Advertisement

Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 67–75 | Cite as

Quantifying health risk reductions from implementation of a passive net alkaline wetland

  • James T. Gunter
  • James L. Regens
Article
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

The potential effectiveness of a constructed passive net alkaline wetland in reducing human health risks from heavy metals in surface waters was evaluated by using a multimedia model. Scenarios were developed using information available from site reports, state, federal, and standard engineering sources. The scenarios replicated observed heavy metal concentrations in the waters of a volunteer wetland and estimated the concentrations after implementation of a constructed passive net alkaline wetland. The greatest reductions in risks are expected to occur soon after construction, with children benefiting more than adults.

Keywords

heavy metals mine drainage multimedia model wetland 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the U.S. Geological Survey, Research Grant WR-01-RS-001A; U.S. Geological Survey, Research Grant WR-01-RS-002A; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Grant AA-5-74513-OU1; and State of Oklahoma, Regents for Higher Education, Research Grant AA-5-74583-OU1. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official opinions of the funding sources.

References

  1. 1.
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1997). Toxicological profile for lead. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1999). Toxicological profile for cadmium. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    August, E., McKnight, D., Hrncir, D., & Garhart, K. (2002). Seasonal variability of metals transport through a wetland impacted by mine drainage in the Rocky Mountains. Environmental Science & Technology, 36, 3779–3786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Louvar, J. F., & Louvar, B. D. (1998). Health and environmental risk analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Risk Management Research Laboratory (2002). Final Report – Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria Reactive Wall Demonstration, EPA/600/R-02/053. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Office of Air and Radiation (1999). Understanding variation in partition coefficient, K d , values, volume II: Review of geochemistry and available K d values for Cadmium, Cesium, Chromium, Lead, Plutonium, Radon, Strontium, Thorium, Tritium ( 3 H), and Uranium, EPA 402-R-99-004B. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (2001). Risk assessment guidance for superfund. volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part E, supplemental guidance for dermal risks assessment), Interim, EPA/540/R/99/005. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Office of the Secretary of the Environment (2000). Governor Frank Keating's Tar Creek Superfund Task Force: Final Report, October 1 (Office of the Secretary of the Environment, Oklahoma City Oklahoma). Available at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/LPDnew/Tarcreek/.
  9. 9.
    Oklahoma Water Resources Board (1983). Tar creek feasibility study: Feasibility investigation, Tasks II.1.A, II.1.B.B-C, II.1.B.D., II.2.E.B. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State Department of Health.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paustenbach, D. J. (Ed.) (1989). The risk assessment of environmental and human health hazard. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Regens, J. L., Obenshain, K. R., Travis, C., & Whipple, C. G. (2002). Conceptual site models and multimedia modeling. Human & Economic Risk Assessment, 8, 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soil Survey Staff (2004). Official soil series descriptions (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Online WWW, 2004) Available at http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/osd/index.html.
  13. 13.
    Travis, C., Obenshain, K. R., Gunter, J. T., Regens, J. L., & Whipple, C. (2004). Using multimedia modeling to expedite site characterization. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 11, 302–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1997). Exposure factors handbook volume I, II, III, EPA/600/P-95/002FA. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ward, A., & Elliot, W. (Eds.) (1995). Environmental hydrology. New York: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whelan, G., Pelton, M. A., Castleton, K. J., Strenge, D. L., Buck, J. W., Gelston, G. M., et al. (1997). Concepts of a framework for risk analysis in multimedia environmental systems, PNNL-11748, Prepared for Office of Research and Development, National Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy; Radiation Protection Division, Center for Risk Modeling and Emergency Response. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaluski, M., Trudnowski, J., Canty, M., & Harrington-Baker, M. (2001). Status and performance of engineered SRB reactors for acid mine drainage control, in: Proceedings of the Sixth International In Situ and On-Site Remediation Symposium, June. San Diego: Battelle Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Biosecurity Research, College of Public HealthUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences CenterOklahoma CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, College of Public HealthUniversity of Oklahoma Health Sciences CenterOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations