한국지하수토양환경학회지:지하수토양환경 (Journal of Soil and Groundwater Environment)

  • 제23권6호
  • /
  • Pages.54-72
  • /
  • 2018
  • /
  • 1598-6438(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2287-8831(eISSN)
한국지하수토양환경학회 (Korean Society of Soil and Groundwater Environment)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

국내 석유계총탄화수소 위해성평가 방법 마련을 위한 국외 지침 비교 및 고찰

Comparison and Consideration on Foreign Guidances for Establishing Risk Assessment Method of Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Korea

  • 투고 : 2018.11.01
  • 심사 : 2018.11.30
  • 발행 : 2018.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This study reviewed standard operation procedures for fractionation and analytical methods of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in north america and european countries to aid proper establishment of risk assessment protocols associated with TPH exposure in Korea. In current, the TPH fraction methods established by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group (TPHCWG) are most frequently employed worldwide. Both methods were developed on the basis of direct exposure of TPH from soil, although the method by TPHCWG also took into account the mobility of TPH. Volatile and extractable fractions of petroleum hydrocarbons were analyzed either separately or together. TPH fractionation methods were evaluated based on conservative toxicity values considering the uncertainty of risk assessment in light of current standard protocol for analyzing soil contaminants in Korea, and it was concluded that the method developed by MassDEP is more appropriate.

키워드

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Total ion chromatogram of VPH method using GC/MS (MassDEP, 2016).

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2. Gas chromatograms of EPH standard solution at 50 mg/L for MassDEP method. (a) Aliphatic hydrocarbons, (b) Aromatic hydrocarbons (Chromatographic conditions: Agilent DB-5MS (30 m × 250 μm I.d., × 0.25 μm film thickness); FID detector; N2 Make up gas at 2.5 mL/min; H2 at 35 mL/min; Air at 400 mL/min, Column temperature: 60℃ for 1 min, 60-290℃ at 8℃/min, 290℃ for 11 min).

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_f0003.png 이미지

Fig. 3. Gas chromatograms of TCEQ standard solution for TCEQ 1006 method. (a) 20 mg/L carbon number distribution marker compounds, (b) 2000 mg/L petroleum product calibration standard, fractionation range of low hydrocarbon: aliphatic C6=hexane only, aliphatic >C6~C8=elute after n-hexane and up to including n-octane, aromatic >C7~C8=Toluene only (Chromatographic conditions: Agilent DB-5MS (30 m × 250 μm I.d., 0.25 μm film thickness); FID detector; N2 Make up gas at 3.0 mL/min; H2 at 40 mL/min; Air at 450 mL/min, Column temperature: 35℃ for 3 min, 35-300℃ at 15℃/min, 300℃ for 5 min, 300-325℃ at 15℃/min, 325℃ for 3 min).

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_f0004.png 이미지

Fig. 4. Gas chromatograms showing poor fractionation of aliphatic hydrocarbons (TCEQ, 2001b).

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_f0005.png 이미지

Fig. 5. Gas chromatograms of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbon fractions for 250 mg/kg diesel fuel by MassDEP EPH method (Chromatographic conditions: Agilent DB-5MS (30 m × 250 μm I.d., 0.25 μm film thickness); FID detector; N2 Make up gas at 2.5 mL/min; H2 at 35 mL/min; Air at 400 mL/min, Column temperature: 60℃ for 1 min, 60-290℃ at 8℃/min, 290℃ for 11 min).

Table 1. TPH fraction methods used in foreign countries

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_t0001.png 이미지

Table 4. Analytical method for TPH fractions

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_t0002.png 이미지

Table 5. Factors for quality control of TPH fractionation methods

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_t0003.png 이미지

Table 2. Toxicity values for TPH fractions

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_t0004.png 이미지

Table 3. Physical and chemical parameters of TPH fractions

JGSTB5_2018_v23n6_54_t0005.png 이미지

참고문헌

  1. AEHS, Characterization of C6-C35 Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental Samples-The Direct Method, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Characterization-of-C6-to-C35-Petroleum-in-Samples%3A/9a3eb2dd640409e1cfbfd8f8f9b083f9852d2873 [accessed 18.12.21]
  2. Alaska DEC, 2000, Guidance for cleanup of Petroleum Contaminate sites, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska DEC, AK.
  3. ATSDR, 1999, Toxicological Profile for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, GA.
  4. CCME, 2008, Canada-Wide Standard for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHC) in Soil: Scientific Rationale Supporting Technical Document PN-1399, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
  5. CDPHE, 2014, Practical Quantitation Limitation Guidance Document, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO.
  6. CL:AIRE, 2017, Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Groundwater: Guidance on assessing petroleum hydrocarbons using existing hydrogeological risk assessment methodologies, Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments, London, UK.
  7. Dempster, H.S., Lollar B.S., and Feenstra, S., 1997, Tracing organic contaminants in groundwater: A new methodology using compound-specific isotopic analysis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 31, 3193-3197. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9701873
  8. DNREC, 1999, Remediation Standards Guidance Under the Delaware Hazardous Substance Cleanup Act, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Contro, DE.
  9. Ecology, 1997, Analytical Methods for Petroleum Hydrocarbons, ECY-97-602, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
  10. Ecology, 2006, Part VI Calculation of Method B and Method C Cleanup Levels for Petroleum Mixtures, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
  11. Ecology, 2016, Guidance for Remediation of Petroleum Contaminated Site, Publication No. 10-09-057, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
  12. Environment Agency, 2003, Principles for evaluating the human health risks from petroleum hydrocarbons in soils: A consultation paper, R&D Technical Report P5-080/TR1, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
  13. Environment Agency, 2005, The UK Approach for Evaluating Human Health Risks from Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Soils, Science Report P5-080/TR3, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
  14. Environment Agency, 2009, Review of comments on: Environment agency public consultation paper-principles for evaluating the human health risks from petroleum hydrocarbons in soils, Science report P5-080/TR2, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.
  15. FDEP, 2005, Technical report: Development of cleanup target levels (CTLs) for Chapter 62-777, F.A.C., Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FL.
  16. Fowles, J.R., Banton, M.I., Boogaard, P.J., Ketelslegers, H.B., and Rohde, A.M., 2016 Assessment of petroleum streams for thyroid toxicity, Toxicology Letters, 254, 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2016.05.001
  17. HDOH, 2012, Field Investigation of the Chemistry and Toxicity of TPH in Petroleum Vapors: Implications for Potential Vapor Intrusion Hazards, Hawaii Department of Health, HI.
  18. IDEM, 2010, Risk integrated system of closure: Technical resource guidance document, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, IN.
  19. Kim, G.B., 2008, A Method of Developing Risk-Based Cleanup Target Levels at Petroleum Release Sites, Doctor's Thesis, University of Seoul, Seoul, Korea.
  20. LDEQ, 2003, Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, LA.
  21. Lesage S. and Jackson R. E., 1992, Groundwater Contamination and Analysis at Hazardous Waste Sites, Marcel Dekker, Inc., Avenue, NY, p.60
  22. Lim, Y.K., Kim, J.M., Kim, J.R., K, M.J., Lee, K.H., and Ryu, S.H., 2016, Analysis of total petroleum hydrocarbon in domestic distribution petroleum, Appl. Chem. Eng., 27(5), 546-550. https://doi.org/10.14478/ace.2016.1065
  23. MassDEP, 2002, Characterizing Risks Posed by Petroleum Contaminated Sites: Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach, Policy-WSC-02-411, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, MA.
  24. MassDEP, 2003, Updated Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fraction Toxicity values for the VPH/EPH/APH Methodology, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, MA.
  25. MassDEP, 2004, Method for the Determination of Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH), Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, MA.
  26. MassDEP, 2016, Evaluation of MassDEP Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbon (VPH) Methods, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, MA.
  27. MassDEP, 2017, Method for the Determination of Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) by Gas Chromatography/Mass spectrometry, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, MA.
  28. MassDEP, 2018, Method for the Determination of Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) by Gas Chromatography/Photoionization Detector/Flame ionization Detector, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, MA.
  29. MDEQ, 2002, Risk Evaluation Procedures for Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment of Brownfield Sites, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, MS.
  30. MDNR, 2013, Missouri Risk-Based Corrective Action Process for Petroleum Storage Tanks, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, MO.
  31. MEDEP, 2009, Remediation Guidelines for Petroleum Contaminated Sites in Maine, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, ME.
  32. Ministry of Environment, 2016, Official Korean Testing Method for Soil Pollution, Korea.
  33. Ministry of environment, 2018, Soil Environment Conservation Act, Korea.
  34. Montana DEQ, 2018, Montana Risk-Based Corrective Action Guidance for Petroleum Releases, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, MT.
  35. NCDEQ, 2018, Guidelines for Site Checks, Tank Closure, and Initial Response and Abatement for UST Releases, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, NC.
  36. NIER, 2011, Environmental Testing?Inspection QA/QC Handbook, Second Edition, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
  37. NIER, 2012, A study extending risk assessment in soil sector - Focused on pilot project in petroleum contaminated site ('12), NIER-SP2012-367, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
  38. NIER, 2015, Project on Risk Assessment of Contaminated Site and Study on the Advancement of Risk Assessment Guidance (II), National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
  39. NIER, Statistics on facilities subject to specific pollution in 2016, https://www.data.go.kr/dataset/fileDownload.do?atchFileId=FILE_000000001460718&fileDetailSn=1 [accessed 18.10.18]
  40. Oklahoma DEQ, Risk-Based Levels for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, http://www.deq.state.ok.us/factsheets/land/tph.pdf [accessed 18.10.29]
  41. Ohio EPA, Guidance for assessing petroleum hydrocarbons in soil, Ohio Environment Protection Agency, www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/30/rules/di-033.pdf [accessed 18.10.29]
  42. Park, I.S. and Park, J.W., 2011, Human health risk assessment strategy to evaluate non-carcinogenic adverse health effect from total petroleum hydrocarbon at POL-contaminated sites in Korea, J. Soil Groundw. Environ., 16(4), 10-22. https://doi.org/10.7857/JSGE.2011.16.4.010
  43. Parsons, 2011, Technical Memorandum: State Approaches to Petroleum Hydrocarbon Toxicity, Air Force Center for Engineering and th Environment (AFCEE) Contract Number FA8903-08-D-8778, Task Order 0027, TX.
  44. Pinedo, J., Ibanez, R., Lijzen, J.P.A., and Irabien, A., 2014, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 20(5), 1231-1248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2013.831264
  45. Regional Water Board, 2016, Metabolites: Literature Review and Assessment Framework, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.
  46. RIVM, 1999, A proposal for revised Intervention Values for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (Mineral oil) on base of Fractions of Petroleum Hydrocarbons, RIVM report 711701015, Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
  47. Scarlett, A., Galloway, T.S., and Rowland, S.J., 2007, Chronic toxicity of unresolved complex mixtures (UCM) of hydrocarbons in marine sediments, J. Soils Sediments, 7, 200-206. https://doi.org/10.1065/jss2007.06.232
  48. TCEQ, 2001a, TCEQ Method 1005, Texas Commission on environmental quality, TX.
  49. TCEQ, 2001b, TCEQ Method 1006, Texas Commission on environmental quality, TX.
  50. TCEQ, 2010, Development of human health PCLs for total petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures, RG-366/TRRP-27, Texas Commission on environmental quality, TX.
  51. TCEQ, Summary of updates to the tables accompanying the texas risk reduction program (TRRP) Rule, https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/remediation/trrp/2017%20PCL%20Tables%20March31.pdf [accessed 18.10.18]
  52. Tomlinson, P. and Ruby, M.V., 2016, State and federal cleanup levels for petroleum hydro carbons in soil: State of the states and implications for the future, Human and Ecological risk Assessment, 22(4), 911-926. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2015.1120151
  53. TPHCWG, 1997a, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series Volume 3: Selection of Representative TPH Fractions Based on Fate and Transport Considerations, Amherst scientific, Amherst, MA.
  54. TPHCWG, 1997b, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series Volume 4: Development of Fraction Specific Reference Doses (RfDs) and Reference Concentrations (RfCs) for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Amherst scientific, Amherst, MA.
  55. TPHCWG, 1998, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Criteria Working Group Series Volume 1: Analysis of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Environmental media, Amherst scientific, Amherst, MA.
  56. UDEQ, 2015, Guidelines for Utah's Corrective Action Process for Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites, Utah Department of ENvironmental Quality, UT.
  57. US EPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume 1 Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), EPA/540/1-89/002, US Environmental Protection Agency, WA.
  58. US EPA, 2009, Provisional Peer-reviewed Toxicty values for Complex Mixtures of Aliphatic and Aromatic hydrocarbons, US Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center, OH.
  59. US EPAa, IRIS Integrated Risk Information system, Benzene, US Environmental Protection Agency, https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0276_summary.pdf [accessed 18.10.29]
  60. US EPAb, Vocabulary catalog, https://iaspub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/termreg/searchandretrieve/termsandacronyms/search.do?search=&term=reporting%20limit&matchCriteria=Contains&checkedAcronym=true&checkedTerm=true&hasDefinitions=false [accessed 18.10.18]
  61. US EPAc, Detection Limit/Quantitation Limit Summary Table, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/mdlmql-toolbox-_final_nov2016_0.pdf [accessed 18.10.29]
  62. WDNR, 1996, Analytical Detection Limit Gidance & Laboratory Guide for Determining Method Detection Limits, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, WI.