Advertisement

How to Adapt Chemical Risk Assessment for Unconventional Hydrocarbon Extraction Related to the Water System

  • Ann-Hélène Faber
  • Mark Annevelink
  • Herman Kasper Gilissen
  • Paul Schot
  • Marleen van Rijswick
  • Pim de Voogt
  • Annemarie van Wezel
Chapter
Part of the Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology book series (RECT, volume 246)

Abstract

We identify uncertainties and knowledge gaps of chemical risk assessment related to unconventional drillings and propose adaptations. We discuss how chemical risk assessment in the context of unconventional oil and gas (UO&G) activities differs from conventional chemical risk assessment and the implications for existing legislation. A UO&G suspect list of 1,386 chemicals that might be expected in the UO&G water samples was prepared which can be used for LC-HRMS suspect screening. We actualize information on reported concentrations in UO&G-related water. Most information relates to shale gas operations, followed by coal-bed methane, while only little is available for tight gas and conventional gas. The limited research on conventional oil and gas recovery hampers comparison whether risks related to unconventional activities are in fact higher than those related to conventional activities. No study analyzed the whole cycle from fracturing fluid, flowback and produced water, and surface water and groundwater. Generally target screening has been used, probably missing contaminants of concern. Almost half of the organic compounds analyzed in surface water and groundwater exceed TTC values, so further risk assessment is needed, and risks cannot be waived. No specific exposure scenarios toward groundwater aquifers exist for UO&G-related activities. Human errors in various stages of the life cycle of UO&G production play an important role in the exposure. Neither at the international level nor at the US federal and the EU levels, specific regulations for UO&G-related activities are in place to protect environmental and human health. UO&G activities are mostly regulated through general environmental, spatial planning, and mining legislation.

Keywords

Chemical risk assessment Coal-bed methane Conventional gas Failure probabilities Flowback water Fracturing additives Fracturing fluid High-resolution mass spectrometry Hydraulic fracturing Knowledge gaps Nontarget screening Produced water Risk assessment Shale gas Subsurface contaminants Suspect list Threshold of toxicological concern Tight gas Unconventional oil and gas Water contamination 

Abbreviations

AU

Australia

BMDL

Benchmark dose

CA

Concentration addition

DE

Germany

DWD

Drinking Water Directive

EC50

Half maximal effective concentration

EU

European Union

GA

Glutaraldehyde

GWD

Groundwater Directive

IARC

International Agency for Research on Cancer

IEA

International Energy Agency

Koc

Soil organic carbon-water partition coefficient

LC-HRMS

Liquid chromatography high resolution mass spectrometry

Log Kow

n-octanol-water partition coefficient

MS

Mass Spectrometry

NOAEL

No adverse effect level

PBT

Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic

PEC

Predicted environmental concentration

PNEC

Predicted no effect concentration

RfD

Reference dose

RQ

Risk quotient

TDS

Total dissolved solids

TDI

Tolerable daily intake

TTC

Threshold of toxicological concern

UK

United Kingdom

UO&G

Unconventional oil and gas

USA

United States of America

WFD

Water Framework Directive

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the research program “Shale Gas & Water” with project number 859.14.001, which is financed by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the drinking water companies Brabant Water, Oasen, and Waterleiding Maatschappij Limburg.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

459478_1_En_10_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (369 kb)
Online Resource 1 ■ (XLSX 369 kb)
459478_1_En_10_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (2.6 mb)
Online Resource 2 ■ (XLSX 2696 kb)

References

  1. Abualfaraj N, Gurian PL, Olson MS (2014) Characterization of Marcellus shale flowback water. Environ Eng Sci 31:514–524Google Scholar
  2. ACGIH Worldwide (2013) Documentation of the TLVs and BEIs with other world wide occupational exposure values. CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  3. Afenyo M, Khan F, Veitch B, Yang M (2017) A probabilistic ecological risk model for Arctic marine oil spills. J Environ Chem Eng 5:1494–1503Google Scholar
  4. Alawattegama SK, Kondratyuk T, Krynock R, Bricker M, Rutter JK, Bain DJ, Stolz JF (2015) Well water contamination in a rural community in southwestern Pennsylvania near unconventional shale gas extraction. J Environ Sci Health 50:516–528Google Scholar
  5. Alley B, Beebe A, Rodgers J, Castle JW (2011) Chemical and physical characterization of produced waters from conventional and unconventional fossil fuel resources. Chemosphere 85:74–82Google Scholar
  6. Anifowose B, Lawler DM, Van der Horst D, Chapman L (2016) A systematic quality assessment of environmental impact statements in the oil and gas industry. Sci Total Environ 572:570–585Google Scholar
  7. Annevelink MPJA, Meesters JAJ, Hendriks AJ (2016) Environmental contamination due to shale gas development. Sci Total Environ 550:431–438Google Scholar
  8. Arini A, Cavallin JE, Berninger JP, Marfil-Vega R, Mills M, Villeneuve DL, Basu N (2016) In vivo and in vitro neurochemical-based assessments of wastewater effluents from the Maumee River area of concern. Environ Pollut 211:9–19Google Scholar
  9. Atkins JP (2013) Hydraulic fracturing in Poland: a regulatory analysis. Wash Univ Glob Stud Law Rev 12:339–355Google Scholar
  10. Baars AJ, Theelen RMC, Janssen PJCM, Hesse JM, Van Apeldoorn ME, Meijerink MCM, Verdam, L, Zeilmaker M (2001) Re-evaluation of human-toxicological maximum permissible risk levels. Report no. 711701025, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  11. Backhaus T, Faust M (2012) Predictive environmental risk assessment of chemical mixtures: a conceptual framework. Environ Sci Technol 46:2564–2573Google Scholar
  12. Barbot E, Vidic NS, Gregory KB, Vidic RD (2013) Spatial and temporal correlation of water quality parameters of produced waters from Devonian-age shale following hydraulic fracturing. Environ Sci Technol 47:2562–2569Google Scholar
  13. Bletsou AA, Jeon J, Hollender J, Archontaki E, Thomaidis NS (2015) Targeted and non-targeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric workflows for identification of transformation products of emerging pollutants in the aquatic environment. Trends Anal Chem 66:32–44Google Scholar
  14. Boschee P (2014) Produced and flowback water recycling and reuse: economics, limitations, and technology. Oil Gas Facil 3:16–22Google Scholar
  15. Brack W, Dulio V, Ågerstrand M et al (2017) Towards the review of the European Union water framework management of chemical contamination in European surface water resources. Sci Total Environ 576:720–737Google Scholar
  16. Brady WL, Crannell JP (2012) Hydraulic fracturing regulation in the United States: the Laissez-Faire approach of the Federal Government and varying state regulations. Vermont J Environ Law 14:39–70Google Scholar
  17. Brand W, de Jong CM, Van der Linden SC et al (2013) Trigger values for investigation of hormonal activity in drinking water and its sources using CALUX bioassays. Environ Int 55:109–118Google Scholar
  18. Brans MC, Van den Brink KM (2014) Schaliegas in publiekrechtelijk kader – Lessen uit de praktijk van conventionele gaswinning. Milieu Recht 32:150–162Google Scholar
  19. Burton TG, Rifai HS, Hildenbrand ZL, Carlton DD, Fontenot BE, Schug KA (2016) Elucidating hydraulic fracturing impacts on groundwater quality using a regional geospatial statistical modeling approach. Sci Total Environ 545:114–126Google Scholar
  20. Butkovskyi A, Bruning H, Kools SA, Rijnaarts HH, Van Wezel AP (2017) Organic pollutants in shale gas flowback and produced waters: identification, potential ecological impact, and implications for treatment strategies. Environ Sci Technol 51:4740–4754Google Scholar
  21. Camarillo MK, Domen JK, Stringfellow WT (2016) Physical-chemical evaluation of hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the context of produced water treatment. J Environ Manag 183:164–174Google Scholar
  22. Centner TJ, O’Connell LK (2014) Unfinished business in the regulation of shale gas production in the United States. Sci Total Environ 476:359–367Google Scholar
  23. Centner TJ, Petetin L (2015) Permitting program with best management practices for shale gas wells to safeguard public health. J Environ Manag 163:174–183Google Scholar
  24. Chapman EC, Capo RC, Stewart BW, Kirby CS, Hammack RW, Schroeder KT, Edenborn HM (2012) Geochemical and strontium isotope characterization of produced waters from Marcellus shale natural gas extraction. Environ Sci Technol 46:3545–3553Google Scholar
  25. Clark CE, Veil JA (2009) Produced water volumes and management practices in the United States. Argonne National Laboratory ANL/EVS/R-09-1. In: Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, September, p 64. http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/dsp_detail.cfm?PubID=2437
  26. COGC (2014) Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Inspection./incident inquiry. http://cogcc.state.co.us/. Accessed 4 Jun 2014
  27. Cuadrilla (2016) Cuadrilla resources ePortal. https://www.cuadrillaresourceseportal.com/
  28. Dahm KG, Guerra KL, Xu P, Drewes JE (2011) Composite geochemical database for coalbed methane produced water quality in the Rocky mountain region. Environ Sci Technol 45:7655–7663Google Scholar
  29. De Jong ER (2013) Regulating uncertain risks in an innovative society: a liability law perspective. In: Hilgendorf E, Günther JP (eds) Robotik und Recht Band I. Nomosverlag, Baden-Baden, pp 163–183Google Scholar
  30. De Jong ER (2016) Voorzorgverplichtingen: over aansprakelijkheidsrechtelijke normstelling voor onzekere risico’s. Dissertation, Boomjuridisch, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  31. DeGraeve GM, Elder RG, Woods DC, Bergman HL (1982) Effect of naphthalene and benzene on fathead minnows and rainbow trout. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 11:487–490Google Scholar
  32. DHHS ATSDR (2010) Toxicological profile for Ethylbenzene. US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic substances and disease registry. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp110.pdf
  33. ECHA (2017) European Chemicals Agency’s regulated chemicals database. https://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals/registered-substances. Accessed 6 Jul 2017
  34. EFSA (2017) European food safety authority database. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/data/chemical-hazards-data. Accessed 5 Apr 2017
  35. Elliott EG, Trinh P, Ma X, Leaderer BP, Ward MH, Deziel NC (2017) Unconventional oil and gas development and risk of childhood leukemia: assessing the evidence. Sci Total Environ 576:138–147Google Scholar
  36. Escher B, Leusch F (2012) Bioanalytical tools in water quality assessment. IWA Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Escher BI, Schwarzenbach RP (2002) Mechanistic studies on baseline toxicity and uncoupling of organic compounds as a basis for modeling effective membrane concentrations in aquatic organisms. Aquat Sci 64:20–35Google Scholar
  38. Escher B, Allinson M, Altenburger R et al (2013) Benchmarking organic micropollutants in wastewater, recycled water and drinking water with in vitro bioassays. Environ Sci Technol 48:1940–1956Google Scholar
  39. ExxonMobile (2016) ExxonMobile chemical disclosure registry. http://www.erdgassuche-in-deutschland.de/hydraulic_fracturing/frac_massnahmen.html. Accessed 6 Nov 2016
  40. Ferrar KJ, Michanowicz DR, Christen CL, Mulcahy N, Malone SL, Sharma RK (2013) Assessment of effluent contaminants from three facilities discharging marcellus shale wastewater to surface waters in pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 47:3472–3481Google Scholar
  41. Ferrer I, Thurman EM (2015a) Analysis of hydraulic fracturing additives by LC/Q-TOF-MS. Anal Bioanal Chem 407:6417–6428Google Scholar
  42. Ferrer I, Thurman EM (2015b) Chemical constituents and analytical approaches for hydraulic fracturing waters. Trends Environ Anal Chem 5:18–25Google Scholar
  43. Fleming R, Reins L (2016) Shale gas extraction, precaution and prevention: a conversation on regulatory responses. Energy Res Soc Sci 20:131–141Google Scholar
  44. Fontenot BE, Hunt LR, Hildenbrand ZL, Carlton DD Jr, Oka H, Walton JL, Osorio A, Bjorndal B, Hu QH, Schug KA (2013) An evaluation of water quality in private drinking water wells near natural gas extraction sites in the Barnett shale formation. Environ Sci Technol 47:10032–10040.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es4011724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gagnon GA, Krkosek W, Anderson L, McBean E, Mohseni M, Bazri M, Mauro I (2015) Impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water quality: a review of literature, regulatory frameworks and an analysis of information gaps. Environ Rev 24:122–131Google Scholar
  46. Geraets D, Reins L (2016) The case of shale gas extraction regulation in light of CETA and TTIP: another example of the frackmentation of international law. Environ Liabil 24:16–25Google Scholar
  47. Goldstein BD, Brooks BW, Cohen SD et al (2014) The role of toxicological science in meeting the challenges and opportunities of hydraulic fracturing. Toxicol Sci 139:271–283Google Scholar
  48. Gordalla BC, Ewers U, Frimmel FH (2013) Hydraulic fracturing: a toxicological threat for groundwater and drinking-water? Environ Earth Sci 70:3875–3893Google Scholar
  49. Gouin T, Cousins I, Mackay D (2004) Comparison of two methods for obtaining degradation half-lives. Chemosphere 56:531–535Google Scholar
  50. Gramatica P (2007) Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. Mol Inf 26:694–107Google Scholar
  51. Grant MF (2016) A critical assessment of the U.S. Environmental regulation of shale gas development – what can be learned from the U.S. experience? Edinburgh Law School working paper 2016/1Google Scholar
  52. Grant CJ, Weimer AB, Marks NK et al (2015) Marcellus and mercury: assessing potential impacts of unconventional natural gas extraction on aquatic ecosystems in northwestern Pennsylvania. J Environ Sci Health 50:482–500Google Scholar
  53. Gregory KB, Vidic RD, Dzombak DA (2011) Water management challenges associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing. Elements 7:181–186Google Scholar
  54. Gross SA, Avens HJ, Banducci AM, Sahmel J, Panko JM, Tvermoes BE (2013) Analysis of BTEX groundwater concentrations from surface spills associated with hydraulic fracturing operations. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 63:424–432Google Scholar
  55. Harkness JS, Darrah TH, Warner NR et al (2017) The geochemistry of naturally occurring methane and saline groundwater in an area of unconventional shale gas development. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 208:302–334Google Scholar
  56. Harris AE, Hopkinson L, Soeder DJ (2016) Developing monitoring plans to detect spills related to natural gas production. Environ Monit Assess 188:647Google Scholar
  57. Hayes T (2009) Sampling and analysis of water streams associated with the development of Marcellus shale gas. Marcellus Shale Initiative Publications Database, 10Google Scholar
  58. Hayes T, Severin BF (2012) Barnett and Appalachian Shale water management and reuse technologies. Final Report. RPSEA Contract 08122-05Google Scholar
  59. Heilweil VM, Grieve PL, Hynek SA, Brantley SL, Solomon DK, Risser DW (2015) Stream measurements locate thermogenic methane fluxes in groundwater discharge in an area of shale-gas development. Environ Sci Technol 49:4057–4065Google Scholar
  60. Hildenbrand ZL, Carlton Jr DD, Fontenot BE et al (2015) A comprehensive analysis of groundwater quality in the Barnett Shale region. Environ Sci Technol 49:8254–8262Google Scholar
  61. Hladik ML, Focazio MJ, Engle M (2014) Discharges of produced waters from oil and gas extraction via wastewater treatment plants are sources of disinfection by-products to receiving streams. Sci Total Environ 466:1085–1093Google Scholar
  62. Hoelzer K, Sumner AJ, Karatum O et al (2016) Indications of transformation products from hydraulic fracturing additives in shale-gas wastewater. Environ Sci Technol 50:8036–8048Google Scholar
  63. Hogenboom AC, Van Leerdam JA, De Voogt P (2009) Accurate mass screening and identification of emerging contaminants in environmental samples by liquid chromatography-hybrid linear ion trap Orbitrap mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1216:510–519Google Scholar
  64. Hollander A, Schoorl M, Van de Meent D (2016) SimpleBox 4.0: improving the model while keeping it simple…. Chemosphere 148:99–107Google Scholar
  65. Howarth RW, Ingraffea A, Engelder T (2011) Natural gas: should fracking stop? Nature 477:271–275Google Scholar
  66. Huang PM (1980) Adsorption processes in soil. In: Hutzinger O (ed) The handbook of environmental chemistry, vol 2 Part A, Reactions and processes. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 47–59Google Scholar
  67. Hug C, Ulrich N, Schulze T, Brack W, Krauss M (2014) Identification of novel micropollutants in wastewater by a combination of suspect and nontarget screening. Environ Pollut 184:25–32Google Scholar
  68. IARC (2017) Monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1972-PRESENT. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php. Accessed 5 Apr 2017
  69. IEA (2017) International Energy Agency’s unconventional gas production database. https://www.iea.org/ugforum/ugd/
  70. Jackson RB, Vengosh A, Darrah TH, Warner NR, Down A, Poreda RJ, Osborn SG, Zhao K, Karr JD (2013a) Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:11250–11255Google Scholar
  71. Jackson RE, Gorody AW, Mayer B, Roy JW, Ryan MC, Van Stempvoort DR (2013b) Groundwater protection and unconventional gas extraction: the critical need for field-based hydrogeological research. Ground Water 51:488–510Google Scholar
  72. Kahrilas GA, Blotevogel J, Stewart PS, Borch T (2014) Biocides in hydraulic fracturing fluids: a critical review of their usage, mobility, degradation, and toxicity. Environ Sci Technol 49:16–32Google Scholar
  73. Kahrilas GA, Blotevogel J, Corrin ER, Borch T (2016) Downhole transformation of the hydraulic fracturing fluid biocide glutaraldehyde: implications for flowback and produced water quality. Environ Sci Technol 50:11414–11423Google Scholar
  74. Kassotis CD, Tillitt DE, Davis JW, Hormann AM, Nagel SC (2013) Estrogen and androgen receptor activities of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and surface and ground water in a drilling-dense region. Endocrinology 155:897–907Google Scholar
  75. Kassotis CD, Klemp KC, Vu DC et al (2015) Endocrine-disrupting activity of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and adverse health outcomes after prenatal exposure in male mice. Endocrinology 156:4458–4473Google Scholar
  76. Kassotis CD, Tillitt DE, Lin CH, McElroy JA, Nagel SC (2016a) Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and oil and natural gas operations: potential environmental contamination and recommendations to assess complex environmental mixtures. Environ Health Perspect 124:256–264Google Scholar
  77. Kassotis CD, Bromfield JJ, Klemp KC et al (2016b) Adverse reproductive and developmental health outcomes following prenatal exposure to a hydraulic fracturing chemical mixture in female C57Bl/6 mice. Endocrinology 157:3469–3348Google Scholar
  78. Kevelam J (2015) De juridische bescherming van drinkwaterbronnen bij schaliegaswinning. Dissertation, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  79. King GE (2012) Hydraulic fracturing 101: what every representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about estimating frac risk and improving frac performance in unconventional gas and oil wells. In: Society of Petroleum Engineers Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference, Texas, pp 1–80Google Scholar
  80. Klein W (1989) Mobility of environmental chemicals, including abiotic degradation. In: Bourdeau P, Haines JA, Klein W, Krishna Murti CR (eds) Ecotoxicology and climate: with special reference to hot and cold climates. Wiley, Chichester, pp 65–78Google Scholar
  81. Kolkman A, Schriks M, Brand W et al (2013) Sample preparation for combined chemical analysis and in vitro bioassay application in water quality assessment. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 36:1291–1303Google Scholar
  82. Kondash AJ, Albright E, Vengosh A (2017) Quantity of flowback and produced waters from unconventional oil and gas exploration. Sci Total Environ 574:314–321Google Scholar
  83. Krauss M, Singer H, Hollender J (2010) LC–high resolution MS in environmental analysis: from target screening to the identification of unknowns. Anal Bioanal Chem 397:943–951Google Scholar
  84. Kroes R, Kleiner J, Renwick A (2005) The threshold of toxicological concern concept in risk assessment. Toxicol Sci 86:226–230Google Scholar
  85. Kühne R, Ebert RU, von der Ohe PC, Ulrich N, Brack W, Schüürmann G (2013) Read-across prediction of the acute toxicity of organic compounds toward the water flea daphnia magna. Mol Inf 32:108–120Google Scholar
  86. Lange T, Sauter M, Heitfeld M et al (2013) Hydraulic fracturing in unconventional gas reservoirs: risks in the geological system part 1. Environ Earth Sci 70:3839–3853Google Scholar
  87. Lee Y, von Gunten U (2012) Quantitative structure – activity relationships (QSARs) for the transformation of organic micropollutants during oxidative water treatment. Water Res 46:6177–6195Google Scholar
  88. Leendert V, Van Langenhove H, Demeestere K (2015) Trends in liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry for multi-residue analysis of organic micropollutants in aquatic environments. Trends Anal Chem 67:192–208Google Scholar
  89. Lester Y, Ferrer I, Thurman EM, Sitterley KA, Korak JA, Aiken G, Linden KG (2015) Characterization of hydraulic fracturing flowback water in Colorado: implications for water treatment. Sci Total Environ 512:637–644Google Scholar
  90. Leusch FD, Neale PA, Hebert A, Scheurer M, Schriks MC (2017) Analysis of the sensitivity of in vitro bioassays for androgenic, progestagenic, glucocorticoid, thyroid and estrogenic activity: suitability for drinking and environmental waters. Environ Int 99:120–130Google Scholar
  91. Mackay D (1980) Solubility, partition coefficients, volatility, and evaporation rates. In: Hutzinger O (ed) A handbook of environmental chemistry, vol 1. Part A Reactions and Processes. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 31–45Google Scholar
  92. Mackay D, Hughes L, Powell DE, Kim J (2014) An updated Quantitative Water Air Sediment Interaction (QWASI) model for evaluating chemical fate and input parameter sensitivities in aquatic systems: application to D5 (decamethylcyclopentasiloxane) and PCB-180 in two lakes. Chemosphere 111:359–365Google Scholar
  93. Maguire-Boyle SJ, Barron AR (2014) Organic compounds in produced waters from shale gas wells. Environ Sci Processes Impacts 16:2237–2248Google Scholar
  94. Malaj E, Peter C, Grote M, Kühne R et al (2014) Organic chemicals jeopardize the health of freshwater ecosystems on the continental scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:9549–9554Google Scholar
  95. Maloney KO, Baruch-Mordo S, Patterson LA, Nicot JP, Entrekin SA, Fargione JE et al (2017) Unconventional oil and gas spills: materials, volumes, and risks to surface waters in four states of the US. Sci Total Environ 581:369–377Google Scholar
  96. Maule AL, Makey CM, Benson EB, Burrows IJ, Scammell MK (2013) Disclosure of hydraulic fracturing fluid chemical additives: analysis of regulations. New Solut 23:167–187Google Scholar
  97. Mellert W, Deckardt K, Kaufmann W, Van Ravenzwaay B (2007) Ethylbenzene: 4-and 13-week rat oral toxicity. Arch Toxicol 81:361–370Google Scholar
  98. Meng Q (2015) Spatial analysis of environment and population at risk of natural gas fracking in the state of Pennsylvania, USA. Sci Total Environ 515:198–206Google Scholar
  99. Mons MN, Heringa MB, Van Genderen J (2013) Use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach for deriving target values for drinking water contaminants. Water Res 47:1666–1678Google Scholar
  100. Montgomery CT, Smith MB (2010) Hydraulic fracturing: history of an enduring technology. J Pet Technol 62:26Google Scholar
  101. Müller A, Schulz W, Ruck WK, Weber WH (2011) A new approach to data evaluation in the non-target screening of organic trace substances in water analysis. Chemosphere 85:1211–1219Google Scholar
  102. Murk AJ, Legler J, Van Lipzig MM et al (2002) Detection of estrogenic potency in wastewater and surface water with three in vitro bioassays. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:16–23Google Scholar
  103. NAM (2016) Nederlandse aardoliematschappij chemical disclosure database. http://www.nam.nl/nl/downloads/information-fracking.html. Accessed 12 Jun 2016
  104. Navarro HA, Price CJ, Marr MC, Myers CB, Heindel JJ (1992) Final report on the developmental toxicity of naphthalene (CAS No. 91-20-3) in New Zealand white rabbits on gestational days 6 through 19. Chemistry and Life Sciences Research Triangle Institute. NTIS Technical Report No PB-92-219831, Durham. https://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/6992005
  105. Nelson J, Bishay F, Van Roodselaar A, Ikonomou M, Law FC (2007) The use of in vitro bioassays to quantify endocrine disrupting chemicals in municipal wastewater treatment plant effluents. Sci Total Environ 374:80–90Google Scholar
  106. NGS (2016) Natural gas from shale hydraulic fracturing fluid and additive component transparency service. http://www.ngsfacts.org/findawell/. Accessed 6 Oct 2016
  107. NRC (2014) National response centre. http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/. Accessed 4 Jun 2014
  108. NTP (1990) Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of Toluene (CAS No. 108-88-3) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies). National Toxicology Program Technical Report Series 371:1. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr371.pdf
  109. O’Malley D, Karra S, Currier RP, Makedonska N, Hyman JD, Viswanathan HS (2015) Where does water go during hydraulic fracturing? Ground Water 54:488–497Google Scholar
  110. OCD (2014) State of Mexico oil conservation division. Lozing search. https://wwwapps.emnrd.state.nm.us/ocd/ocdpermitting/Data/Incidents/SpillsearchResults.aspx. Accessed 4 Jun 2014
  111. Olsson O, Weichgrebe D, Rosenwinkel KH (2013) Hydraulic fracturing wastewater in Germany: composition, treatment, concerns. Environ Earth Sci 70:3895–3906Google Scholar
  112. OPPPW (2016) The polish exploration and production industry organization chemical disclosure database. http://www.opppw.pl/en/fracturing_fluid_composition/23. Accessed 6 Oct 2016
  113. Orem W, Tatu C, Varonka M (2014) Organic substances in produced and formation water from unconventional natural gas extraction in coal and shale. Int J Coal Geol 126:20–31Google Scholar
  114. Osborn SG, Vengosh A, Warner NR, Jackson RB (2011) Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:8172–8176Google Scholar
  115. PADEP (2014) Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection OC compliance. http://www.depreportingservices.state.pa.us/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/Oil_Gas/OG_Compliance. Accessed 4 Jun 2014
  116. Patterson LA, Konschnik KE, Wiseman H et al (2017) Unconventional oil and gas spills: risks, mitigation priorities, and state reporting requirements. Environ Sci Technol 51:2563–2573Google Scholar
  117. Pereira E, Reins L, Zhang L, Costa H, Nace J (2016) Regulatory and contractual challenges for unconventional resources: an international perspective. UEF Energy Law Rev 1:1–38Google Scholar
  118. Perry SL (2012) Environmental reviews and case studies: addressing the societal costs of unconventional oil and gas exploration and production: a framework for evaluating short-term, future, and cumulative risks and uncertainties of hydrofracking. Environ Pract 14:352–365Google Scholar
  119. Polishchuk K (2017) Shale gas regulation in the USA, Poland and Ukraine: managing groundwater contamination risks. Dissertation, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  120. Poulsen A, Chapman H, Leusch F, Escher B (2011) Application of bioanalytical tools for water quality assessment. Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical Report No 41, Brisbane. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267824499_Application_of_Bioanalytical_Tools_for_Water_Quality_Assessment
  121. Preston TM, Chesley-Preston TL (2015) Risk assessment of brine contamination to aquatic resources from energy development in glacial drift deposits: Williston Basin, USA. Sci Total Environ 508:534–545Google Scholar
  122. Prpich G, Coulon F, Anthony EJ (2016) Review of the scientific evidence to support environmental risk assessment of shale gas development in the UK. Sci Total Environ 563:731–740Google Scholar
  123. Rahm BG, Riha SJ (2012) Toward strategic management of shale gas development: regional, collective impacts on water resources. Environ Sci Pol 17:12–23Google Scholar
  124. Randall A (2011) Risk and precaution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  125. Reemtsma T, Berger U, Arp HPH, Gallard H, Knepper TP, Neumann M, Quintana JB, Voogt PD (2016) Mind the Gap: Persistent and Mobile Organic Compounds: Water Contaminants that Slip Through. Environ Sci Technol 50:10308–10315Google Scholar
  126. Reins L (2014a) European minimum principles for shale gas: preliminary insights with reference to the precautionary principle. Environ Liabil 22:16–27Google Scholar
  127. Reins L (2014b) A research agenda for shale gas: challenges to a coherent regulation in the European Union. J Renew Energy Law Policy 5:167–171Google Scholar
  128. Reins L (2017) Regulating shale gas: the challenge of coherent environmental and energy regulation. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  129. Riedl J, Rotter S, Faetsch S, Schmitt-Jansen M, Altenburger R (2013) Proposal for applying a component-based mixture approach for ecotoxicological assessment of fracturing fluids. Environ Earth Sci 70:3907–3920Google Scholar
  130. Roberson TW (2012) Environmental concerns of hydraulically fracturing a natural gas well. Utah Environ Law Rev 12:67–136Google Scholar
  131. RRC (2014) Railroad commission of Texas loss report database. http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/compliance-enforcement/h-8/Google Scholar
  132. SCHER, SCENIHR, SCCS (2012) Opinion on the toxicity and assessment of chemical mixtures. Scientific committees on health and environmental risks (SCHER), Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) and Consumer Safety (SCCS), European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_155.pdf
  133. Schnoor JL (1996) Environmental modeling: fate and transport of pollutants in water, air, and soil. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  134. Scholz S, Sela E, Blaha L (2013) A European perspective on alternatives to animal testing for environmental hazard identification and risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67:506–530Google Scholar
  135. Schriks M, Heringa MB, Van der Kooi MM, de Voogt P, Van Wezel AP (2010a) Toxicological relevance of emerging contaminants for drinking water quality. Water Res 44:461–476Google Scholar
  136. Schriks M, van Leerdam JA, Van der Linden SC, Van der Burg B, Van Wezel AP, de Voogt P (2010b) High-resolution mass spectrometric identification and quantification of glucocorticoid compounds in various wastewaters in The Netherlands. Environ Sci Technol 44:4766–4774Google Scholar
  137. Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Longrée P et al (2014a) Strategies to characterize polar organic contamination in wastewater: exploring the capability of high resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol 48:1811–1181Google Scholar
  138. Schymanski EL, Jeon J, Gulde R, Fenner K, Ruff M, Singer HP, Hollender J (2014b) Identifying small molecules via high resolution mass spectrometry: communicating confidence. Environ Sci Technol 48:2097–2098Google Scholar
  139. Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Slobodnik J (2015) Non-target screening with high-resolution mass spectrometry: critical review using a collaborative trial on water analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem 407:6237–6255Google Scholar
  140. Shonkoff SB, Hays J, Finkel ML (2014) Environmental public health dimensions of shale and tight gas development. Environ Health Perspect 122:787Google Scholar
  141. Sjerps RM, Vughs D, Van Leerdam JA, ter Laak TL, Van Wezel AP (2016) Data-driven prioritization of chemicals for various water types using suspect screening LC-HRMS. Water Res 93:254–264Google Scholar
  142. Smit CE, Verbruggen EMJ (2012) Environmental risk limits for ethyl-benzene and tributylphosphate in water: a proposal for water quality standards in accordance with the Water Framework Directive. RIVM letter report 601714019. http://rivm.openrepository.com/rivm/handle/10029/260138
  143. Soeder DJ (2015) Adventures in groundwater monitoring: why has it been so difficult to obtain groundwater data near shale gas wells? Environ Geosci 22:139–148Google Scholar
  144. Soeder DJ, Sharma S, Pckney N, Hopkinson L, Dilmore R, Kutchko B, Stewart B, Carter K, Hakala A, Capo R (2014) An approach for assessing engineering risk from shale gas wells in the United States. Int J Coal Geol 1226:4–19Google Scholar
  145. Sophocleous M (2002) Interactions between groundwater and surface water: the state of the science. Hydrogeol J 10:52–67Google Scholar
  146. Stringfellow WT, Domen JK, Camarillo MK, Sandelin WL, Borglin S (2014) Physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of compounds used in hydraulic fracturing. J Hazard Mater 275:37–54Google Scholar
  147. Strong LC, Gould T, Kasinkas L, Sadowsky MJ, Aksan A, Wackett LP (2013) Biodegradation in waters from hydraulic fracturing: chemistry, microbiology, and engineering. J Environ Eng 140:B4013001Google Scholar
  148. Tang JY, Taulis M, Edebeli J, Leusch FD, Jagals P, Jackson GP, Escher BI (2014) Chemical and bioanalytical assessment of coal seam gas associated water. Environ Chem 12:267–285Google Scholar
  149. ter Heege JH, Griffioen J, Schavemaker YA, Boxem TAP (2014) Inventarisatie van technologieën en ontwikkelingen voor het verminderen van (rest) risico’s bij schaliegaswinning, No. TNO-2014-R10919. TNO. https://repository.tudelft.nl/view/tno/uuid:d3f72f6d-c669-4e8a-b4aa-fa87e399bf00/
  150. Thacker JB, Carlton DD, Hildenbrand ZL, Kadjo AF, Schug KA (2015) Chemical analysis of wastewater from unconventional drilling operations. Water 7:1568–1579Google Scholar
  151. Theodori GL, Luloff AE, Willits FK, Burnett DB (2014) Hydraulic fracturing and the management, disposal, and reuse of frac flowback waters: views from the public in the Marcellus Shale. Energy Res Soc Sci 2:66–74Google Scholar
  152. Torres L, Yadav OP, Khan E (2016) A review on risk assessment techniques for hydraulic fracturing water and produced water management implemented in onshore unconventional oil and gas production. Sci Total Environ 539:478–493Google Scholar
  153. US EPA (2015) Assessment of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources. Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  154. US EPA (2016) Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas: impacts from the hydraulic fracturing water cycle on drinking water resources in the United States. Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  155. US EPA Ecotox (2017) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Ecotox database. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox. Accessed 6 Apr 2017
  156. US EPA IRIS (2017) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s integrated risk information system. https://www.epa.gov/iris. Accessed 6 Apr 2017
  157. Van Herwijnen R, Vos JH (2009) Environmental risk limits for benzene, C10-13 alkyl derivs (LAB). RIVM Report No 601782016. http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=a837022c-94e9-481e-8d32b6cd3104c826&type=org&disposition=inline
  158. Van Wezel AP, Ter Laak TL, Fischer A, Bäuerlein PS, Munthe J, Posthuma L (2017) Mitigation options for chemicals of emerging concern in surface waters; operationalising solutions-focused risk assessment. Environ Sci Water Res Technol 3:403–414Google Scholar
  159. Venkatesan AK, Halden RU (2015) Effective strategies for monitoring and regulating chemical mixtures and contaminants sharing pathways of toxicity. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:10549–10557Google Scholar
  160. Vidic RD, Brantley SL, Vandenbossche JM, Yoxtheimer D, Abad JD (2013) Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality. Science 340:6134Google Scholar
  161. Vos A (2014) Shale gas extraction: in line with the general (environmental) principles of Union and Dutch law? Dissertation, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  162. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C (2013) The risk perception paradox implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal 33:1049–1065Google Scholar
  163. Warner NR, Christie CA, Jackson RB, Vengosh A (2013a) Impacts of shale gas wastewater disposal on water quality in western Pennsylvania. Environ Sci Technol 47:11849–11857Google Scholar
  164. Warner NR, Kresse TM, Hays PD, Down A, Karr JD, Jackson RB, Vengosh A (2013b) Geochemical and isotopic variations in shallow groundwater in areas of the Fayetteville Shale development, north-central Arkansas. Appl Geochem 35:207–220Google Scholar
  165. Webb E, Bushkin-Bedient S, Cheng A, Kassotis CD, Balise V, Nagel SC (2014) Developmental and reproductive effects of chemicals associated with unconventional oil and natural gas operations. Rev Environ Health 29:307–318Google Scholar
  166. Werner AK, Vink S, Watt K, Jagals P (2015) Environmental health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: a review of the current strength of evidence. Sci Total Environ 505:1127–1141Google Scholar
  167. Westerhoff P, Yoon Y, Snyder S, Wert E (2005) Fate of endocrine-disruptor, pharmaceutical, and personal care product chemicals during simulated drinking water treatment processes. Environ Sci Technol 39:6649–6663Google Scholar
  168. Yost EE, Stanek J, DeWoskin RS, Burgoon LD (2016) Estimating the potential toxicity of chemicals associated with hydraulic fracturing operations using quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling. Environ Sci Technol 50:7732–7742Google Scholar
  169. Zhang M, Wang Y, Wang Q, Yang J, Yang D, Liu J, Li J (2010) Involvement of mitochondria-mediated apoptosis in ethylbenzene-induced renal toxicity in rat. Toxicol Sci 115:295–303Google Scholar
  170. Ziemkiewicz PF, Quaranta JD, Darnell A, Wise R (2014) Exposure pathways related to shale gas development and procedures for reducing environmental and public risk. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 16:77–84Google Scholar
  171. Zoveidavianpoor M, Samsuri A, Shadizadeh SR (2012) Overview of environmental management by drill cutting re-injection through hydraulic fracturing in upstream oil and gas industry. In: Curkovic S (ed) Sustainable development – authoritative and leading edge content for environmental management. InTech. https://www.intechopen.com/books/sustainable-development-authoritative-and-leading-edge-content-for-environmental-management/overview-of-environmental-management-by-drill-cutting-re-injection-through-hydraulic-fracturing-in-uGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann-Hélène Faber
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mark Annevelink
    • 2
    • 4
  • Herman Kasper Gilissen
    • 5
  • Paul Schot
    • 1
  • Marleen van Rijswick
    • 5
  • Pim de Voogt
    • 2
    • 3
  • Annemarie van Wezel
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.KWR Watercycle Research InstituteNieuwegeinThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem DynamicsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Environmental ScienceRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability Law, Faculty of Law, Economics and GovernanceUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations