source, vapours will
migrate in all directions, including downwards. Indoor air that is affected by contamination
sources within a building may affect subsurface vapour concentrations if the building is positively
pressurized (McHugh et al., 2006). In this case, air will move downwards through the
foundation. Once below the building, vapours could diffuse away from the building, thus
creating a zone of impacted soil vapour. While it would be rare for buildings to have a significant
effect on subsurface soil vapour concentrations, a dry cleaner is one possible example of where
this could occur. Leaking underground storage tanks also represent potential soil vapour sources.
Soil Vapour Intrusion Conceptual Site Model Checklist
Project: ___________________________________________________________________
Prepared by: ___________________________________________________________________
Date prepared: ___________________________________________________________________
Describe the depth to groundwater and fluctuations in the water table (e.g., seasonal,
tidal, long-term due to pumping)
Describe the hydrostratigraphic units and shallow groundwater flow system, and
perched water table, if present
Describe hydrogeological parameters ( e.g., groundwater flow direction, hydraulic
conductivity, vertical and horizontal hydraulic gradients)
Describe foundation subsoils
Utilities
Identify the location of subsurface utilities; indicate the type of utility, the plan
location, depth, and backfill properties, as available
Identify the location of any utilities that intersect the vapour contamination zone and
directly connect to buildings
Site Characteristics and Anthropogenic Features
Describe the surface cover in the area of the vapour contamination source(s) and
nearby buildings
Estimate the vertical and lateral distances from the vapour contamination source(s) to
nearby buildings. Estimate distances for soil, groundwater (dissolved) and NAPL
contamination sources.
Describe potential future changes to land use and implications for surface cover
Buildings
Identify location of existing buildings
Identify potential future buildings
Describe the occupancy and use of the buildings (residential, institutional,
recreational, commercial, industrial)
Approximate age of building
Describe characteristics of the building
Size of building
Number of storeys
Height of storeys
Foundation type (e.g,. basement, crawlspace, slab-at-grade); if combination of
foundations, indicate percentage for each type
Depth below grade to base of foundation
Foundation construction for both floor and subsurface walls (e.g., poured
concrete, concrete block, brick, wood)
General condition of foundation (cracks, openings)
Building construction (e.g., wood frame, concrete, brick)
Elevator shafts
Moisture vapour barrier below building
Sumps or drains
Wells inside the building
Attached garage (i.e., single family residential)
Below building parking (i.e., apartment, commercial building)
Chemical use and storage.
Describe the HVAC system in the building including:
Type of heating system (natural gas, oil, radiant, steam, electrical)
Type of air conditioning system
Location of heating and air conditioning units
For commercial buildings, air intake and exhaust units
For residential buildings with forced air furnace systems, return air ducting, does
furnace have source of combustion air
Describe sub-slab ventilation systems or moisture barriers present on existing
buildings, or identify building- and fire-code requirements for sub-slab
ventilation systems (e.g., for methane) or moisture barriers below foundations.
3. Hydrogeological information.
4. Identify soil gas probe locations; start with soil gas characterization near contamination
source zone. Beyond source soil gas characterization;
8. When determining when to sample, consider possible temporal variations. Is repeat soil gas
testing warranted? If so, what should monitoring frequency be?
2. For subslab soil gas probes, evaluate safety issues and whether integrity of building envelope
and structure will be affected.
5. Test field blanks (ambient or zero air drawn through probe assembly) to evaluate whether
probe materials are clean, prior to installing probe as warranted.
6. Install probe.
7. Complete soil gas probe with valve or stopcock at surface to prevent atmospheric air from
entering probe.
3. Ensure sampling container or device, and sample tubing is clean. For sampling container or
device supplied by laboratory, batch or individual certification of each container or device
may be warranted.
4. Test sampling train excluding probe for leaks and short circuiting prior to sampling as
warranted.
6. During sampling test integrity of probe surface seal using tracer as warranted.
1. Determine data quality objectives. Establish required detection limits based on conservative
vapour intrusion dilution factors and other factors.
3. Determine sampling duration and flow rate for sorbent tube sampling.
4. Establish program quality assurance and quality control protocols. Analyze field duplicate,
laboratory duplicate, blank and spiked samples as warranted.
4. Evaluate data completeness (were samples proposed actually collected and analyzed).
5. Evaluate data consistency with respect to data comparisons (i.e., self-consistent) and expected
results based on CSM.
6. Plot plan maps and cross sections of soil vapour (and other) data to improve data
interpretation.
APPENDIX II
Several different screening approaches that have been proposed for identification of contaminants
of potential concern (COPCs) for vapour intrusion are summarized in this appendix.
The approach described in draft USEPA (2002) Vapour Intrusion Guidance (also described in
draft vapour intrusion prepared for Health Canada by Golder (2007)) identifies COPCs assuming
that the receptor is subject to a lifetime of exposure to the near maximum theoretical vapour
concentration. A chemical is identified as being of potential concern if the soil vapour
concentration estimated from an equilibrium partitioning model multiplied by an attenuation
factor exceeds an acceptable health based target indoor air concentration (CairT), defined below.
The theoretical soil vapour concentration (Cv) is the greater of the concentration predicted for
partitioning from a NAPL and dissolved contamination source (Exhibit 1). While the USEPA
(2002) used a subslab to indoor air attenuation factor of 0.1, an attenuation factor of 0.02 is
considered to be a reasonably conservative value for screening purposes. This is based on recent
empirical attenuation factor data that indicates the 90th to 95th percentile subslab vapour
attenuation factor is equal to about 0.02 for data that is filtered to remove low “source strength”
data where subslab vapour concentrations are within 100 times literature background
concentrations in air, and thus indoor air impacts are not expected, or where there is non-
representative soil vapour measurements (USEPA, 2007; Golder, 2007).
For the calculation of target air concentration, it is recommended that the background
concentration be set equal to zero for all chemicals, the rationale being that background
concentrations for many chemicals are highly variable and not well established. The soil
allocation factor (SAF) should be set equal to the value assumed for the derivation of the generic
standards (MOEE, 1996a) to account for exposure via other pathways (e.g., food, soil, consumer
products). The toxicity reference values (TRVs) should be obtained from sources approved by
the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
MOEE (2009) should be consulted for physical-chemical data, for chemicals with data. If not
available, the recommended primary sources of physical-chemical parameters are those provided
by Mackay, Shiu and Ma (2006), Montgomery (2006) and Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC)
CHEMFATE database. Sources of compiled physical-chemical properties include: (1) US EPA
Superfund Johnson and Ettinger Spreadsheet 1 , (2) US EPA Region 9 2 , (3) Risk Assessment
Information System (RAIS), a database of toxicity factor and physical-chemical parameters
maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Management,
Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) Office, (4) U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology
(U.S. Commerce Department) 3 , EPIWIN Suite–PcKoc developed by Syracuse Research
Corporation (SRC) for USEPA 4 , and (5) Montgomery (2006).
The screening process described above is relatively conservative in that a number of semi-volatile
or essentially non-volatile chemicals (e.g., three and four-ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls) are identified as potential chemicals of
concern.
USEPA Region 9
The USEPA Region 9 identifies a volatile chemical for the vapour intrusion pathway as having a
Henry’s Law Constant greater than 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and molecular weight less than 200 g/mol.
A threshold equal to a Henry’s Law Constant of 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol results in chemicals such as
naphthalene (4.2x10-4) 5 and fluorene (7.8x10-4) as being identified as volatile, but not chemicals
such as pyrene (9.1x10-6) and benzo(a)anthracene (5.7x10-6). There is little apparent basis for the
200 g/mole threshold since some chemicals with molecular weights greater than 200 g/mole are
relatively volatile.
• The proposed criteria for definition of volatile substance is a chemical with both a Henry’s
Law constant greater than 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and vapour pressure greater than 0.05 Torr;
1
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/airmodel/johnson_ettinger.htm (V.3.1 (February 2004))
2
http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/files/04physchem.pdf
3
http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/
4
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm
5
All Henry’s Law constants from Health Canada Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA)
spreadsheet (June 2008)
• A threshold based on Henry’s Law constant alone is considered impractical. For example
most n-alkanes have Henry’s Law constants that exceed 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol since they have
low to moderate vapour pressures, but very low solubilities. The vapour pressure is
considered to be a more effective measure of total volatility for screening purposes;
• A review of soil vapour data for semi-volatile analyses indicated at sites where PAHs heavier
than methyl-naphthalenes were identified (acenaphthylene, acenaphthene and fluorine), they
were usually found at concentrations that were below 2.5% of the naphthalene concentrations.
With respect to n-alkane fractions, concentrations in soil vapour drop off significantly for
alkanes heavier than n-C13. On average, the review of soil vapour data revealed that the n-
c13 to n-C16 fraction was 2-4% of the total volatile organic fraction, and never above 25%.
