Environmental Geochemistry and Health

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 651–673 | Cite as

Human health risk assessment related to contaminated land: state of the art

Original Paper


Exposure of humans to contaminants from contaminated land may result in many types of health damage ranging from relatively innocent symptoms such as skin eruption or nausea, on up to cancer or even death. Human health protection is generally considered as a major protection target. State-of-the-art possibilities and limitations of human health risk assessment tools are described in this paper. Human health risk assessment includes two different activities, i.e. the exposure assessment and the hazard assessment. The combination of these is called the risk characterization, which results in an appraisal of the contaminated land. Exposure assessment covers a smart combination of calculations, using exposure models, and measurements in contact media and body liquids and tissue (biomonitoring). Regarding the time frame represented by exposure estimates, biomonitoring generally relates to exposure history, measurements in contact media to actual exposures, while exposure calculations enable a focus on exposure in future situations. The hazard assessment, which is different for contaminants with or without a threshold for effects, results in a critical exposure value. Good human health risk assessment practice accounts for tiered approaches and multiple lines of evidence. Specific attention is given here to phenomena such as the time factor in human health risk assessment, suitability for the local situation, background exposure, combined exposure and harmonization of human health risk assessment tools.


State-of-the-art human health risk assessment Soil pollution Exposure assessment Exposure models Hazard assessment 


  1. Abreu, L. D. V., & Johnson, P. C. (2005). Effect of vapor source-building separation and building construction on soil vapor intrusion as studied with a three-dimensional numerical model. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(12), 4550–4561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abreu, L. D. V., & Johnson, P. C. (2006). Simulating the effect of aerobic biodegradation on soil vapor intrusion into buildings: Influence of degradation rate, source concentration, and depth. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(7), 2304–2315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, H., Checkoway, H., Van Netten, C., Muller, C. H., Ewers, T. G., Kaufman, J. D., et al. (1996). Semen quality of men employed at a lead smelter. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53, 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almeida, S. M., Prio, C. A., Freitas, M. C., Reis, M. A., & Trancoso, M. A. (2005). Source apportionment of fine and coarse particulate matter in a sub-urban area at the Western European Coast. Atmospheric Environment, 39, 3127–3138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ATSDR. (2010). Lead toxicity. Case studies in environmental medicine (CSEM). Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 15 August 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Bachmann, G., Oltmanns, J., Konietzka, R., & Schneider, K. (1999). Calculation of Screening values for the assessment of historical soil pollution (in German). Berlin: Umweltbundesamt, Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. BARGE. (2014). http://www.bgs.ac.uk/barge/ubm.html. Accessed August 18, 2014.
  8. Bierkens, J., Van Holderbeke, M., Cornelis, C., & Torfs, R. (2011). Exposure through soil and dust ingestion. In F. A. Swartjes (Ed.), Dealing with contaminated sites. From theory towards practical application (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 261–286). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradley, M., Patterson, B. M., & Davis, G. B. (2009). Quantification of vapor intrusion pathways into a slab-on-ground building under varying environmental conditions. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(3), 650–656. doi: 10.1021/es801334x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brusick, D. J. (1999). Genetic toxicology. In H. Marquardt, S. G. Schäfer, R. McClellan, & F. Welsch (Eds.), Toxicology. Waltham: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Budd, P., Montgomery, J., Evans, J., & Trickett, M. (2004). Human lead exposure in England from approximately 5500 BP to the 16th century, AD. The Science of The Total Environment, 318(1–3), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calabrese, E. J., Stanek, E. J., Pekow, P., & Barnes, R. M. (1997). Soil ingestion estimates for children residing on a superfund site. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 36, 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlon, C., & Swartjes, F. (2007). Analysis of variability and reasons of differences. In Carlon (Ed.), Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe. A review of national procedures towards harmonisation opportunities. JRC PUBSY 7123, HERACLES. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Ispra.Google Scholar
  14. Cave, M. R., Wragg, J., Denys, S., Jondreville, C., & Feidt, C. (2011). Oral bioavailability. In F. A. Swartjes (Ed.), Dealing with contaminated sites. From theory towards practical application (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 287–324). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cetin, E., Odabasi, M., & Seyfioglu, R. (2003). Ambient volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations around a petrochemical complex and a petroleum refinery. The Science of the Total Environment, 312(1–3), 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cornelis, C., Provoost, J., Joris, I., De Raeymaecker, B., De Ridder, K., Lefebre, et al. (2006). Evaluation of the Swedish guideline values for contaminated sites—Cadmium and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Vito-report 2006/IMS/R/390, November 2006.Google Scholar
  17. Cornelis, C., & Swartjes, F. A. (2008). Development of a harmonized procedure fort the assessment of human health risks related to soil contamination in the Kempen region (in Dutch). Final report. OVAM report D/2008/5024/120, BeNeKempen project, June 2008.Google Scholar
  18. Cox, S. F., Chelliah, M. C. M., McKinley, J. M., Palmer, S., Ofterdinger, U., Young, M. E., et al. (2013). The importance of solid-phase distribution on the oral bioaccessibility of Ni and Cr in soils overlying Palaeogene basalt lavas, Northern Ireland. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 35, 553–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denys, S., Caboche, J., Tack, K., Rychen, G., Wragg, J., Cave, M., et al. (2012). In vivo validation of the unified BARGE method to assess the bioaccessibility of arsenic, antimony, cadmium, and lead in soils. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(11), 6252–6260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. EFSA. (2005). Opinion of the scientific committee on a request from EFSA related to A harmonised approach for risk assessment of substances which are both genotoxic and carcinogenic. The EFSA Journal, 282, 1–30.Google Scholar
  21. EFSA. (2014). Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European population. The EFSA Journal, 12(3), 3597.Google Scholar
  22. Eijsackers, H., Swartjes, F. A., Van Rensburg, L., & Maboeta, M. S. (2014). The need for attuned soil quality risk assessment for non-Western humans and ecosystems, exemplified by mining areas in South Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 44, 174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elert, M., Bonnard, R., Jones, C., Schoof, R. A., & Swartjes, F. A. (2011). Human exposure pathways. In F. A. Swartjes (Ed.), Dealing with contaminated sites. From theory towards practical application (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 455–516). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Environment Agency. (2008). Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil. Science report SC050021/SR2, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/scho0508bnqyee_2024094.pdf, cited 15 Dec 2008.
  25. Falcó, G., Bocio, A., Llobet, J. M., Domingo, J. L., Casas, C., & Teixidó, A. (2004). Dietary intake of hexachlorobenzene in Catalonia, Spain. Science of the Total Environment, 322(1–3), 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. FAO and WHO. (2011). Safety Evaluation of certain contaminants in food. Arsenic. Geneva: WHO Food Additives Series. 63.Google Scholar
  27. Finley, B. L., Scott, P. K., & Mayhall, D. A. (1994). Development of a standard soil-to-skin adherence probability density function for use in Monte Carlo analyses of dermal exposure. Risk Analysis, 14, 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilbert, S. G., & Weiss, B. (2006). A rationale for lowering the blood lead action level from 10 to 2 μg/dL. NeuroToxicology, 27(5), 693–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Groen, K., Vaessen, H. A. M. G., Kliest, J. J. G., de Boer, J. L. M., Van Ooik, T., Timmerman, A., & Vlug, R. F. (1994). Bioavailability of inorganic arsenic from bog ore-containing soil in the dog. Environmental Health Perspectives, 102(2), 181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grosse, S. D., Matte, T. D., Schwartz, J., & Jackson, R. (2002). Economic gains resulting from the reduction in children’s exposure to lead in the U.S. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110, 563–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes, A. W., & Kruger, C. L. (2014). Hayes’ principles and methods of toxicology (6th ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  32. Intawongse, M., & Dean, J. R. (2006). Uptake of heavy metals by vegetable plants grown on contaminated soil and their bioavailability in the human gastrointestinal tract. Food Additives & Contaminants, 23(1), 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. International Programme on Chemical Safety. (1999). Environmental Health Criteria no 210—Principles for the assessment of risks to human health from the exposure to chemicals. Genève: International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), WHO.Google Scholar
  34. International Programme on Chemical Safety. (2006). Environmental Health Criteria no 237—Principles for evaluating health risk in children associated with exposure to chemicals. Geneva: International Programme on Chemical Safety, WHO.Google Scholar
  35. International Programme on Chemical Safety. (2008). Environmental Health Criteria—Principles for modelling dose-response for the risk assessment of chemicals. Geneva: International Programme on Chemical Safety, WHO.Google Scholar
  36. Jayjock, M. A., Lewis, P. G., & Lynch, J. R. (2001). Quantitative level of protection offered to workers by ACGIH threshold limit values occupational exposure limits. AIHAJ, 62, 4–11.Google Scholar
