Table of Contents
Scholarly Research Exchange
Volume 2008 (2008), Article ID 341202, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.3814/2008/341202
Research Article

Comparison of Methodologies to Estimate Intake Dose for Exposure to Soil Contaminants

1Water and Environmental Institute of the Western Pacific, University of Guam, Mangilao, GU 96913, USA
2CSES Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 330 Smyth Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0404, USA

Received 3 June 2008; Accepted 14 July 2008

Copyright © 2008 Arne E. Olsen and N. Persaud. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. T. S. Davis and K. D. Margolis, Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property, American Bar Association, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1997.
  2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: human health evaluation manual (part A),” USEPA, Washington, DC, USA, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  3. National Research Council (NRC), Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
  4. K. T. Bogen, “A note on compounded conservatism,” Risk Analysis, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 379–381, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  5. D. E. Burmaster and P. D. Anderson, “Principles of good practice for the use of Monte Carlo techniques in human health and ecological risk assessments,” Risk Analysis, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 477–481, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume 3—part A: process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment,” USEPA, Washington, DC, USA, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  7. R. L. Smith, “Use of Monte Carlo simulation for human exposure assessment at a superfund site,” Risk Analysis, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 433–439, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  8. M. E. Dakins, J. E. Toll, M. J. Small, and K. P. Brand, “Risk-based environmental remediation: Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis and the expected value of sample information,” Risk Analysis, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 67–79, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. D. M. Hamby, “A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models,” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 135–154, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. Palisade, Guide to Using @Risk: Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-In for Microsoft Excel, Palisade, Newfield, NY, USA, 2000.
  11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Soil screening guidance: technical background document,” USEPA, Washington, DC, USA, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Supplemental guidance to RAGS: calculating the concentration term,” USEPA, Washington, DC, USA, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  13. C. Rose and M. D. Smith, “h-statistics: Unbiased estimators of central moments,” in Mathematical Statistics with Mathematica, pp. 253–256, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Chemical concentration data near the detection limit,” USEPA, Washington, DC, USA, 1991. View at Google Scholar
  15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III, “EPA region III risk-based concentration table: technical background information,” USEPA, Washington, DC, USA, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  16. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, “Support document for the development of generic numerical standards and risk assessment procedures, the voluntary action program,” OEPA, Columbus, Ohio, USA, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  17. B. Finley, D. Proctor, P. Scott, N. Harrington, D. Paustenbach, and P. Price, “Recommended distributions for exposure factors frequently used in health risk assessment,” Risk Analysis, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 533–553, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  18. B. Finley and D. Paustenbach, “The benefits of probabilistic exposure assessment: three case studies involving contaminated air, water, and soil,” Risk Analysis, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 53–73, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Guidelines for exposure assessment,” USEPA, Washington, DC, USA, 1992. View at Google Scholar