A brief review of Golder Associates project files suggests similar trends as those described
above. For example, soil gas monitoring conducted at a former manufactured gas plant (MGP)
site indicated detectable naphthalene concentrations that were as high as 200 ug/m3 (and BTEX
concentrations that were much higher), but non detect concentrations of heavier molecular
weight PAHs including 2-methylnaphthalene.
Mobility Considerations
The above approaches do not consider the potential mobility of chemicals in the subsurface.
Organic chemicals that are near neutral (i.e., relatively non-polar) such as PAH compounds
absorb into native organic carbon present in subsurface soils and thus, the rate of soil vapour
transport will be retarded through sorption until all the adsorptive sites are occupied. Although
eventually soil vapour profiles will theoretically reach a steady state profile as sorption sites are
filled, this process can be relatively slow. Equilibrium conditions may never be reached if there
is an insufficient mass of chemicals or biodegradation occurring. Since the regulatory
framework for this guidance assumes at least 1 m of unimpacted soil between the building and
contamination source, there is at least a 1 m buffer for sorption to occur.
The rate at which chemicals will move in subsurface will be dependent on the chemical, organic
carbon-chemical (Koc) partitioning coefficient, the organic carbon content in soil, soil moisture
and transport distance. For one-dimensional transient soil vapour transport by diffusion and
sorption, the approximate time to reach steady state conditions for vapour transport within a soil
column, where the initial boundary condition is a step change increase in concentration at time
zero can be approximated using the equations below (Johnson et al., 1999).
Where τss is the time to steady state (sec), L is the transport distance (cm), Rv is the retardation
coefficient (dimensionless), θa is the air-filled porosity (dimensionless), Deff is the effective
diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec), Da is the free air diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec), Dw is the water
diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec), θw is the water-filled porosity (dimensionless), θ is the total
porosity (dimensionless), Kd is the soil-water partitioning coefficient (cm3/g), Koc is the organic
carbon –water partitioning coefficient (cm3/g), H’ is the dimensionless form of the Henry’s Law
constant, ρb is the bulk dry density (g/cm3).
The time to reach steady state conditions was evaluated for transport distances of 1 m and 5 m,
and fraction organic carbons of 0.1% and 0.5% (Tables 1 to 3). A relatively dry sand soil was
assumed with a water-filled porosity equal to 0.055 (Health Canada default for SCS Sand). For
a transport distance of 1 m and relatively low fraction organic carbon of 0.1%, the time to reach
steady state conditions is a few days for chemicals such as vinyl chloride, decane and
tetrachloroethene, but is a few years for chemicals such as naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene
(Table 1). The model predictions in Tables 2 and 3 illustrate how much longer times are
predicted for larger transport distances and higher fraction organic carbon contents. The model
predictions suggest that the mobility of polycylic aromatic hydrocarbon vapours will be low.
Summary
A number of approaches have been developed to identify COPCs for the vapour intrusion
pathway. Although there is no simple threshold that can easily be applied, when volatility and
mobility considerations are applied, combined with observations from soil vapour data from
sites, a reasonable threshold may be a Henry’s Law constant of 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and vapour
pressure of 0.05 Torr. This functionally results in 1- and 2-methylnaphthalene being the volatile
cut-off for PAHs and tridecane for straight chain aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds.
It may be possible to further refine lists of COPCs through consideration of relative volatility and
toxicity for different contaminant types or mixtures. For example, for sites with coal-tar and
Notes: All physical-chemical parameters were from Health Canada PQRA spreadsheet, except for decane
where H' is from Dr. Peter Grathwohl (HGC II 2006 lecture notes), Da and Dw assumed to be equal
to CCME C10-12 aliphatic fraction properties, and Koc for decane from Montgomery (2006). Tridecane .Koc
assumed to be equal to decane. Soil properties assumed were based on SCS Sand, with total porosity = 0.375,
water-filled porosity = 0.055, air-filled porosity = 0.32 and soil bulk density = 1.65 g/cm3
Notes: All physical-chemical parameters were from Health Canada PQRA spreadsheet, except for decane
where H' is from Dr. Peter Grathwohl (HGC II 2006 lecture notes), Da and Dw assumed to be equal
to CCME C10-12 aliphatic fraction properties, and Koc for decane from Montgomery (2006). Tridecane .Koc
assumed to be equal to decane. Soil properties assumed were based on SCS Sand, with total porosity = 0.375,
water-filled porosity = 0.055, air-filled porosity = 0.32 and soil bulk density = 1.65 g/cm3
Notes: All physical-chemical parameters were from Health Canada PQRA spreadsheet, except for decane
where H' is from Dr. Peter Grathwohl (HGC II 2006 lecture notes), Da and Dw assumed to be equal
to CCME C10-12 aliphatic fraction properties, and Koc for decane from Montgomery (2006). Tridecane .Koc
assumed to be equal to decane. Soil properties assumed were based on SCS Sand, with total porosity = 0.375,
water-filled porosity = 0.055, air-filled porosity = 0.32 and soil bulk density = 1.65 g/cm3
EXHIBIT 1.
SCREENING PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF CHEMICAL IS VOLATILE AND TOXIC
Parameter Default
NAPL 3
Cv = Vapour concentration NAPL is present (mg/m ) Calculated
Cv NO NAPL = Vapour concentration NAPL not present (mg/m3) Calculated
MW = Molecular weight (g/mole) Chemical specific
P = Pure chemical vapour pressure (atm) Chemical specific
R = Gas constant (m3-atm/K-mole ) 8.21x10-5
T = Absolute temperature (K, 273oC + T(oC)) 288
H’ = Dimensionless Henry’s Law Constant Chemical specific
S = Pure chemical aqueous solubility (mg/L) Chemical specific
UCF1 = Unit Conversion Factor (mg/g) 1,000
Carcinogen
Parameter Default
CairT = Target concentration of contaminant in air (mg/m3) Calculated
3
Cb = background air concentration (mg/m ) Zero
DRIHV = Dose rate from inhalation of volatiles (mg/kg(BW)-day) Calculated
ILCRT = Target incremental lifetime cancer risk (dimensionless) 10-6
HQT = Target hazard quotient 1.0
If Cair >= CaircT or CairncT then chemical is considered volatile for purpose of selecting COPCs.
If Cair >= CaircT and CairncT then chemical is not considered volatile for purpose of selecting
COPCs.
APPENDIX III
8015B/80
Tedlar Bag, 300 - 3000 ug/m3 USEPA
TPH/VOC Canister, GC/FPD (100 - 10,000
51D 1998
Glass vials ppbv)
Tedlar Bag, 4.0 - 60 ug/m3 USEPA
8021B VOC Canister, GC/PID (0.3 ppbv to 30 1998
Glass vials ppbv)
Tedlar Bag, 10.0 - 50 ug/m3 USEPA
8260B VOC Canister, GC/MS (0.6 ppbv to 25 1998
Glass vials ppbv)
Tedlar Bag, 1,000 ug/m3 USEPA
8270C SVOC Canister, GC/MS (20,000 ppbv to 1998
Glass vials 100,000 ppbv)
Tedlar Bag, 800 - 29,000
D1945- natural gases ASTM
03 and mixtures
Canister, GC/TCD ug/m3 2003
Glass vials (10,000 ppbv)
H2, O2, 800 - 18,000
Tedlar Bag,
D1946- CO2, CO, ASTM
90(2000) CH4, C2H6,
Canister, GC/TCD ug/m3 1990
Glass vials (10,000 ppbv)
and C2H4
Notes:
Adapted from API (2005).
1
This is not an exhaustive list. Some methods may be more applicable in certain instances. Other
proprietary or unpublished methods may also apply.
2
Detection limits are compound specific and can depend upon the sample collection and the
nature of the sample. Detection limits shown are for the range of compounds reported by the
analytical methods.
3
To achieve high sensitivity, the indicated methods utilize a trapping-type sampling method and
relation of results to air-borne concentrations may not be possible.
4
Taken from NIOSH 1500 “Hydrocarbons, BP 36°-216 °C” and NIOSH 1501 “Hydrocarbons,
Aromatic”.
5
Based on a sample volume of 50L. Larger volumes can be collected to improve sensitivity.
The collection of soil vapour and/or air samples for analysis of hydrocarbon fractions is often
required for risk assessments performed in Canada. The hydrocarbon fractions are described in
the Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds (CCME, 2001) and consist
of the F1 (C6-C10) and F2 (C10-C16) fractions, and aliphatic and aromatic subfractions. The
aliphatic fractions of interest are C6-C8, C>8-C10, C>10-C12 and C>12-C16 1 . The aromatic
fractions of interest are C>7-C8 2 , C>8-C10, C>10-C12 and C>12-C16.
When canisters (USEPA TO-15) or thermal tubes (USEPA TO-17) are used, GC/MS analysis
must be performed to obtain the aromatic and aliphatic subfractions. When GC/MS is used for
analysis of hydrocarbon fractions, differences in MS operation (i.e., full scan versus selective ion
mode (SIM)) and the number of and specific ions selected for quantification and calibration will
influence the analytical results, which may vary significantly between analytical laboratories
depending on the method used. Although quantitative studies have been limited, it appears that a
full scan approach where data is obtained on all or most peaks is a more accurate method of
quantification compared to SIM mode. Unfortunately, CCME (2001) does not prescribe methods
for how GC/MS analysis should be performed since it is a soil method involving fractionation and
GC/FID analysis.
CCME (2001) defines F1 as the total area summation between the apex of the hexane and decane
peaks, and F2 as between the apex of the decane and hexadecane peaks. The BTEX and
naphthalene peak areas are removed from the total area summations for each fraction. The F1 is
calibrated against toluene response generally obtained as a full scan GC/MS peak. The F2 is
typically calculated against decane response as a full scan GC/MS peak. This is a slight deviation
from CCME (2001), which indicates the average of the decane and hexadecane response should
be used; however, laboratories find it is difficult to generate and maintain a known vapour
concentration of hexadecane. Therefore the response of decane only is often used to calibrate for
the F2 fraction. For the aliphatic/aromatic subfractions, one option is identify the peaks as being
1
In some cases C>16-C21 is also quantified, although the vapour-phase concentrations within this carbon
range tend to be negligible.
2
This fraction is comprised mostly of toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (TEX) and therefore is sometimes
not quantified
aromatic or aliphatic and then add full scan peak areas (not area summation) of the aliphatic and
aromatic peaks within their respective carbon number ranges. Aliphatic subfractions are
quantified against the full mass spectra response of n-hexane; aromatics against toluene.
While CCME (2001) clearly defines the F1 and F2 fractions, no such guidelines exist for
subfractions. This has lead to variable and uncertain definitions, for example, the C6-C8 aliphatic
fraction is referenced as either C6-C8 or >C6-C8. The first implies including the n-hexane peak
in the area summation. The second implies excluding n-hexane. The n-hexane peak should be
included in the analysis considering it has a relatively high toxicity.
Sorbent tubes that are extracted with a solvent such as carbon disulphide (i.e., modified industrial
hygiene methods) allow fractionation using silica gel columns and analysis using GC/FID
methods. One method commonly used by laboratories in Canada involves fractionation of the
carbon disulphide extract (i.e., sample) using a micro-silica gel column. After adding the carbon
disulphide to the column, the column is successively eluted with pentane and a
pentane/dichloromethane (60:40) mixture to collect the aliphatic and aromatic fractions,
respectively. Each fraction is analyzed by GC/FID method for quantification. This method does
not have the sensitivity that the USEPA TO-15 and TO-17 methods have because only a small
fraction of the solvent extract is analyzed.
References
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2001. Reference Method for Canada-Wide
Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PHC) in Soil – Tier 1 Method. Publication No. 1310,
2001, Winnipeg.
APPENDIX IV
The following indoor air criteria were calculated as per the approach outlined in the
Rationale for Development of Generic Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at
Contaminated Sites in Ontario (MOE 2009), Section 2.7.3. This approach was developed
to calculate the generic soil and ground water standards according to the specific
objectives and assumptions of O. Reg. 153/04 as amended.
The health-based indoor air criteria below are presented to assist the evaluation of indoor
air contamination resulting from subsurface vapour intrusion in Brownfields. The
objectives and assumptions incorporated in the development of these indoor air target
levels are specific to O. Reg. 153/04. As such, the indoor air levels provided below may
not be appropriate to apply in situations where the objectives or assumptions of the health
risk assessment diverge from those used in the derivation of the indoor air target levels
below. In such situations, the risk assessor may consult the MOE for advice on
appropriate screening levels for the specific case.
Brownfields Regulation
Health-Based Indoor Air
Henry's Criteria
Vapour
(atm-m3/mol)
CHEMICAL NAME Pressure
Industrial -
(mm Hg)
at 15oC Residential Commercial-
µg/m3 Community
µg/m3
Brownfields Regulation
Health-Based Indoor Air
Henry's Criteria
Vapour
(atm-m3/mol)
CHEMICAL NAME Pressure
Industrial -
(mm Hg)
at 15oC Residential Commercial-
µg/m3 Community
µg/m3