  37. Juhasz, A. L., Weber, J., & Smith, E. (2011). Impact of soil particle size and bioaccessibility on children and adult lead exposure in peri-urban contaminated soils. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 186(2–3), 1870–1879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kissel, J. C., Shirai, J. H., Richter, K. Y., & Fenske, R. A. (1998). Investigation of dermal contact with soil in controlled trials. Journal of Soil Contamination, 7(6), 737–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Knol, A. B., & Staatsen, B. A. M. (2005). Trends in the environmental burden of disease in the Netherlands, 1980–2020, RIVM report 500029001. Bilthoven: RIVM.Google Scholar
  40. Kördel, W., Bernhardt, C., Derz, K., Hund-Rinke, K., Harmsen, J., Peijnenburg, W., et al. (2013). Incorporating availability/bioavailability in risk assessment and decision making of polluted sites, using Germany as an example. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 261, 854–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuehster, T., Folkes, D. & Wannamaker, E. (2004). Seasonal variation of observed indoor air concentrations due to vapor intrusion at the redfield site, Colorado, Midwestern States Risk Assessment Symposium Indianapolis, August 26.Google Scholar
  42. Lanphear, B. P., Matte, Th D, Rogers, J., Clickner, R. P., Dietz, B., Bornschein, R. L., et al. (2003). The contribution of lead-contaminated house dust and residential soil to children’s blood lead levels: A pooled analysis of 12 epidemiologic studies. Environmental Research, 79(1), 51–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Le, T. T. Y., Swartjes, F., Römkens, P., Groenenberg, J. E., Wang, P., Lofts, S., & Hendriks, A. J. (2015). Modelling metal accumulation using humic acid as a surrogate for plant roots. Chemosphere, 124(2015), 61–69.Google Scholar
  44. Lemanek, K. L., Brown, R. T., Armstrong, F. D., Hood, C., Pegelow, C., & Woods, G. (2002). Dysfunctional eating patterns and symptoms of pica in children and adolescents with sickle cell disease. Clinical Pediatrics, 41(7), 493–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Li, J. G., Gerzabek, M. H., & Mück, K. (1994). An experimental study on mass loading of soil particles on plant surfaces. Bodenkultur, 45, 15–24.Google Scholar
  46. Lindley, F. (2001). Creative ignorance. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 7(6), 1593–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lolliet, O., Margni, M., Charles, R., Humbert, S., Payet, J., Rebitzer, G., & Rosenbaum, R. (2003). IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8(6), 324–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Massaccesi, L., Meneghini, C., Comaschi, T., D’Amato, R., Onofri, A., & Businelli, D. (2014). Ligands involved in Pb immobilization and transport in lettuce, radish, tomato and Italian ryegrass. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 177(5), 766–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McAlary, T. A., Provoost, J., & Dawson, H. E. (2011). Vapor intrusion. In F. A. Swartjes (Ed.), Dealing with contaminated sites. From theory towards practical application (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 409–454). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McMichael, A. J., & Woodward, A. (1999). Quantitative estimation and prediction of human cancer risk: Its history and role in cancer prevention. In S. Moolgavkar, D. Krewski, L. Zeise, E. Cardis, & H. Møller (Eds.), Quantitative estimation and prediction of human cancer risk, IARC scientific publication no 131 (pp. 1–10). Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.Google Scholar
  51. Melo, L. C. A., Alleoni, L. R. F., & Swartjes, F. A. (2011). Derivation of critical soil cadmium concentrations for the state of São Paulo, Brazil, based on human health risks. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 17(5), 1124–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mushak, P. (2003). Lead remediation and changes in human lead exposure: Some physiological and biokinetic dimensions. The Science of the Total Environment, 303(1–2), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Naujokas, M. F., Anderson, B., Ahsan, H., Aposhian, H. V., Graziano, J. H., Thompson, C., & Suk, W. A. (2013). The broad scope of health effects from chronic arsenic exposure: Update on a worldwide public health problem. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Norra, S., & Stuben, D. (2003). Urban soils. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 394, 230–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oesch, F., & Arand, M. (1999). Xenobiotic metabolism. In H. Marquardt, S. G. Schäfer, R. McClellan, & F. Welsch (Eds.), Toxicology. Waltham: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. Picone, S., Valstar, J., Van Gaans, P., Grotenhuis, T., & Rijnaarts, H. (2012). Sensitivity analysis on parameters and processes affecting vapor intrusion risk. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 31(5), 1042–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Provoost, J., Bosman, A., Reijnders, L., Bronders, J., Touchant, K., & Swartjes, F. (2009). Vapour intrusion from the vadose zone—Seven algorithms compared. Journal of Soils and Sediments—Protection, Risk Assessment, and Remediation. doi: 10.1007/s11368-009-0127-4.
  58. Provoost, J., Ottoy, R., Reijnders, L., Bronders, J., Keer, I., Swartjes, F., et al. (2011). Henry’s equilibrium partitioning between ground water and soil air: Predictions versus observations. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2(7), 873–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Putaud, J.-P., Raes, F., Van Dingenen, R., Brüggemann, E., Facchini, M.-C., Decesari, S., et al. (2004). A European aerosol phenomenology—2: Chemical characteristics of particulate matter at kerbside, urban, rural and background sites in Europe. Atmospheric Environment, 38, 2579–2595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Querol, X., Alastuey, A., Ruiz, C. R., Artinano, B., Hansson, H. C., Harrison, R. M., et al. (2004). Speciation and origin of PM10 and PM2.5 in selected European cities. Atmospheric Environment, 38, 6547–6555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rodrigues, S. M., Pereira, E., Duarte, A. C., & Römkens, P. F. A. M. (2012). Derivation of soil to plant transfer functions for metals and metalloids: Impact of contaminant’s availability. Plant and Soil, 361, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rutkowski, E. (2014, September). Toward better benchmarks. Can industrial hygienists overcome the challenges associated with occupational exposure limits? The Synergist, Supplement 2014, 22–25.Google Scholar
  63. Schroijen, C., Baeyens, W., Schoeters, G., Den Hond, E., Koppen, G., Bruckers, L., et al. (2008). Internal exposure to pollutants measured in blood and urine of Flemish adolescents in function of area of residence. Chemosphere, 71(7), 1317–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Siciliano, S. D., James, K., Zhang, G., Schafe, A. N., & Peak, J. D. (2009). Adhesion and enrichment of metals on human hands from contaminated soil at an arctic urban brownfield. Environmental Science and Technology, 2009(43), 6385–6390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Slob, W. (1999). Deriving safe exposure levels for chemicals from animal studies using statistical methods: Recent developments. In V. Barnett, A. Stein, & K. F. Turkman (Eds.), Statistics for the environment. Statistical aspects of health and the environment (Vol. 4, pp. 153–175). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  66. Slob, W., & Pieters, M. N. (1998). A probabilistic approach for deriving acceptable human intake limits and human health risks from toxicological studies: General framework. Risk Analysis, 18, 787–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stanek, E. J., Calabrese, E. J., & Zorn, M. (2001). Biasing factors for simple soil ingestion estimates in mass balance studies of soil ingestion. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 7(2), 329–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Su, C.-C., Lin, Y.-Y., Chang, T.-K., Chiang, C.-T., Chung, J.-A., Hsu, Y.-Y., & Lian, I. B. (2010). Incidence of oral cancer in relation to nickel and arsenic concentrations in farm soils of patients’ residential areas in Taiwan. BMC Public Health, 10, 67. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Subhani, M., Mustafa, I., Alamdar, A., Katsoyiannis, I. A., Ali, N., Huang, Q., et al. (2015). Arsenic levels from different land-use settings in Pakistan: Bio-accumulation and estimation of potential human health risk via dust exposure. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 115(2015), 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Swartjes, F. A. (2007). Insight into the variation in calculated human exposure to soil contaminants using seven different European models. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3(3), 322–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swartjes, F. A. (2009). Evaluation of the variation in calculated human exposure to soil contaminants using seven different European models. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 15(1), 138–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Swartjes, F. A. (2011). Introduction to contaminated site management. In F. A. Swartjes (Ed.), Dealing with contaminated sites. From theory towards practical application (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 3–89). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Swartjes, F. A., & Cornelis, C. (2011). Human health risk assessment. In F. A. Swartjes (Ed.), Dealing with contaminated sites. From theory towards practical application (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 209–260). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Swartjes, F. A., d’Allesandro, M., Cornelis, C., Wcislo, E., Muller, D., Hazebrouck, B., et al. (2009). Towards consistency in risk assessment tools for contaminated sites management in the EU. RIVM report 711701091, RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  75. Swartjes, F. A., Dirven-Van Breemen, E. M., Otte, P. F., Van Beelen, P., Rikken, M. G. J., Tuinstra, J., et al. (2007). Human health risks due to consumption of vegetables from contaminated sites. Towards a protocol for site-specific assessment. RIVM report 711701040/2007. RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  76. Swartjes, F. A., Rutgers, M., Lijzen, J. P. A., Janssen, P. J. C. M., Otte, P. F., Wintersen, A., et al. (2012). State of the art of contaminated site management in the Netherlands: Policy framework and risk assessment tools. Science of the Total Environment, 427–428(2012), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Swartjes, F. A., & Tromp, P. C. (2008). A tiered approach for the assessment of the human health risks of asbestos in soils. Soil and Sediment Contamination, 17(2), 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Swartjes, F., Versluijs, Kees, & Otte, Piet. (2013). A tiered approach for the HH RA for consumption of vegetables from with cadmium-contaminated land in urban areas. Environmental Research, 126, 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Taylor, M. P., Mould, S. A., Kristensen, L. J., & Rouillon, M. (2014). Environmental arsenic, cadmium and lead dust emissions from metal mine operations: Implications for environmental management, monitoring and human health. Environmental Research, 135, 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tessier, A., Campbell, P. G. C., & Bisson, M. (1979). Sequential extraction procedure for the speciation of particulate trace metals. Analytical Chemistry, 51(7), 844–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tipping, E. (1998). Humic ion-binding model VI: An improved description of the interactions of protons and metal ions with humic substances. Aquatic Geochemistry, 4, 3–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tipping, E., Vincent, C. D., Lawlor, A. J., & Lofts, S. (2008). Metal accumulation by stream bryophytes, related to chemical speciation. Environmental Pollution, 156, 936–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tonnelier, A., Coecke, S., & Zaldívar, J.-M. (2012). Screening of chemicals for human bioaccumulative potential with a physiologically based toxicokinetic model. Archives of Toxicology, 86(3), 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Trapp, S. (2002). Dynamic root uptake model for neutral lipophilic organics. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Trapp, S., & Legind, C. N. (2011). Uptake of organic contaminants from soil into vegetables and fruit. In F. A. Swartjes (Ed.), Dealing with contaminated sites. From theory towards practical application (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 369–408). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Trapp, S., & Matthies, M. (1995). Generic one-compartment model for uptake of organic chemicals by foliar vegetation. Environmental Science and Technology, 29, 2333–2338. (Erratum 30, 360).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Trapp, S., Matthies, M., & Mc Farlane, C. (1994). Model for uptake of xenobiotics into plants: Validation with bromacil experiments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13, 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Turczynowicz, L., Pisaniello, D., & Williamson, T. (2012). Health risk assessment and vapor intrusion: A review and Australian perspective. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 18(5), 984–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). A framework for assessing health risks of environmental exposures to children. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, EPA/600/R-05/093F.Google Scholar
  90. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Exposure factor handbook, 2011 Edition. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-090/052F, September 2011.Google Scholar
  91. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, March 16). EPA’s vapor intrusion database: Evaluation and characterization of attenuation factors for chlorinated volatile organic compounds and residential buildings. EPA 530-R-10-002.Google Scholar
  92. US National Research Council. (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  93. Van Kesteren, P. C. E., Walraven, N., Schuurman, T., Dekker, R., Havenaar, R., Maathuis, A., Bouwmeester, H., et al. (2014). Bioavailability of lead from Dutch made grounds: A validation study. RIVM Report 607711015, The National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  94. Verginelli, I., & Baciocchi, R. (2014). Vapor intrusion screening model for the evaluation of risk-based vertical exclusion distances at petroleum contaminated sites. Environmental Science and Technology, 2014(48), 13263–13272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. VMM. (2005). Air quality in the Flemish region. Annual report Immission monitoring program—Year 2004 and meteorological year 2004–2005. Erembodegem: VMM (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  96. Weschler, C. J., & Nazaroff, W. W. (2012). SVOC exposure indoors: Fresh look at dermal pathways. Indoor Air, 22, 356–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Widmaier, E. P., Raff, H., & Strang, K. T. (2011). Vander’s human physiology: The mechanisms of body function. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  98. Wilkinson, C. F., Christoph, G. R., & Julien, E. (2000). Assessing the risks of exposures to multiple chemicals with a common mechanism of toxicity: How to cumulate. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 31, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wilson, J. T., Weaver, J. W., & White, H. (2012, December). An Approach for developing site-specific lateral and vertical inclusion zones within which structures should be evaluated for petroleum vapor intrusion due to releases of motor fuel from underground storage tanks. Ground Water Issue, US Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-13/047.Google Scholar
  100. Wragg, J., Cave, M., Taylor, H., Basta, N., Brandon, E., Casteel, S., et al. (2009). Inter-laboratory trial of a unified bioaccessibility procedure, chemical & biological hazards programme open report OR/07/027.Google Scholar
  101. WWF. (2003). WWF-UK National biomonitoring survey 2003. World Wildlife Fund. http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/biomonitoringresults.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2014.
  102. Xue, J., Zartarian, V., Moya, J., Freeman, N., Beamer, P., Black, K., et al. (2007). A meta-analysis of children’s hand-to-mouth frequency data for estimating nondietary ingestion exposure. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Public Health and the EnvironmentBilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations