Ontario Soil Vapour Guidance - Final Draft - Jan - 12 - 11

ISBN ###-#-####-####-#
Draft Technical Guidance:

Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment
November 2010
Ministry of the Environment
PIBS ####
Table of Contents iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................1-2
1.2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................1-2
1.3 Relationship to Other Guidance Documents..............................................................1-3
1.3.1 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance ..................................................................1-4
1.3.2 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record of Site
Conditions (RSC), Ontario Regulation 153/04..........................................................1-6
1.4 Guidance Structure.....................................................................................................1-6
CHAPTER 2. OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT

PROCESS
2.1 Screening process.......................................................................................................2-2
2.1.1 Development of Conceptual Site Model....................................................................2-3
2.1.2 Preliminary Screening................................................................................................2-4
2.1.2 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards ...............................................2-4
2.1.3 Screening Level vapour intrusion Assessment ..........................................................2-4
2.1.4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment......................................................................2-5
2.2 Guidance Application and Implementation Process ..................................................2-5
2.3 Vapour Intrusion Mitigation ......................................................................................2-7
2.4 Community Outreach.................................................................................................2-7
CHAPTER 3. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

3.1 What is a Conceptual Site Model?.............................................................................3-2
3.2 Information Needed to Build the Conceptual Site Model .........................................3-2
3.3 Fate and Transport Processes for Vapour Intrusion...................................................3-3
3.3.1 Generation of Vapours and Gases..............................................................................3-4
3.3.2 Fate and Transport in the Vadose Zone .....................................................................3-5
3.3.3 Soil Vapour Intrusion through the Building Envelope ..............................................3-5
3.3.4 Mixing of Vapours inside the Building .....................................................................3-6
CHAPTER 4. SITE SCREENING PROCESS

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................4-2
4.2 Preliminary Screening................................................................................................4-3
4.2.1 Site Characterization..................................................................................................4-3
4.2.2 Are There Chemicals of Potential Concern for Vapour Intrusion? ...........................4-4
4.2.3 Does the Site Represent a Safety or Acute Health Risk Concern? ............................4-4
4.2.4 Are Buildings Located in Sufficiently Close Proximity to Contamination? .............4-5
4.2.5 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards (SCS).....................................4-6
4.2.5.1 Precluding Conditions................................................................................................4-6
4.2.5.2 Additional Considerations .........................................................................................4-7
MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

Table of Contents iv
4.3 Screening Level Assessment......................................................................................4-8

4.3.1 Site Characterization..................................................................................................4-8
4.3.2 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment .........................................................4-15
4.3.2.1 Determine Soil Textural Type ...................................................................................4-16
4.3.2.2 Select Land Use .........................................................................................................4-16
4.3.2.3 Estimate Distance to Vapour Contamination Source.................................................4-17
4.3.2.4 Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factor ..................................................................4-17
4.3.2.5 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Mixing Height...............................4-21
4.3.2.6 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Air Exchange Rate........................4-21
4.3.2.7 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Biodegradation.............................................4-21
4.3.2.8 Back-calculate site specific screening levels for soil vapour and groundwater.........4-24
4.3.2.9 Data Evaluation and Next Steps ................................................................................4-24
4.3.3 Soil Vapour Screening Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment Model .........4-26
4.4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment......................................................................4-26
4.4.1 Estimation of Input Parameters..................................................................................4-27
4.4.2 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing..............................................................................4-31
4.4.2.1 IAQ Study Design......................................................................................................4-31
4.4.2.2 Background Issues .....................................................................................................4-32
4.4.3 Data Evaluation and Next Steps ................................................................................4-33
4.4.4 Exposure Controls......................................................................................................4-33
CHAPTER 5. SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION

5.1 Context, Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................5-2
5.2 Study Objectives ........................................................................................................5-3
5.3 Soil Vapour Sampling Approach and Design............................................................5-3
5.3.1 Overview of Sampling Strategy.................................................................................5-3
5.3.2 Considerations for Sampling Locations.....................................................................5-4
5.3.3 When to Sample and Sampling Frequency................................................................5-12
5.3.4 Biodegradation Assessment .......................................................................................5-13
5.4 Soil Gas Probe Construction and Installation ............................................................5-15
5.4.1 Probes Installed in Boreholes.....................................................................................5-16
5.4.2 Direct Push Technology.............................................................................................5-17
5.4.3 Use of Water Table Monitoring Wells as Soil Gas Probes........................................5-18
5.4.4 Subslab Soil Gas Probes ............................................................................................5-18
5.4.5 Probe Materials ..........................................................................................................5-20
5.4.6 Short-Circuiting Considerations and Shallow Probes................................................5-21
5.5 Soil Gas Sampling Procedures...................................................................................5-21
5.5.1 Probe Development and Soil Gas Equilibration ........................................................5-21
5.5.2 Flow and Vacuum (Probe Performance) Check ........................................................5-22
5.5.3 Sampling Container or Device...................................................................................5-22
5.5.4 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment.................................................................5-24
5.5.5 Testing of Equipment for Leaks and Short Circuiting...............................................5-25
5.5.6 Sample Probe Purging and Sampling ........................................................................5-26
5.6 Soil Gas Analysis.......................................................................................................5-28
5.6.1 Selection of Method...................................................................................................5-28
5.6.2 Field Detectors ...........................................................................................................5-29

Table of Contents v
5.6.3 Field Laboratory Analysis..........................................................................................5-31

5.6.4 Fixed Laboratory Analysis.........................................................................................5-32
5.6.5 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Considerations.................................................5-37
5.7 Ancillary Data............................................................................................................5-39
5.8 Data Interpretation and Analysis ...............................................................................5-42
5.8.1 Data Organization and Reporting ..............................................................................5-42
5.8.2 Data Quality Analysis ................................................................................................5-42
5.8.3 Data Consistency Analysis ........................................................................................5-43
5.8.4 Further Evaluation ....................................................................................................5-44
CHAPTER 6. INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL

VAPOUR INTRUSION
6.1 Context, Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................6-2
6.2 Conceptual Site Model for Indoor Air .......................................................................6-4
6.2.1 Background Indoor Air Concentrations.....................................................................6-4
6.2.2 Building Foundation Construction.............................................................................6-9
6.2.3 Building Ventilation...................................................................................................6-9
6.2.4 Building Depressurization and Weather Conditions..................................................6-11
6.2.5 Mixing of Vapours Inside Building ...........................................................................6-11
6.2.6 Vapour Depletion Mechanisms..................................................................................6-12
6.3 Development of Indoor Air Quality Study Approach and Design ............................6-12
6.3.1 Define Study Objectives ............................................................................................6-12
6.3.2 Identify Target Compounds .......................................................................................6-13
6.3.3 Develop Communications Program...........................................................................6-13
6.3.4 Conduct Pre-Sampling Building Survey....................................................................6-14
6.3.5 Conduct Preliminary Screening .................................................................................6-14
6.3.6 Identify Immediate Health or Safety Concerns .........................................................6-14
6.3.7 Define Number and Locations of Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples .........................6-15
6.3.8 Define Sampling Duration .........................................................................................6-15
6.3.9 Define Sampling Frequency ......................................................................................6-16
6.3.10 Preparing the Building for Sampling and Conditions during Sampling ....................6-17
6.4 Indoor Air Analytical Methods..................................................................................6-18
6.4.1 Air Analysis Using USEPA Method TO-15..............................................................6-18
6.4.2 Air Analysis using Quantitative Passive Diffusive Samplers....................................6-19
6.5 Data Interpretation and Analysis ...............................................................................6-24
6.5.1 Data Organization and Reporting ..............................................................................6-24
6.5.2 Data Quality Evaluation.............................................................................................6-24
CHAPTER 7. METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF

BACKGROUND FROM INDOOR SOURCES
7.1 Constituent Ratios......................................................................................................7-2
7.2 Marker Chemicals......................................................................................................7-2
7.3 Spatial Trends ............................................................................................................7-3
7.4 Comparison of Indoor Air Data to Literature Background Concentrations ..............7-3
7.5 Modification of Building Pressurization....................................................................7-3
7.6 Emerging Methods.....................................................................................................7-4

Table of Contents vi
7.7 Comparison of Measured to Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations ...........................7-4
CHAPTER 8. REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION
CHAPTER 9. RFERENCES
CHAPTER 10. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYM
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION AND

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL CHECKLIST ................................................. AI-1
APPENDIX II. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL

CONCERN FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION.......................................................AII-1
APPENDIX II. SELECTED LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS .......... AIII-1
APPENDIX VI. RECOMMENDED HEALTH-BASED INDOOR AIR

TARGET LEVELS FOR SELECTED VOC................................... AIV-1
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - Comparison of Different Media for Vapour Intrusion Investigations
TABLE 2 - Model Input Parameters for Screening Level Risk Assessment
TABLE 3 - Selection of Soil Texture Class
TABLE 4 - Decision Matrix for Recommended Actions
TABLE 5 - Comparison of Soil Vapour Measurement Locations
TABLE 6 - Evaluation of Factors Affecting Below Building Hydrocarbon Vapour
Bioattenuation and Soil Vapour Data Representativeness
TABLE 7 - Soil Gas Sample Collection Containers and Devices
TABLE 8 - Summary of Common Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis Methods
TABLE 9 - Dominant Sources of VOCs in Residential Indoor Air
TABLE 10 - Compilation of Indoor Air Quality Data from Canadian Studies

Table of Contents vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - Flow Chart for Vapour Intrusion Guidance

FIGURE 2 - Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion Pathway
FIGURE 3 - Conceptual Model for Use of Soil Vapour Data
FIGURE 4 - Residential Groundwater to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors
FIGURE 5 - Residential Soil Vapour to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors
FIGURE 6 - Commercial Groundwater to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors
FIGURE 7 - Commercial Soil Vapour to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors
FIGURE 8 - Results of 3-D Oxygen-Limited Soil Vapour Transport Modeling for
High Concentration Source (Cg = 100 mg/L) and Moderate
Concentration Source (Cg = 20 mg/L) (from Abreu and Johnson,
2005)
FIGURE 9 - Soil Vapour Sampling Locations and Vertical Profile Concept
FIGURE 10 - Lateral Transect Concept
FIGURE 11 - USEPA (2004) Recommended Design for Subslab Soil Gas Probes.
FIGURE 12 - Framework for IAQ Sampling and Analysis Program
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1 - Definition of Vapour Attenuation Factors
EXHIBIT 2 - Comparison of Generic Vapour Attenuation Factors
EXHIBIT 3 - Considerations for Cold Weather Sampling
EXHIBIT 4 - Preparation of Building for IAQ Sampling

Table of Contents
THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1-2

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-2
1.3 Relationship to Other Guidance Documents and Ontario regulations................. 1-3
1.3.1 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance ............................................................ 1-4
1.3.2 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record
of Site Conditions (RSC), Ontario Regulation 153/04. ....................................... 1-6
1.4 Guidance Structure............................................................................................... 1-6

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE
Chapter 1. Introduction 1-2
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Standards Development Branch (SDB) of the Ontario Ministry of Environment

(MOE) is currently involved in the development of a series of Technical Bulletins,
Guidance Documents and Procedural Standards for contaminated sites. This Guidance
Document considers soil vapour behaviour, assessment and monitoring.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Soil vapour intrusion is the migration of volatile or semi-volatile chemicals
from contaminated groundwater and soil into overlying buildings. When
releases occur near buildings, volatilization of chemicals from the dissolved or
non-aqueous phases in the subsurface can result in the intrusion of vapour-
phase contaminants into indoor air. If the vapour intrusion pathway is viable
or complete, there may be the potential for unacceptable health risks to
occupants of buildings as a result of inhalation of these vapours. The focus of
this Guidance Document is an evaluation of the significance of vapour
intrusion with respect to potential chronic health risks due to long-term
exposure, as opposed to potential safety or acute risks which, in some cases,
may arise from accumulation of vapours in buildings or confined spaces.
This Guidance Document is intended to provide the user with a basic

understanding of soil vapour intrusion and the tools required to identify,
review and evaluate sites for vapour intrusion. This document is based on
current standards of practice and is generally consistent with recent guidance
from other sources (Health Canada, 2008, ITRC, 2007, EPRI, 2005). It should
be noted however, that the current standard methods of assessing vapour
intrusion are subject to considerable spatial and temporal variability, and
challenges resolving contributions of vapours from the subsurface compared
to background concentrations and analytical reporting limits for some
compounds. Therefore, it is reasonable to anticipate that new methods will
develop over time, and nothing in this document is intended to prevent the
development and application of new technologies.
1.2 OBJECTIVES
Specific objectives of the Guidance Document are outlined below:
• Promote the understanding of behaviour and migration of soil vapours

in the subsurface under various site conditions;
• Assist in identifying sites where vapour intrusion may be viable, as
well as contaminants that may present a concern and when and where
vapour monitoring should be conducted;

• Specify the requirements and best practices for designing, conducting
and assessing site conditions (i.e., soil vapour and subslab vapour
quality) that would enable accurate assessments of potential impacts to
indoor air quality;
• Provide a screening level assessment methodology for prediction of
potential risks through inhalation of vapours migrating into indoor air,
with focus on the use of soil vapour data, and guidance on when
further detailed assessment may be warranted;
• Provide guidance on the modeling of vapour transport from the
subsurface to indoor air;
• Assist MOE staff in the review of site characterization and monitoring
for sites with volatile compounds present;
• Assist MOE staff in identifying sites where soil vapours, subslab
vapours and/or indoor air should be monitored and formulating
assessment requests and/or Environmental Protection Act (EPA)
orders;
• Provide assistance to proponents conducting soil vapour and subslab
vapour investigations as part of assessment and/or remediation of
contaminated and brownfield sites in Ontario’s varied geological and
hydrogeological conditions; and,
• Provide a general framework for relevant components of technical
reports including assessment and monitoring of soil vapours in the
subsurface where vapour intrusion is a viable pathway.
1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND

ONTARIO REGULATIONS
Over the past several years, there has been an increased recognition that soil
vapour intrusion is an important potential exposure pathway. There have been
significant advances in understanding of vapour intrusion and in Canada,
regulatory guidance has been developed for Health Canada (HC, 2008) and by
the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (Golder 2008
and Geosyntec 2008), and by several provinces including British Columbia
(BC Ministry of Environment, 2009), and the Atlantic provinces (PIRI, 2006).
In the United States, regulatory guidance of note for vapour intrusion includes
those developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA, 2002), Interstate Technical and Regulatory Council (ITRC) (2007),
California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances
Control (2005), American Petroleum Agency (2005), Electric Power Research
Institute (2005), Tri-Services Environmental Risk Assessment Working Group
(TSERAWG, 2008) and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(2005).

This document builds upon the above guidance and, in particular, incorporates
relevant components of guidance developed for Health Canada, given the
significant effort that was undertaken to develop the approach, model and
supporting methods for this guidance. However, where warranted,
modifications have been made to reflect the policy of the Ontario MOE and
the conditions in Ontario.
This guidance reflects the current state of knowledge on vapour intrusion.

Since vapour intrusion is a developing field of science, it is anticipated that the
MOE will update this document as needed to reflect refinements and advances
in the understanding of vapour intrusion.
1.3.1 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance

A number of agencies in Canada, the US and Australia have recently
published guidance on evaluating soil vapour intrusion at sites contaminated
with volatile compounds. The following section provides a brief overview of
key guidance. However, since it is a developing field, the reader should check
for updates of older guidance as well as guidance from other agencies, as
required and appropriate.
In 2000, the CCME developed Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum

Hydrocarbon Compounds (CWS-PHC) that take into consideration the vapour
intrusion pathway. The modeling approach used to estimate standards for
petroleum hydrocarbon fractions is based on the methodology developed by
Johnson and Ettinger (1991). The CWS-PHC was updated in 2008. Further
details on the modeling approach can be found in the CCME (2008) technical
supporting document. The CCME soil standards for petroleum hydrocarbons
developed in 2000 were adopted by the Province of Ontario and are contained
in Part X.V.1 of the EPA. Further details on the adoption of the CCME
standards are contained in the MOE document entitled “Rationale for the
Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated
Sites in Ontario” dated December 22, 2009.
The Atlantic Partnership in RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action)

Implementation (Atlantic PIRI) Committee has adopted a similar approach for
the assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons vapour intrusion that utilizes a
variation of the Johnson and Ettinger (J&E) Model. It is based on the ASTM
Standard E2081-00, Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action. In July
2006, Atlantic PIRI published “Guidance for Soil Vapour and Indoor Air
Monitoring Assessments” under Atlantic RBCA Version 2.0 for Petroleum
Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada User Guidance (Appendix 9).
The United States Environmental Protection released draft guidance in 2002

for evaluating vapour intrusion (US EPA, 2002). The guidance is intended for
use at RCRA Corrective Action, CERCLA (National Priorities List and
Superfund Alternative Sites) and Brownfields sites, but not at Underground

Storage Tank (UST) sites. The document provides methods for assessing
whether sites are potential candidates for vapour intrusion and whether
vapours may be present at concentrations that pose an unacceptable exposure
risk. It follows a tiered approach to assessment with each tier having
increasing level of detail and complexity. The US EPA has publicly available
versions of the J&E model in spreadsheet format that are recommended for
screening level assessments. A detailed guidance document on use of the
models is also available from the US EPA website (US EPA, 2004).
The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) released guidance

in January 2007 titled “The Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guide (VI-
1)”. This Guide provides a generalized framework for evaluating the vapour
intrusion pathway and describes the various tools available for investigation,
data evaluation, and mitigation. The Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Investigative
Approaches for Typical Scenarios (VI-2) (January 2007) is a supplement to
Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guide. The supplement describes
applicable approaches for evaluating the vapour intrusion pathway in six
typical scenarios.
http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/VI-1.pdf
http://www.itrcweb.org/Documents/VI-1A.pdf
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) released guidance

in 2005 titled “Interim Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of
Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air” on the evaluation and mitigation of
subsurface vapour intrusion to indoor air (Cal EPA, 2005). It is a
comprehensive document that includes guidance on identifying candidate sites
for vapour intrusion, outlines data requirements for evaluating indoor air
exposures, describes sampling methods and provides an overview on
approaches for evaluating human health risks as well as mitigative measures
and monitoring requirements.
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HERD_POL_Eval_Subsurface_
Vapor_Intrusion_interim_final.pdf
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s “Vapour Intrusion

Guidance (October, 2005)” provides comprehensive guidance on site
characterization methods, including soil gas sampling and analysis.
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/srp/guidance/vaporintrusion/vig.htm
The American Petroleum Institute (API) developed a guidance document in

1998 on assessing the significance of subsurface vapour migration to enclosed
spaces (API, 1998). They subsequently released bulletins including guidance
and modifications to the J&E model (API Bulletins 15 (2001); 16 (2002); and
17 (2002)). In November 2005, API released “A Practical Strategy for
Assessing the Subsurface Vapor-to-Indoor Air Migration Pathway at
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites”, which includes guidance on soil gas sampling
approach, methods and analysis.

http://www.api.org/ehs/groundwater/lnapl/soilgas.cfm
The Western Australian Department of Environment (2004) released a

guidance document on quantifying behaviour, assessment and exposure of
petroleum and solvent vapours (WADE, 2004). The document provides an
overview of vapour fate and transport, sampling techniques, modeling
approaches and uncertainties, and data gaps.
In 1992, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) published
standards for soil gas monitoring in the vadose zone. The standards were
subsequently re-approved in 2001. In March 2008, ASTM published their
standard E2600-08 “Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into
Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions”.
1.3.2 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record of
Site Conditions (RSC), Ontario Regulation 153/04.
This guidance was developed to promote the understanding of behaviour and

migration of soil vapours in the subsurface under various site conditions, and
to assist MOE staff in the review of site characterization and monitoring for
sites with volatile compounds present in the subsurface.
This Guidance Document can also assist qualified professionals conducting

RA under Ontario Regulation 153/04 to identify sites, or contaminant levels,
for which contaminant exposures through a vapor inhalation pathway may
cause adverse health effects.
The soil vapour screening and assesment process outlined in this Guidance
Document can also be used to identify the need for remediation of sources or
the implementation of risk management measures (RMM) as part of the
redeveleopment of brownfied sites.
Note that any submission of RA and RSC under the Ontario Regulation
153/04 must meet all the mandatory requirements specified in the regulation.
1.4 GUIDANCE STRUCTURE

The guidance is presented within the following structure:
• Chapter 2 provides an overview of the site characterization and vapour

intrusion assessment process.
• Chapter 3 describes the conceptual site model for vapour intrusion and
provides an understanding of the processes governing soil vapour fate
and transport.

• Chapter 4 describes the tiered screening process for evaluation of soil
vapour intrusion and provides an overview of site characterization data
needed to support site screening and key issues for assessment of
vapour intrusion.
• Chapter 5 provides detailed guidance on characterizing sites, with
particular emphasis on soil vapour sampling and monitoring.
• Chapter 6 provides detailed guidance on indoor air quality (IAQ)
monitoring.
• Chapter 7 provides an overview of methods for determining which
constituents are derived from background sources and which are likely
related to the contaminant release or spill into the environment.
• Chapter 8 provides a brief description of the recommended minimum
reporting and documentation requirements.


CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS
CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS

...................................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.1 Screening process................................................................................................. 2-2
2.1.1 Development of Conceptual Site Model.............................................................. 2-2
2.1.2 Preliminary Screening.......................................................................................... 2-4
2.1.2.1 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards ......................................... 2-4
2.1.3 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment ................................................... 2-4
2.1.4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment................................................................ 2-5
2.2 Guidance Application and Implementation Process ............................................ 2-5
2.3 Vapour Intrusion Mitigation ................................................................................ 2-7
2.4 Community Outreach........................................................................................... 2-7

Chapter 2. Overview of the Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment Process 2-2
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS
This section provides a brief description of the soil vapour intrusion pathway and the
recommended phased approach to assess and interpret data and multiple lines of
evidence, and interact with the various stakeholders.
2.1 SCREENING PROCESS

For sites impacted by volatile compounds, a tiered approach is recommended
with increasing levels of complexity and information and data requirements.
The tiered approach consists of preliminary and generic screening, screening
level vapour intrusion assessment and detailed vapour intrusion assessment
(Figure 1). Depending on the results of an individual stage, additional
assessment may or may not be warranted. The following sections provide a
brief overview of the soil vapour intrusion assessment process. Additional
technical details and guidance for the completion of the various tiers are
provided in Chapter 4.
2.1.1 Development of Conceptual Site Model

A conceptual site model (CSM) should be developed for the site to facilitate
an understanding of site conditions and to facilitate planning and completion
of supplementary site investigations and assessments, as required. The CSM
integrates available information relevant to the contaminant source and
distribution, mechanisms for volatilization, soil vapour fate and transport, soil
vapour intrusion into and movement within buildings, and as such involves
consideration of subsurface processes, building characteristics and external
forces such as weather conditions.
The CSM should also reflect the risk paradigm for assessment of contaminated
sites, which often includes both a descriptive and diagrammatic presentation
of contaminant sources, release and transport mechanisms, exposure media,
exposure pathways and receptors. The CSM should be continually updated as
new information becomes available for the site and will often be a useful
decision-making and communication tool for interested parties. Additional
details on CSM development along with a description of processes governing
the fate and transport of volatile compounds are provided in Chapter 3.

Figure 1: Flowchart for Vapour Intrusion Assessment
No Site Characterization
Are there sufficient data to develop CSM ?
1. Preliminary Screening
Incomplete Determine if volatile/toxic chemicals are in
Site not of concren Immediate action warranted
Exposure Pathway proximity of buildings; determine whether there is
acute or safety risk;
Site of potential concern
Comparison to MOE SCS

Collect Additional Data (e.g. soil, groundwater, soil vapour, sub-slab vapour, indoor air, outdoor air, building data)
- Identification of precluding conditions

Vapour pathway (earthen basements, gas under
does not pose an pressure, preferential pathways)
unacceptable risk - Additional considerations (shallow
water table, high permeability media)
Yes
Are site
Are data adequate concentrations below
No Yes
Exposure Controls (e.g. institutional controls, barriers, venting systems)

generic S-IA and/or Consider if No and well above SCS
to screen out site?
See Note GW2?
NO
2. Screening level
Assessment
Soil, groundwater and soil vapour sampling and
testing
Obtain attenuation factor

Based on soil type and depth to
contamination
Yes
Adjust attenuation factor

1. Building mixing height
2. Building air exchange rate
3. Biodegradation
Vapour pathway Calculate Site

Specific Screening
does not pose an Levels
unacceptable risk
Yes
Are data adequate Are groundwater and/or soil

No to screen out site?
Yes vapour concentrations below Consider if No and well above SCS
See Note screening levels?
No
Vapour pathway
does not pose an 3. Detailed Assessment
unacceptable risk Typically includes modelling and sub-slab and
indoor air sampling
Yes
Are indoor air

Are data adequate
No to screen out site? Yes concentrations No
See Note acceptable ?
Note: It is of critical importance that data adequacy, consistency with CSM and all lines of evidence (contaminant concentrations,
geological conditions, biological factors) be carefully considered. Additional assessment may be warranted when within 10X of
standards or screening levels. For future scenario, exposure controls implemented as part of construction may be required.

2.1.2 Preliminary Screening

The preliminary screening is a qualitative screening step that uses relatively
simple questions and criteria to categorize sites according to their potential for
vapour intrusion and associated health effects. This step can be used to
identify sites that require immediate mitigative action to protect the health and
safety of occupants as well as candidate sites for risk assessments to assess
long-term (i.e., chronic) health concerns.
Key considerations include the type and location of contamination, presence

of non-aqueous-phase liquid (NAPL), building construction, presence of
odours linked to subsurface contamination and presence of hazardous vapour
concentrations in soil gas or indoor air. Additional details on this step are
provided in Chapter 4.
2.1.2.1 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards

This screening process is a comparison of the soil and groundwater quality
information from the site and the MOE generic component values related to
soil vapour intrusion into indoor air (soil to indoor air – S-IA and/or
groundwater to indoor air - GW2) (MOE, 2009a). The process begins with the
evaluation of precluding conditions to determine whether the generic
component values for the soil vapour intrusion pathways are applicable at the
site. If there are no precluding conditions, measured concentrations can be
compared to the MOE S-IA and/or GW2 (MOE, 2009a), and based on the
results, the need for further assessment should be evaluated.
2.1.3 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment

For sites identified as candidate sites for vapour intrusion assessment based on
the preliminary and generic screening steps, a screening level vapour intrusion
assessment should be considered.
Screening level assessments typically rely on limited site-specific data,

relatively simple predictive models or empirical factors, and conservative
assumptions. In many cases, the assumptions employed are similar to those
employed in the derivation of soil and groundwater standards, with minor
modifications made where appropriate. For instance, the model developed by
Johnson and Ettinger (1991) (“J&E model”) is often used for screening level
assessments. Site screening is performed by comparing measured chemical
concentrations in soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapour to the derived
objectives or screening levels.
This guidance provides an approach and recommended default input

parameters for screening level assessments using the J&E model. Since
available data are often limited at the screening level stage and to facilitate
appropriate model predictions, the use of the J&E model is constrained in that

only certain input parameters may be varied within specified ranges. In
addition, prior to conducting the screening process, potential precluding
conditions should be evaluated as described in Section 4.2.5.
If the results of a screening level assessment conclude that concentrations at

the site are below the derived screening levels for each contaminant of
concern, then, a detailed vapour intrusion assessment would typically not be
required for the existing or prescribed land use and building configuration.
However, additional monitoring of site conditions may be warranted to assess
whether conditions assumed for the screening level assessment continue to
apply, or if verification of estimates based on indoor air concentrations are
required.
2.1.4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment

A detailed vapour intrusion assessment should be considered in situations
where the screening level assessment is unable to rule out potential
unacceptable human health impacts or where site conditions are very complex
or differ considerably from the CSM assumed for models used to derive
generic standards or used for screening level assessments. A detailed
assessment should also be considered in situations where technical or financial
constraints severely limit the options available for remediating a site.
A detailed vapour intrusion assessment includes all the key components of the
screening level assessment, but generally incorporates more detailed site-
specific data, which is often needed when more complex models are used. In
the case of sites where vapour intrusion is a concern, measurements of soil gas
and/or indoor air quality are generally incorporated into the assessment.
Contaminant fate and transport modelling may remain an important
component of a detailed assessment, but generally the assumptions employed
in the modelling exercise are less conservative and more representative of
actual site conditions than in a screening level assessment. The detailed
assessment may also include the derivation of toxicity reference values for
compounds lacking published values, or where new toxicity data are available.
Similar to the screening level assessment, additional monitoring of site
conditions may be warranted to assess whether conditions assumed continue to
apply, or if verification of risk estimates based on indoor air concentrations are
required.
2.2 GUIDANCE APPLICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

The vapour intrusion assessment approach described in this guidance applies
to contaminated sites where there is subsurface volatile or semi-volatile
contamination. However, the soil vapour assessment process described in this
document does not generally apply to landfills where there is generation of
gases through the anaerobic decomposition of organics and where there is
significant pressure-driven gas flow.

The guidance is intended for application where there are currently occupied
buildings at existing residential and commercial sites, or where there is the
potential for the presence of occupied buildings in a future land use scenario.
The soil vapour intrusion assessment should typically be implemented in
sequential steps starting with characterization of the contamination source
through soil and groundwater sampling together with data collection (e.g.,
hydrogeological and soil properties) needed to understand contaminant
migration within both the unsaturated and saturated soil zones. Where
concentrations in soil and groundwater are below the applicable MOE soil
condition standards (MOE 2009a), no further assessment of soil vapour
intrusion may be necessary, although data adequacy and uncertainty should be
considered, particularly when measured concentrations are close to the
standards.
Given the limitations associated with the use of soil data for evaluating the
vapour intrusion pathway (see Section 4.4.1), it is recommended that soil
vapour characterization should generally be conducted whenever there is
contamination within the unsaturated soil zone. The soil vapour assessment
should begin with a characterization of soil vapour concentrations near to the
contamination source and where warranted, continue closer toward the
building, and finally, if indicated by the results of previous steps,
characterization of indoor air quality.
The development of a CSM that is updated as new information is obtained and

consideration of data adequacy are especially important when screening a site
out of the assessment process. A comprehensive evaluation of the vapour
intrusion pathway that considers multiple lines-of-evidence is recommended
before drawing conclusions on risks posed by this pathway. The lines-of-
evidence include concentrations in different media and locations along the
anticipated migration pathway and information on site conditions and factors
that could influence vapour migration such as varying soil properties (e.g.,
layered deposits), aerobic biodegradation (for petroleum hydrocarbons) and
environmental factors (e.g., weather conditions).
Although this guidance is structured to reflect a phased approach starting with

screening of sites through the use of subsurface data, it does not preclude the
testing of indoor air quality to evaluate this pathway at early stages of the
investigation process or pro-active implementation of exposure controls,
which may be desirable and appropriate in some cases. An iterative approach
may also be warranted where additional testing of subsurface concentrations is
conducted as follow-up to indoor air testing to assess whether there is a
complete vapour intrusion pathway. When indoor air quality results are
borderline or inconclusive, it may be appropriate to rely on a combination of
measurements from different media to decide on appropriate responses to
safeguard human health (EPRI, 2005, ITRC, 2007).

It is also important to recognize that the approach to assessment of vapour

intrusion may depend on the site scenario. For example, at sites where there is
contamination below existing occupied buildings and where exposures are
potentially current and on-going, there will often be a focus on near building
soil vapour and indoor air characterization. At brownfield sites, where there
are no buildings, potential future exposures are predicted based on subsurface
concentrations measured near to contamination sources. This guidance applies
to both scenarios, although different approaches may be warranted.
The described process for soil vapour intrusion assessment can assist in cases
where a risk assessment is conducted for the purpose of filing a record of site
condition (RSC) under the O.Reg. 153/04. However, it alone does not provide
all the information and evaluation required under the RSC regulation. In these
cases, the qualified person (QP) must follow the procedures and requirements
outlined in the O.Reg. 153/04 as amended and its related documents.
2.3 VAPOUR INTRUSION MITIGATION

Where site characterization information, such as indoor air quality data,
indicate that actions should be taken in response to levels of contaminants
entering buildings through vapour intrusion, mitigative measures should be
implemented. Vapour intrusion mitigation generally refers to measures taken
to prevent or control exposures. As such, these measures are typically
implemented near to the building (e.g., subslab depressurization or venting
systems) or within the building itself. Institutional controls or measures
designed to control use of buildings by receptors are a possible solution in the
short term. A longer term approach may be measures to remediate the
contamination that is the source of the vapours. Additional information on
mitigation systems is provided in ITRC (2007).
2.4 COMMUNITY OUTREACH

Depending on the circumstances, community outreach may be an important
component of a soil vapour assessment program. Where community outreach
is warranted, provincial and local regulatory agencies will, to varying degrees
be involved in the process. Although each site will tend to have its own
unique set of circumstances, there are several good practices that should be
followed for community outreach. Initial notification of residents and
business owners may be warranted when off-site characterization of
subsurface contamination is planned. A more comprehensive communications
strategy should be implemented as part of an indoor air quality testing
program. Persons involved in indoor air quality program planning and
sampling should be tactful and communicate well with building occupants
given that indoor air quality programs may be disruptive.

Several successful community outreach programs have involved contacting
residents door-to-door to discuss the program directly when requesting access
and providing information packets. Other communication tools include
community meetings, articles published in community newsletters, mailing of
project newsletters and development of a project website posting fact sheets
and other relevant information. A strong communications program is essential
to educate and reassure the local community in a meaningful and sensitive
manner. It is often helpful to communicate the potential risks from vapour
intrusion in the context of risks from other chemicals, such as those commonly
associated with background sources in indoor air.


CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL............................................................................. 3-2

3.1 What is a Conceptual Site Model?....................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Information Needed to Build the Conceptual Site Model ................................... 3-2
3.3 Fate and Transport Processes for Vapour Intrusion............................................. 3-3
3.3.1 Generation of Vapours and Gases........................................................................ 3-4
3.3.2 Fate and Transport in the Vadose Zone ............................................................... 3-5
3.3.3 Soil Vapour Intrusion through the Building Envelope ........................................ 3-5
3.3.4 Mixing of Vapours inside the Building ............................................................... 3-6

Chapter 3. Conceptual Site Model 3-2
CHAPTER 3

This section begins by describing the elements of a conceptual site model (CSM) and
information requirements for building the CSM, followed by an overview of processes
and factors influencing vapour intrusion into buildings. Further guidance on conceptual
site models and fate and transport processes is provided in Appendix I.
3.1 WHAT IS A CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL?

A conceptual site model (CSM) is a visual representation and narrative
description of the physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring, or
that have occurred, at a contaminated site. The CSM should be able to
communicate how the site became contaminated, how the contamination was
and is transported, where the contamination will ultimately end up, and whom
it may affect. To the extent possible, the CSM should provide information on
the three-dimensional nature of contamination and physical characteristics of
the site, as supported by maps, cross-sections and site diagrams.
A well developed CSM provides decision makers with an effective tool that
helps to organize, communicate and interpret existing data, while also
identifying areas where additional data are required. The CSM should be
considered dynamic in nature and should be continuously updated as each
stage of the investigation program is completed (USEPA, 2002).
3.2 INFORMATION NEEDED TO BUILD THE CONCEPTUAL SITE

MODEL
A CSM used for evaluating the risks associated with soil vapour at a
contaminated site should provide a summary of the following:
• The source and distribution of contamination (history of
contamination, present conditions, and potential future conditions);
• The receptors that could be exposed to the contamination (under both
present and future land use scenarios); and,
• The release mechanisms for contaminants and fate and transport
pathways between the vapour source and the receptors (under both
present and future land use scenarios).
The CSM should include all relevant data from the site including:
• Information on historical and current land uses, potential sources and
types of volatile or semi-volatile contamination, and known and
suspected releases or spills that may have occurred at the site;

• Concentrations, distribution and extent of the chemicals of concern in
different media (soil, groundwater, soil vapour and indoor air);
• Form of contamination present (dissolved chemicals in groundwater,
soil contamination and non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL));
• Approximate distance from the soil vapour sources to buildings
(vertical and lateral);
• Hydrogeological information including depth to groundwater, the
groundwater flow direction, hydraulic conductivity, lateral and vertical
hydraulic gradients;
• Geological information including soil units present at the site and type
or textural classification for each soil unit;
• Vadose zone soil properties including water content, porosity, fraction
of organic carbon, bulk density and soil-air permeability;
• Location and characteristics of subsurface utilities;
• Information on buildings (present and future) including location, type
of building (residential, institutional, commercial, industrial), building
size and height, foundation type (e.g., crawlspace, basement, slab-at-
grade) and foundation characteristics (e.g., construction, utility
penetrations, sumps) and heating, ventilation and air conditioning
(HVAC) system; and,
• Information on background sources of volatile chemicals in indoor air
including indoor sources, outdoor source, building materials and
consumer products.
It is recognised that not all of the above information may be collected or is
needed, to complete an assessment under this guidance.
3.3 FATE AND TRANSPORT PROCESSES FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION

The fate and transport of a chemical from a subsurface source and ultimate
concentration inside a building is controlled by processes that occur in four
“compartments”, which consists of source partitioning or generation of soil
vapours and gases; the vadose zone; the subsurface building envelope
(foundation, walls and nearby utility corridors) and the building. An example
of a CSM that addresses the above processes is shown on Figure 2.

Indoor
Air
Chemical
Vapour
Soil Contamination Transport
(residual or mobile NAPL)
Groundwater Contamination
FIGURE 2: Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion – Residential

Scenario
3.3.1 Generation of Vapours and Gases
There are two sources of subsurface vapours or gases encountered at

contaminated sites. The first source is partitioning of NAPL present above the
water table into soil gas (“vaporisation”) or partitioning of dissolved chemicals
in soil-water above the water table into soil gas (“volatilization”). The NAPL
is referred to as a primary source of vapours while a dissolved phase plume is
referred to as a secondary source. The second source of soil gases is
biologically-mediated generation of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane,
hydrogen sulphide and hydrogen under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions.
For a secondary source where chemicals are present only as a dissolved phase
in groundwater, their distribution below the water table will determine their
potential to volatilize and eventually migrate to indoor air. If volatile
chemicals are present near the surface of the water table, volatilization will
readily occur. In contrast, if there is a layer of “clean” groundwater above

contaminated water, then, the rate of volatilization will decrease since mass
transport is controlled by diffusion and dispersion in groundwater.
3.3.2 Fate and Transport in the Vadose Zone

The transport of chemicals in the vadose zone is controlled by chemical
diffusion, gas-phase and water-phase advection, biological and chemical
transformation, and partitioning between the sorbed, soil gas, soil water and
NAPL phases (when present). Unless there is a constant replenishment of the
chemical source, the processes are dynamic and transient since the chemical
will be depleted through biodegradation, volatilization (i.e., source depletion),
and dissolution through infiltration of surface water.
Diffusion occurs as a result of the movement of molecules as influenced by

their kinetic energy. The rate of diffusive transport is a function of the
concentration gradient and the temperature of the medium through which
diffusion is occurring. Diffusion coefficients in air are about four orders-of-
magnitude higher than in water; therefore, diffusive flux tends to be much
higher through the air-filled than water-filled soil pores.
Driving forces for gas-phase advection are pressure gradients due to

barometric pressure variation, water movement, and density gradients due to
compositional and temperature variation. At most sites, diffusion tends to be a
more important process for transport than advection, although in the shallow
vadose zone close to a building, soil gas advection due to building
underpressurization is often significant, as discussed below.
Environmental and seasonal factors that affect vadose zone transport processes
include precipitation, barometric pressure, wind, water table levels,
temperature, snow and frost cover.
3.3.3 Soil Vapour Intrusion through the Building Envelope

When buildings are depressurized relative to subsurface soil, the primary
process for soil vapour intrusion tends to be soil gas advection through
openings in the building envelope, which may include untrapped drains,
perimeter cracks at the building wall and floor slab interface, utility service
penetrations, expansion joints, and shrinkage cracks. Diffusion may also
occur through openings and cracks in the building envelope and may be
influenced by the properties of dust-filled cracks, the type of concrete
construction (i.e., poured concrete or concrete block), and subsurface moisture
vapour barrier, if present.
The main driving forces for soil gas advection tend to be building
depressurization and barometric pressure fluctuations. The primary
mechanisms for building depressurization are (1) temperature differences

between indoor and outdoor air, which create a stack effect within the building
(i.e., warm air moves upward within the building drawing soil gas and outside
air from lower parts of the building); (2) the force of wind on buildings, and
(3) mechanical equipment that moves air into and out of the building (e.g.,
furnaces, fans). The influence of the stack effect and wind generally increases
with the height of the building (i.e., for “tall” buildings), although the effect
for multi-storey buildings will depend on construction and air leakage between
floors. For buildings where the stack effect is the most significant mechanism
for building depressurization, higher soil vapour intrusion rates would be
expected during winter months for Ontario climatic conditions.
The zone of influence for soil gas flow from building pressure differences is
usually less than a few metres. The rate of soil gas flow will be highly
dependent on site specific conditions such as soil permeability, foundation
backfill properties, potential preferential pathways such as utility corridors,
and building foundation construction.
Soil vapour intrusion into a building with a crawlspace is largely affected by

the degree to which the crawlspace is ventilated by outside air, and whether
the crawlspace is connected to the airspace in the rest of the building (e.g.,
through the heating system). In addition to migration through subsurface
components of the building envelope, volatile chemicals that have migrated
from the subsurface to ambient air could enter a building through windows,
doors and other openings. Volatilization to outdoor air followed by transport
to indoor air is generally not considered to be a significant pathway due to
dilution that occurs in ambient air.
3.3.4 Mixing of Vapours inside the Building

Vapours inside enclosed spaces will diffuse as a result of chemical gradients
and disperse through air movement. Mixing between building floors will
depend on the HVAC system and possible unintentional air leakage between
floors. Most models used for screening level assessment assume uniform and
instantaneous mixing of vapour within the enclosed space.


CHAPTER 4
SITE SCREENING PROCESS
CHAPTER 4 SITE SCREENING PROCESS.............................................................................. 4-2

4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 4-2
4.2 Preliminary Screening.......................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.1 Site Characterization............................................................................................ 4-3
4.2.2 Are There Chemicals of Potential Concern for Vapour Intrusion? ..................... 4-4
4.2.3 Does the Site Represent a Safety or Acute Health Risk Concern? ...................... 4-4
4.2.4 Are Buildings Located in Sufficiently Close Proximity to Contamination? ....... 4-5
4.2.5 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards (SCS)............................... 4-6
4.2.5.1 Precluding Conditions.......................................................................................... 4-6
4.2.5.2 Additional Considerations ................................................................................... 4-7
4.3 Screening Level Assessment................................................................................ 4-8
4.3.1 Site Characterization............................................................................................ 4-8
4.3.2 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment ................................................. 4-15
4.3.2.1 Determine Soil Textural Type ........................................................................... 4-16
4.3.2.2 Select Land Use ................................................................................................. 4-16
4.3.2.3 Estimate Distance to Vapour Contamination Source......................................... 4-17
4.3.2.4 Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factor .......................................................... 4-17
4.3.2.5 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Mixing Height....................... 4-21
4.3.2.6 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Air Exchange Rate................ 4-21
4.3.2.7 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Biodegradation..................................... 4-21
4.3.2.8 Back-calculate site specific screening levels for soil vapour and
groundwater ....................................................................................................... 4-24
4.3.2.9 Data Evaluation and Next Steps ........................................................................ 4-24
4.3.3 Soil Vapour Screening Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment Model . 4-26
4.4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment.............................................................. 4-26
4.4.1 Estimation of Input Parameters.......................................................................... 4-27
4.4.2 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing...................................................................... 4-31
4.4.2.1 IAQ Study Design.............................................................................................. 4-31
4.4.2.2 Background Issues ............................................................................................. 4-32
4.4.3 Data Evaluation and Next Steps ........................................................................ 4-33
4.4.4 Exposure Controls.............................................................................................. 4-33

Chapter 4. Site Screening Process 4-2
CHAPTER 4
SITE SCREENING PROCESS

This chapter addresses approaches and methods for the evaluation of the significance of
the soil vapour intrusion pathway and describes the tiered framework for vapour intrusion
assessment.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The tiered framework for vapour intrusion assessment consists of the
following components:
• Preliminary Screening, including comparison to applicable site

condition standard (SCS);
• Screening Level Assessment; and
• Detailed Assessment.
The above tiered process is consistent with recent developments in science and
regulatory policy for soil vapour intrusion assessment (e.g., Golder, 2007;
ITRC, 2007; Cal EPA, 2005; USEPA, 2002). The screening process is
summarized in the flow chart shown in Figure 1.
The site screening process should begin with the development of a conceptual
site model (CSM) and site characterization. The site characterization process
for evaluation of soil vapour intrusion will often be completed in phases and,
therefore, it is essential that the CSM be updated as new information is
obtained. This chapter provides a summary of the site characterization
process, while details are provided in Chapter 5. Key inputs to the screening
level and detailed vapour intrusion assessment process are vapour intrusion
attenuation factors, which are discussed in Section 4.3.2.
While the screening process is described below as a progression of steps

starting with obtaining subsurface data, the guidance does not preclude
concurrent implementation of the tiers below, which may be an appropriate
approach for some sites. The timelines of the decision points, for example
when to sample indoor air in addition to the subsurface media, should be
consistent with the relative urgency of obtaining the results. There may be
some situations (for example where initial testing in some residences has
demonstrated vapour intrusion impacts) where indoor air sampling and
measurement should be conducted concurrently with subsurface sampling due
to a need to obtain the best possible estimate of exposure as soon as possible.
It is also important to note that vapour intrusion investigations may follow an
iterative approach rather than simply proceeding through sequential,
independent steps.

4.2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING
The preliminary screening step involves qualitative screening of sites to

evaluate the potential for vapour intrusion, and to identify site conditions that
warrant rapid assessment and possible mitigation. Preliminary screening can
be completed at early stages of the site assessment program but requires some
site characterization data, as described below. Following site characterization,
there are four components to preliminary screening: (a) determination of
whether site contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) are of concern for
vapour intrusion either through reference to the generic standards (do site
chemicals have vapour pathway standards?) or through consideration of
chemical volatility and toxicity, (b) evaluation of whether the site represents a
safety or acute health risk concern, (c) evaluation of whether buildings are
located in sufficiently close proximity to the contamination to be of concern,
and (d) whether the identified soil and/or groundwater concentrations are
above the generic MOE SCS. Although the steps are presented below as a
progression, they should be conducted concurrently in an integrated manner,
and relevant aspects of the assessment should be updated when new
information is obtained.
4.2.1 Site Characterization

Preliminary screening and comparison to generic standards requires certain
site characterization data. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
should have been completed at the site, which should identify the areas of
potential environmental concern (APECs) and COPCs based on a historical
review, site reconnaissance and other data collection activities.
From subsequent investigation phases (i.e., Phase II and III ESA), there should
typically be information on the presence and extent of COPCs in soil and
groundwater, hydrogeological conditions, soil properties and possible
preferential pathways. The contamination migration, plume stability and
vertical and lateral extent of contamination should be delineated to enable
screening based on the distance criteria described under the preliminary
screening step below. Basic information on the existing and future receptors
and buildings at the site should be obtained to enable appropriate land use
designation and identification of possible precluding conditions for generic
screening.
Under the preliminary screening, the maximum site-wide media (e.g. soil
and/or groundwater) concentrations should generally be used for screening
purposes to determine whether a higher tier assessment is required, therefore,
it is important that the contamination source concentrations be properly
delineated. The delineation should be conducted by assuming that the lateral
and vertical extent of COPCs in soil or groundwater extends from the
sampling locations where volatile contaminants are present at concentrations

equal to or greater than the applicable SCS to the next sampling location at
which the concentrations are below the applicable SCS.
Early intrusive phases of the investigation will often include soil vapour data
obtained using field screening methods (e.g., photoionization detector or
combustible gas detector) at existing wells screened above the water table,
which can be useful for qualitative evaluation of potential vapour sources (soil
vapour testing using existing wells is further described in Section 5.4.3).
However, measurements taken by field screening equipment cannot be used
for delineation or to demonstrate that the applicable SCS for a COPC has been
met.
4.2.2 Are There Chemicals of Potential Concern for Vapour Intrusion?

The chemicals with generic standards under Ontario Regulation 153/04
represent most COPCs for vapour intrusion. If there are volatile or semi-
volatile organic chemicals present at a site that do not have generic standards,
a risk assessment should be conducted to further evaluate the significance of
these chemicals. In addition, there may be gases such as methane and
hydrogen sulphide that can represent a subsurface vapour threat and should be
investigated.
A chemical must be sufficiently volatile to cause vapour concentrations above

toxicologically-derived concentrations of concern in indoor air to pose a
potential vapour intrusion concern. Screening approaches for evaluation of
COPCs should consider volatility, toxicity and mobility. Screening
approaches for evaluation of chemical volatility and toxicity are further
described in Appendix II.
If there are no COPCs for the inhalation pathway, further consideration of this
pathway is not warranted. Otherwise, the investigator moves to the next step
in the preliminary screening phase.
4.2.3 Does the Site Represent a Safety or Acute Health Risk Concern?
The first step under preliminary screening is to identify whether there are
indications of safety or acute human health risks. The following factors
should be evaluated:
Potentially Explosive Conditions: Gas concentrations within a building,

sump, drain or other utility that exceed or are close to the explosive limit
represent a significant safety hazard through explosion or fire. The lower
explosive limit for methane is 5% (50,000 ppm) in air, while the limit for
gasoline vapours is approximately 1.4% (14,000 ppm). The accumulation of
gases may also represent an asphyxiation hazard in rare circumstances.

Odours: Reports by building occupants of chemical odours that do not appear
to be from indoor or ambient sources may be an indication of vapour intrusion
and should be investigated. Although odours may not necessary indicate that
there is a safety or acute health risk, the odour thresholds of many chemicals
exceed toxicologically-based air concentrations based on chronic risk.
Physiological Effects: Exposure to higher levels of vapours could result in

physiological effects such as headaches, nausea, eye and respiratory irritation.
The sensitivity of individuals to these effects varies widely. The physiological
effects may or may not be attributable to vapour intrusion, but should be
investigated.
Direct Contact (Wet Basements): There is an increased risk for elevated

vapour concentrations inside buildings when there are buildings with wet
basements or sumps in direct contact with contamination. This is particularly
the case when there is non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) on the water table.
Site information indicating a safety or acute health risk may come to light in
various ways including reports from building occupants or owners.
Depending on site conditions, a more pro-active approach such as a door-to-
door survey involving the use of questionnaires designed specifically to
evaluate potential vapour-related concerns (such as those described above),
may be warranted.
If any of the above conditions are present, immediate action should be taken to
investigate possible safety and acute health risks and where necessary
implement mitigation measures. For reports of odours and physiological
effects, the outcome may depend on whether these effects could reasonably be
expected to be associated with subsurface contamination. Based on the
investigation, the testing of indoor air quality, exposure controls, and/or re-
location of receptors may be warranted.
4.2.4 Are Buildings Located in Sufficiently Close Proximity to Contamination?

This screening step is designed to identify which buildings to consider for
more detailed pathway assessment. Vapour concentrations decrease with
increasing lateral distance from a subsurface vapour source, and eventually
dissipate to non detectable levels. The decrease in vapour concentrations is a
function of contamination source size and geometry, soil properties, physical-
chemical properties, and possible biological or chemical transformations
within the subsurface environment. Model predictions (Abreu and Johnson,
2006, Lowell and Eklund, 2004, Mendoza, 1995) indicate that the vapour
intrusion pathway has sufficient natural attenuation to be of negligible concern
if the distance between the contamination and building is greater than:
• Thirty (30) metres for recalcitrant chemicals; and

• Fifteen (15) metres for chemicals that readily biodegrade under aerobic
conditions (“biodegradable chemicals”).
There is also empirical data from several Colorado sites (USEPA 2008) where
indoor air testing indicated no significant indoor vapour concentrations in
single family homes that were located more than one to two residential lots
(i.e., roughly 30 m) away from the interpolated edge of the groundwater
plume.
The distance criterion of 30 m (or 15 m for biodegradable chemicals) should

not be applied when there are the following precluding conditions: (i) soil gas
under pressure, (ii) a subsurface utility conduit connecting the contamination
source and the building, (iii) an expanding contamination zone that is
migrating toward the building, and/or (iv) a continuous low permeability cover
between the contamination source and building (e.g., good quality concrete or
asphaltic pavement), which prevents the normal dissipation of vapours and
that leads to enhanced lateral migration. For the above precluding conditions,
professional judgement should be used to consider whether buildings should
be evaluated for possible vapour intrusion even if they are further than 30 m
(or 15 m for biodegradable chemicals) from the edge of the contamination.
Examples of situations where the 30 m lateral distance may not apply are
where a utility with high permeability backfill intersects a contamination zone
(e.g., NAPL), when the chemical vapours are unlikely to degrade, and where
the site is covered with buildings or paved surfaces.
4.2.5 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards (SCS)

The comparison to the generic standards begins with the evaluation of
precluding conditions to determine whether generic soil and groundwater
standards for the soil vapour intrusion pathway may be applied. If there are no
precluding conditions, measured concentrations should be compared to the
applicable component values S-IA and/or GW2 (MOE 2009a), and based on
the results, the need for further assessment should be evaluated. While
Ontario MOE regulations allow sites to be assessed using soil and
groundwater data, there are potential advantages associated with the use of soil
vapour data, and potential disadvantages with use of soil data, as discussed in
subsequent sections of this Guidance Document. For details on the approach
used by the MOE to develop the SCS and whether your site characteristics are
consistent with the MOE soil vapour conceptual site model and assumptions,
please refer to the “Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water
Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario” (MOE, 2009).
4.2.5.1 Precluding Conditions

The precluding factors described below were, in part, developed considering
the CSM described by the J&E model, which was used in the development of

the Ontario SCS. When site-specific conditions are not consistent with the
CSM used by the MOE, described in the “Rationale for Development of
Generic Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in
Ontario” (MOE 2009), the generic screening process should not be followed,
and instead the assessment should proceed to the screening level assessment or
detailed vapour intrusion assessment.
When conducting a generic screening process, the following site conditions

should be considered:
• Earthen basements: Buildings with earthen basements should be

precluded from the vapour screening process, unless the depth to the
contamination source is sufficiently deep such that transport processes
within the soil zone control the soil vapour flux into the building, as
opposed to the building foundation characteristics. The depth where
the properties of the earthen basement property are of lesser
importance will depend on site-specific conditions. A reasonable value
for this depth is 5 m, when other precluding factors are taken into
consideration. Therefore, buildings with earthen basements where
contamination is less than 5 m from the building should be precluded.
• Gas under pressure: Sites where soil gas is under pressure should be
precluded from the screening process, which is often the case at
landfills where methane is produced and where trace VOCs may move
with the landfill gas.
• Subsurface utility conduit connecting contamination source and

building: Utility conduits that directly connect the contamination
source to the enclosed space of the building represent a precluding
condition. Common anthropogenic features such as floor drains, sewer
lines and utility conduits that are present at many sites are not normally
considered a precluding condition, unless they connect indoor air of
the building to the location of the contamination source.
• Presence or suspected presence of non-aqueous phase liquid

(NAPL) below or near to the building: the presence of NAPL is not
necessarily considered to be a precluding condition, however, it could
be a precluding condition when only groundwater data are available
and/or when there is significant uncertainty in the location of the
NAPL source and the NAPL distribution.
4.2.5.2 Additional Considerations

When conducting a comparison of the measured soil and groundwater
concentrations at a site against the generic MOE S-IA and/or GW2 component
values, the following site conditions should be considered:

• Shallow Depth to Groundwater Contamination: When the water

table (highest annual) is less than 3 metres from soil surface, the
groundwater to indoor air vapour attenuation factors (derived using the
J&E model) used in the development of the generic MOE Tables 2 and
3 are not sufficiently conservative for a preliminary screening. For
sites with water table less than 3 metres below soil surface should use
the GW2 component values from the MOE SCS Tables 6 or 7 (MOE
2009a). These SCS were developed using a reasonable conservative
vapour attenuation factor (0.02) based on empirical information and
assuming that biodegradation between the groundwater and the
basement is not occurring.
• Very High Gas Permeability Media: buildings constructed on

vertically or near vertically fractured bedrock, karst, cobbles or other
media with unusually high gas permeability should use the GW2
component values from MOE SCS Tables 6 or 7 in the preliminary
screening process, regardless of the depth to contamination. This is
because soil gas advection within the unsaturated zone (i.e., beyond the
soil zone near to the building), caused by barometric pumping or other
environmental factors, can be important in these scenarios.
4.3 SCREENING LEVEL ASSESSMENT

The screening level assessment process consists of site characterization,
identification of precluding conditions and comparison of media
concentrations to developed site specific screening levels.
4.3.1 Site Characterization
A screening level assessment of sites for evaluation of vapour intrusion will

typically require additional site characterization data relative to the pre-
screening evaluation. The Ontario generic standards are values limited to soil
and groundwater, while the screening level assessment approach may include
soil vapour and possibly indoor air as assessment media. The discussion
below begins with an overview of advantages and disadvantages associated
with characterization of different media (summarized in Table 1), a
description of the multiple lines-of-evidence approach, selection of chemicals
of potential concern, followed by a discussion of specific considerations for
soil, groundwater and soil vapour testing.
Some soil and groundwater data are typically obtained as part of the initial
intrusive site investigation phase and therefore the use of these data for pre-
screening purposes is desirable. Site remediation confirmation testing also
often involves testing of soil samples. The main disadvantages are that soil
and groundwater data may not be representative of potential contaminants that

could intrude into buildings and the theoretical partitioning relationships used
to estimate vapour concentrations are uncertain, particularly for soil to soil
vapour transfer.
The main advantage associated with soil vapour media is that it provides a
direct measurement of the contaminant phase that may migrate into indoor air.
The main disadvantages are that the spatial and temporal variability in soil
vapour concentrations is often relatively high and that appropriate protocols
must be followed carefully to achieve data quality that is acceptable.
While there are advantages and disadvantages with different media, often the
best strategy is one based on a multiple lines-of-evidence approach where soil,
groundwater, soil vapour and, in some cases, indoor air, are tested. This allows
the identification of data relationships and comparison of analytical results to
generic standards and/or site-specific screening levels for each medium. This
can strengthen the conclusions of the study.
However, the multiple lines-of-evidence approach should go beyond chemical

analysis results and also include consideration of geological, chemical and
biological factors that may influence soil vapour intrusion. For example, there
will tend to be less potential for vapour intrusion when there is a relatively
deep contamination, fine-grained soil, and/or biodegradable chemicals such as
petroleum hydrocarbons. Conversely, there will tend to be greater potential
for vapour intrusion at sites with shallow contamination, coarse-grained
deposits and non-degrading chemicals.
TABLE 1: Comparison of Different Media for Vapour Intrusion Investigations

Media Indoor Air Evaluation Principal Issues
Investigated Method
Soil Partitioning model combined with Partitioning model highly uncertain, significant
soil vapour-to-indoor fate and spatial variability, detection limits often too high to
transport model meet screening levels, commonly significant negative
bias due to losses during sampling – can be used to
identify a potential concern, but not relied upon to
screen out. In general, it is not recommended for a
screening level assessment.
Groundwater Partitioning model combined with Partitioning model uncertain, imprecision of soil
soil vapour-to-indoor fate and vapour transport model requires conservative
transport model attenuation factors, moderate to high spatial
variability, moderate to low temporal variability
Soil vapour Soil vapour-to-indoor air fate and More direct indication of potential exposure, but high
(beside building) transport model spatial variability (generally more so than
groundwater), shallow soil vapour may be non
representative, moderate to high temporal variability
Soil vapour (at Soil vapour-to-indoor air fate and More direct indication of potential exposure but
least 1 m below transport model intrusive, lateral spatial variability mitigated
building) somewhat by sampling below building, moderate to
high temporal variability
Soil vapour Soil vapour-to-indoor air fate and More direct indication of potential exposure,

Media Indoor Air Evaluation Principal Issues
Investigated Method
(near source) transport model moderate to low spatial and temporal variability.
Recommended for screening level assessment.
Subslab vapour1 Subslab vapour-to-indoor air model Closest representation of potential vapours migrating
(primarily dilution in indoor air) or into building, but intrusive, high spatial and moderate
empirical attenuation factor to high temporal variability, exfiltrating air may
approach confound results if building is positively pressurized.
Indoor air Indoor air concentrations directly Direct measurement, but intrusive, background
measured sources may confound data interpretation; temporal
variability likely high
1
Air within a crawlspace can be sampled as a substitute for subslab vapour. Depending on crawlspace ventilation and connection to
house, there may be very little attenuation between the crawlspace and house (i.e., attenuation factor of one).
Limitations with each type of data are minimized if decisions are supported by
more than one type of data. The decision also depends on the variability and
amount of data available. Data adequacy is a critical consideration when
planning site characterization programs and interpreting the results,
particularly when sites are “screened out” of the site assessment process.
There are several key points that should be considered as part of the site
characterization and screening process:
1. Sufficient data should be obtained to characterize the spatial variability
in soil, groundwater and soil vapour concentrations such that a
reasonably detailed CSM describing the distribution and extent of
contamination can be developed.
2. The site characterization process for all media should begin with an
evaluation of contamination source areas to characterize maximum
concentrations. Initial screening of the site should generally be
conducted using the maximum concentration to avoid the risk of a
false negative determination (failing to identify a risk that is
unacceptable).
3. Data should be collected to assess vertical trends in concentrations in
addition to horizontal distribution. The vertical profile of hydrocarbon
and fixed gas (oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane) concentrations is
particularly helpful for assessing biodegradation of petroleum
hydrocarbons.
4. The number of samples (i.e., sample density) needed to delineate
plumes will tend to increase as the geological variability or complexity
increases.
5. Sufficient data should be obtained to characterize the temporal
variability in groundwater and soil vapour concentrations; this
typically requires a minimum of two sampling events in a selected
number of locations to characterize seasonal variability.
6. If individual buildings are screened at a site, sufficient characterization
must be completed to characterize variability surrounding the building.

This will vary from site to site and should be decided in the context of
the site conceptual model.
Determining Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs)
The site characterization should identify COPCs for the study. The basis for
selection of COPCs should include toxicity and volatility, potential
biotransformation reactions and expected breakdown products (a.k.a. daughter
products), and potential marker compounds or tracers which may help in
evaluating the influence of background sources of chemicals in indoor air and
shallow soil vapour (see Section 7).
As a starting point, the chemicals with generic inhalation standards (S-IA

and/or GW2 component values) represent most chemicals of potential concern
for vapour intrusion. If the site assessment indicates the presence or potential
presence of volatile or semi-volatile organic chemicals without generic
inhalation standards, the screening process described in Appendix II may be
followed to evaluate COPCs.
Soil Data
While soil data will often be obtained as part of site characterization programs,
there are significant uncertainties associated with use of the soil data that
should be recognized:
• Soil sampling, handling and preparation can result in significant (up to
several orders-of-magnitude) losses of chemicals through volatilization
and biodegradation. Such losses may be reduced through field
preservation using solvents (e.g., USEPA SW-846 Method 3035),
however, this also tends to cause higher laboratory reporting limits,
which may be above the levels protective of the vapour intrusion
pathway;
• Depending on the contaminant type and geologic conditions (texture,
moisture and fraction of organic carbon), there may be significant
spatial variation in soil concentrations, which are seldom evaluated in
most sampling programs;
• There are uncertainties associated with soil partitioning calculations
and predicted vapour concentrations are sensitive to the partitioning
coefficient between water and organic carbon, and the fraction organic
content in soil, a parameter that can be difficult to accurately
determine; and
• Poor correlations have been observed involving studies comparing soil
and soil vapour data particularly for chemicals associated with DNAPL
sources such as chlorinated solvents.

Since the use of soil chemistry information may result in large uncertainties in
the predicted indoor air concentrations, its use in the screening level
assessment process is not recommended. However, there may be some sites
with fine-grained soil where it is difficult to draw a soil gas sample and where
soil samples may be an alternative for assessing the vapour intrusion pathway.
Nevertheless, because of the uncertainties described above, other lines-of-
evidence should be considered before concluding that there is no vapour
intrusion risk.
Continuous soil cores, where feasible, and soil physical property data
(especially texture, moisture, and density) can provide valuable information
for development of the conceptual site model.
Groundwater Data
Groundwater samples for evaluation of vapour intrusion should be collected as

near as practicable to the water table, and the assessment should include water
level monitoring to assess seasonal water table elevation fluctuations. This is
because VOC mass transfer from groundwater to soil vapour occurs when
chemicals in pore-water volatilize into soil gas, which is facilitated by water
table fluctuations (Rivett, 1995). The use of relatively short well screens
situated across the water table is recommended when evaluating the soil
vapour intrusion pathway.
As well screen lengths increase, there is increased blending of groundwater

across the screened interval. This may result in either over-estimation or
under-estimation of concentrations at the top of the aquifer, depending on the
contamination scenario. At locations where light non-aqueous phase liquid
(LNAPL) is present or where there is an interface plume from fluctuating
water table and interaction between soil gas and the water table, longer well
screens may under predict concentrations near the top of the aquifer. Where
there is a fresh-water lens or contamination source below the water table (e.g.,
dense non-aqueous phase liquid - DNAPL), longer well screens may over
predict concentrations near the top of the aquifer.
Since hydrogeologic systems can undergo changes, due to natural processes

and/or through human activities, contaminants at depth within groundwater
systems could also pose future vapour intrusion potential. Consequently, it is
recommended that groundwater characterization programs also include
investigation of vertical concentration variability either through the use of
nested wells (at different elevations) or vertical profiling using a depth-
discrete groundwater sampling technique.
Concentration gradients and water table fluctuations should be taken into

consideration when evaluating the potential for soil vapour intrusion. When

there are relatively steep vertical concentration gradients and increasing
concentrations with depth in shallow groundwater, particular care must be
taken in selecting the concentration for screening purposes. When small-scale
discrete samples are analyzed (i.e., Geoprobe method, Hydropunch, Waterloo
profiler or similar), the concentration data for a sample taken just below the
water table may not be conservative if there are changes in the water table
elevation or the vertical concentration profile. Depending on these factors, the
maximum groundwater concentration measured within a few metres of the
water table may be appropriate for soil vapour intrusion assessment purposes.
Soil Vapour Data
Soil vapour sampling and analysis avoids uncertainties related to mass transfer
and phase partitioning, and therefore is valuable data for assessing potential
vapour intrusion and indoor air concentrations. However, empirical data
collected to date indicates a higher degree of variability in soil vapour
concentrations, so special care is required during sample collection (design
and execution).
External soil vapour samples should be obtained at a depth equal to at least

half the distance between the lowest point of the building foundation and
contamination source (Figure 3) since research indicates shallower samples
are more likely to result in a false negative determination (see Chapter 5).
When individual buildings are screened, soil vapour measurements should be
obtained from near to the building but beyond the zone of disturbance and fill
that typically is present directly adjacent to the building foundation. The
recommended minimum depth for soil vapour probes is 1.5 m below ground
surface (for slab-on-grade buildings) or 1 m below the foundation for
buildings with basements.
When there is undeveloped land and a future building scenario is considered,

there are additional challenges introduced by potential changes caused by the
site development. For example, the soil moisture content and oxygen recharge
may decrease as a result of a capping effect once the building is constructed.
There may be less bioattenuation when the oxygen recharge is reduced. For
the above reasons, greater caution must be taken when using soil vapour to
evaluate the future building scenario and generally only deeper near
contamination source soil vapour data should be used for this purpose.
Consideration should be given to installation of clusters of probes at multiple

depths to evaluate vertical concentration profiles. Data on vertical soil vapour
concentrations can be useful in that it provides a means of corroborating the
quality of the data and more fully developing the conceptual site model. Soil
vapour probes aligned along transects or in a grid pattern may also provide
useful data.

SubSlab Soil Vapour Data
Subslab vapour sampling and analysis is recommended in many regulatory

guidance documents (OSWER, 2002, NJDEP, 2005, NYSDOH, 2006), but
experience to date has also shown high levels of spatial and temporal
variability (Luo et al., 2006 and EPA, 2006), and there are concerns about the
representativeness of these data (Johnson, 2008). Research is needed to
improved methods to reduce the variability in subslab vapour data. Obtaining
multiple samples below the building or larger-volume samples may improve
the representativeness of the data. Somewhat deeper samples obtained below
building may avoid some of the variability in subslab soil vapour from
immediately below the building foundation.
Multiple Lines-of-Evidence
Each type of data is subject to some potential uncertainties; therefore, multiple

lines-of-evidence should be used as a cross check to assess the quality of soil
vapour measurements. These can include the following:
• When there is a dissolved groundwater source, measured soil vapour
concentrations should be less than groundwater concentrations
multiplied by the dimensionless Henry’s Law constant, since there will
be attenuation of chemicals through the capillary transition zone. The
magnitude of the difference should increase as soil becomes finer-
grained, and in areas of elevated recharge (e.g., due to irrigation);
• Vertical soil vapour concentration profiles should show decreasing
concentrations from a source zone;
• When there is a localized contamination source above the water table,
the soil vapour concentration distribution should be consistent with
radial diffusion from the source; vapour distribution associated with
large source may not be radial.
• When soil vapour samples contain high concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons, oxygen concentrations generally should be low, and
carbon dioxide concentrations should be elevated. Higher than
expected oxygen concentrations and lower than expected carbon
dioxide concentrations, may indicate a leak of atmospheric air into the
sample.
The design of soil vapour characterization programs, particularly at sites with
deep vadose zones and multiple depth samples, should consider possible
temporal changes in vapour concentrations due to transient vapour migration
or changing source concentrations. Sorption and biodegradation can delay the
development of steady-state vapour concentration profiles. Nomographs that
enable estimation of the approximate time for vapour concentrations to reach
steady state conditions are provided in Johnson et al. (1998) and API (2005).

EXISTING FUTURE
BUILDING BUILDING
Collect subslab vapour

dmin (alpha = 0.02)
d
Collect external soil
Collect external soil vapour from vapour from close to
close to source, recommend dmin = source
½*d (alpha variable)
Vapour Contamination Source
FIGURE 3: Conceptual Model for Use of Soil Vapour Data
4.3.2 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment

Under a screening level assessment process, site specific screening levels may
be developed for groundwater and soil vapour. The site specific screening
levels are back-calculated from risk-based indoor air concentrations using
vapour attenuation factors calculated using the J&E model. However, the
process is constrained in that only selected, readily measurable, input
parameters (soil texture and depth to contamination) can be varied from the
default model inputs within specified ranges. The exposure assumptions for
receptors are identical to those for the generic MOE standards. Since
evaluation of multiple media can improve the confidence in the assessment, it
is recommended that site-specific screening levels be developed for all media
tested.
Direct comparisons of indoor air concentrations to risk based health values

may also be considered in the screening level vapour intrusion assessment.
The process followed to derive site-specific screening levels is to:

1. Determine soil textural type.
2. Determine land use.

3. Estimate vertical distance from lowest point of building to vapour
contamination source.
4. Calculate attenuation factor.
5. Adjust attenuation factor for building height, where appropriate.
6. Adjust attenuation factor for building air exchange rate, where
appropriate.
7. Adjust attenuation factor for aerobic biodegradation, where appropriate
for applicable chemicals.
8. Back-calculate site-specific screening levels for soil, groundwater
and/or soil vapour using the health based indoor air concentrations and
attenuation factor. The recommended health-based indoor air
concentrations are presented in Appendix VI.
9. Evaluate data consistency, adequacy and uncertainty and determine
next steps.
4.3.2.1 Determine Soil Textural Type
The preferred method for determining the soil texture class is based on
lithological descriptions combined with grain size distribution tests. The US
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification system (USDA soil textural
triangle) should be used to determine the soil texture. Samples for grain size
analysis should be collected for each area where volatile contaminants have
been identified to be present in soil and/or groundwater, at elevated
concentrations. In general, the coarsest soil type from among the samples
should be used for calculation of the site attenuation factor.
For determining the soil textural type when using the modified generic risk
assessment (MGRA) model under the O. Reg. 153/04 as amended, please refer
to Table 4 (phase II ESA requirement for MGRA) of the regulation.
4.3.2.2 Select Land Use
The two choices for land use for screening level assessment, which are also
the basis for selection of input parameters for the J&E model, are a residential
scenario and a commercial scenario.
Residential: A residential scenario should be selected if the site has a single

family or multi-family (townhouse or apartment) residential dwelling that is
occupied for some or all of the time. A residential scenario would also apply
to institutional land use (e.g., school, daycare) or operations where food is
grown.

Commercial/Industrial: A commercial/industrial land use should be selected
for sites that are not residential and do not include operations where food is
grown. Typical occupancy for a given individual is 40 hours per week or less.
4.3.2.3 Estimate Distance to Vapour Contamination Source
The distance to the vapour contamination source is the distance between the
lowest part of the building foundation (including sumps, if present) and vapour
contamination source. The vapour contamination source is the water table
when contamination is limited to dissolved constituents in groundwater.
When estimating this distance, allowance for water table fluctuations should
be made by selecting the annual minimum water level depth below the slab.
When soil or soil vapour measurements are made, the distance is between the
building and measurement point, which should be located above the top of the
contamination source.
4.3.2.4 Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factor
Overview of Vapour Attenuation Factors
The vapour attenuation factor (“alpha” - α) is the ratio of the indoor air
concentration divided by the measured or estimated soil vapour concentration
at the point of interest (i.e., “ppbV/ppbV” or dimensionless ratio). The vapour
attenuation factor is the inverse of the dilution factor, which is used by CCME
to describe vapour intrusion (CCME, 2008). There are three primary types of
vapour attenuation factors or alphas:
Groundwater-to-indoor air alpha (αg): This alpha is based on the vapour

concentration estimated from groundwater data and represents chemical
transport through both the capillary fringe immediately above the water
table and higher regions of the unsaturated soil zone. The partitioning
model used for groundwater to vapour assumes equilibrium partitioning
based on the Henry’s Law constant.
Soil vapour-to-indoor air alpha (αv): This alpha is based on the measured
soil vapour concentration within the unsaturated zone (typically measured
beside the building) and represents transport through the unsaturated soil
zone. If the soil vapour concentration is estimated from a soil
concentration for a source above the water table, then the soil vapour-to-
indoor air alpha is the appropriate factor to apply for estimation of the
indoor air concentration.
Subslab vapour-to-indoor air alpha (αss): This alpha is based on the

measured subslab vapour concentration measured immediately below a
building foundation and represents primarily transport through the
foundation.

Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factors for Unconsolidated Deposits
The attenuation factors can be calculated for unconsolidated deposits using the
J&E model for residential and commercial exposure scenarios, for various soil
types and varying depth from the building foundation to contamination source.
The attenuation factor can apply to both a current and future building scenario.
The vapour attenuation factors for soil vapour and soil measurements include
only transport within the unsaturated soil zone, while for a dissolved
contamination source in groundwater, it also includes transport through the
capillary transition zone.
For soil vapour, the attenuation factors derived using the J&E model are
constrained such that site-specific screening levels may only be calculated
when soil vapour measurements are obtained at least 1 m below the current or
future building foundation. Where groundwater level monitoring data is
available and sufficient to determine the depth to the highest annual water
table, the site-specific screening levels can be derived from the J&E model
where the water table and capillary fringe are below the building gravel crush.
If the shallowest water table is expected to be within the gravel crush layer
beneath a floor slab or above the crush layer, then the J&E model can not be
used to determine the attenuation factor. Instead, alpha should be fixed at a
reasonably conservative empirically-derived value. For these cases, MOE
recommends an alpha of 0.02 for the Residential setting (Dawson, 2006) and
0.004 for the Commercial/Industrial setting. However, as more empirical data
become available the recommended subslab vapour empirical values should be
revised. When determining an appropriate empirical attenuation factor, the
qualified person needs to consider the most up-to-date information and
provide a rationale for the selection of any empirical values.
The MOE recommended empirical attenuation factors can also be used when
collecting subslab vapour data.
The recommended building input parameters for calculating attenuation

factors using the J&E model are provided in Table 2. For further details about
these parameters please refer to the MOE rationale document for the
development of the site condition standards (MOE 2009).
Soil properties should be selected based on the Soil Conservation Service’s

(USSCS) soil classes as presented in the Soil Properties Lookup Table
contained in USEPA’s online version of the J&E model (USEPA, 2004b).
However, the clay-type soils of the USSCS classification (clay, silty clay,
sandy clay) should not be used because these soil textures have the potential to
fracture and therefore the default soil properties are potentially non-

representative. If there are clay soils at the site, the next coarsest soil type
should be selected (e.g., silt).
The properties of the backfill surrounding the building as well as the gravel
crush underlying the basement floor should be assumed to govern the effective
soil-air permeability. The effective vapour permeability is the bulk value for
the entire flow path from the ground surface down and under the foundation
footing, back up to the gravel crush, and along the gravel crush to the entry
crack. A gravel crush layer is required by Ontario Building Code and therefore
if the basement floor becomes cracked then soil gas will flow to the crack
through the gravel crush layer. This requires that the effective bulk
permeability for the travel path includes that of the gravel crush. The
following are the recommended properties for the gravel crush layer:
- Hydraulic conductivity: 10 (cm/sec)

- Dry bulk density: 1.60 (g/cm3)
- Porosity: 0.40 (vol/vol)
- Moisture content: 0.01 (vol/vol)
- Thickness: 29.9 (cm)
The soil gas advection rate (Qsoil) into a building is a function of the soil-air
permeability, building depressurization, building foundation properties and
building size. Building pressures are affected by several factors (e.g.
temperature, wind and operation of the heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) system inside a building) (Geosyntec 2010). The
method often used with the J&E model for estimating Qsoil through the
building envelope is an analytical solution for two-dimensional soil gas flow
to a small horizontal drain called the “Perimeter Crack Model”. The use of
this model can be problematic in that Qsoil values are sensitive to soil-air
permeability and consequently a wide range in flows can be predicted
(Geosyntec 2010). Also, users may input combinations of soil and
hydrogeologic parameters that are not self-consistent and that will produce
unreasonable Qsoil estimates (Johnson 2005). For the above reasons, the use
of the J&E “perimeter crack model” for calculating Qsoil is not recommended
by the MOE. The recommended Qsoil values are presented in Table 2. They
are consistent with reported values from empirical data from houses on coarse-
grained soils (~1 to 10 L/min - Golder 2008b).
A different soil type for the capillary fringe can be allowed to achieve better
characterization of contaminant transport from groundwater diffusing up
through the vadose zone to the receptor.
The calculated vapour attenuation factors developed with the J&E Model do
not assume biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours such as benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX). As described below, there is provision to

adjust the attenuation factors for bioattenuation for applicable chemicals and
where conditions warrant.
Table 2. Recommended J&E Model Input Values
Commercial
Parameter Residential
/Industrial
Depth to underside of basement/foundation slab (cm) 158 11.25
hB, gravel crush thickness beneath basement/ foundation slab
(cm) 29.9 29.9
Enclosed space length (cm) 1225 2000
Enclosed space width (cm) 1225 1500
Effective enclosed space height (cm) 366 300
Air exchange rate per hour (hr-1) 0.30 1
Depressurization (Pa) 4 2
Lcrack, basement floor thickness (cm) 8 11.25
Floor-wall crack width (cm) 0.10 0.10
Ratio of Crack Area to Total Subsurface Area 0.0002 0.0002
Soil Temperature (oC) 15 15
Qsoil (L/min)
- coarse 8.45 9.8
- fine 1.0 1.5
Bedrock
The presence of fractured bedrock directly under the building foundation such
that there is no underlying soil is normally considered a precluding condition
for a screening level assessment. However, to provide additional flexibility,
an assessment may be completed using a conservative attenuation factor such
as the default value for subslab (i.e., 0.02) for both groundwater and soil
vapour provided that the basic site assessment requirements (Section 4.3.1) are
met and that there is a high level of confidence that sampling points intersect
contaminant pathways in the bedrock. This may entail mapping of fractures,
high-resolution sampling and repeat monitoring to adequately characterize
spatial and temporal variability. Consideration should be given to subslab
vapour characterization (when buildings are present) to improve the level of
confidence in the CSM.
An alternate approach for assessing GW2 pathway for bedrock sites overlain
by thicker unconsolidated deposits may be to obtain soil vapour samples
within the unconsolidated deposits. The minimum depth criteria for external
soil vapour samples needs to be met (i.e., minimum ½ the distance between
lowest point of building and vapour contamination source).

4.3.2.5 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Mixing Height
The residential mixing height default (3.66 m) is based on complete mixing of

vapours within the basement, and partial mixing within the first storey of the
residence. The commercial mixing height default (3.0 m) is considered
representative of mixing of vapours within a single-storey office building. In
site specific assessments, if there is information indicating that the above
default mixing heights are not representative, actual heights can be used.
However, for residential buildings, the default mixing height may only be
reduced downward, and therefore, the adjusted attenuation factor may only
increase. The default height should apply to almost all buildings, but a smaller
mixing height may be appropriate for some small single-storey residential
dwellings.
For commercial buildings, the mixing height for vapours within a building
with high ceilings (e.g., warehouse building) or a multi-storey building could
be greater than the default as a result of mixing within the building caused by
ventilation and leakage across floors. If the building ventilation is well
understood and there is evidence to support relatively uniform mixing of
vapours within a greater height, the default mixing height for commercial
buildings may be increased by up to a factor of two (i.e., mixing height of 6
m).
4.3.2.6 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Air Exchange Rate
If there is information indicating that the above default air exchange rates are
not representative, the attenuation factors may be calculated adjusting the
exchange rate values. For residential buildings, the default air exchange rate
(0.3 hr-1) may only be reduced downward, and therefore, the adjusted
attenuation factor may only increase. The default air exchange rate should
apply to almost all buildings, but a lower rate may be warranted when there is
evidence for very low air exchange (e.g., sealed basement with poor
ventilation).
The air exchange rates may be higher than the default (1 hr-1) for some
commercial buildings or for building spaces that require higher than normal
ventilation rates (e.g., parking garages). If there is evidence to support a
higher ventilation rate through either design requirements, documented
measurements in a Test and Balance Report by a licensed mechanical
engineer, or the results of ventilation tracer test, the default air exchange rate
for commercial buildings may be increased accordingly.
4.3.2.7 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Biodegradation
The soil vapour attenuation factors calculated using the J&E model assume no
biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours such as benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and alkane hydrocarbons such as hexane
and decane. A comprehensive research program on hydrocarbon vapour
bioattenuation was completed by Golder Associates for Health Canada and the
Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI) (Golder, 2008a). The research
study reviewed the state-of-the-science on vadose zone biodegradation of
petroleum hydrocarbons through evaluation of laboratory and field studies of
biodegradation kinetics, detailed case studies where hydrocarbon vapour
attenuation was assessed, empirical attenuation factors, and modeling studies.
These different lines-of-evidence all indicate that often (but not for all site
conditions) there will be significant aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon
vapours. Consequently, the soil vapour attenuation factors calculated with the
J&E model, while reasonable for recalcitrant chemicals such as chlorinated
hydrocarbons (see comparisons in Golder, 2007), are often overly
conservative for BTEX and alkane hydrocarbon compounds.
The laboratory studies and detailed case studies indicate that BTEX and
aliphatic hydrocarbon vapours are readily degraded in the presence of oxygen
(Ostendorf and Kampbell, 1991; Fischer et al., 1996; Laubacher et al., 1997;
Johnson et al., 1998; Hers et al., 2000; DeVaull et al., 2002). When there is
aerobic biodegradation and a sufficient thickness of non-contaminated soil
between the vapour source and building, there will typically be many orders-
of-magnitude attenuation in BTEX or aliphatic hydrocarbon vapour
concentrations (i.e., reduction to negligible levels). There is evidence for
lower bioattenuation rates for certain hydrocarbons such as methylpentanes
(present in relatively large proportions in certain jet fuels), indicating it is
important to determine the type of hydrocarbon present. The empirical
analysis of the attenuation between subsurface source concentrations and
indoor air, while confounded by indoor background sources of these same
compounds, indicated that in general the BTEX attenuation factors were
considerably lower than the factors for recalcitrant chlorinated hydrocarbons
such as trichloroethene (TCE) and 1,1-dichloroethene (11 DCE).
The results of modeling studies indicate a key factor influencing the estimated
vapour attenuation factor is the oxygen available below the building. The key
site conditions that influence oxygen levels are hydrocarbon source
concentrations and distance from the building to the vapour source, with other
potentially important factors being the soil type and properties of the surface
cover at the site, which may influence the rate at which atmospheric oxygen
migrates to the subsurface. The hydrocarbon source concentrations have a
critical determining influence on hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation, since it
can be shown through empirical data and modeling studies that there will
generally be significant aerobic biodegradation within the unsaturated soil
zone below buildings when there is a dissolved hydrocarbon source, providing
there is sufficient oxygen present and a reasonable source-building separation
(up to about 5 m from separate phase hydrocarbon, but as little as one metre
from moderate to low dissolved phase hydrocarbon concentrations).

On the basis of the above research, bioattenuation adjustment factors were

developed, which can be applied to the attenuation factor calculated using the
J&E model for selected petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. The application
of bioattenuation adjustment factors requires appropriate site characterization
and the development of a conceptual site model (CSM). When soil vapour
bioattenuation factors are applied, hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation should
be confirmed through characterization of vertical soil vapour profiles. A
protocol for evaluation of aerobic biodegradation through soil vapour
sampling is provided in Chapter 5. In addition, the bioattenuation reduction
factors may not be applied when there is a significant capping effect that
would limit oxygen migration to below buildings. The capping effect may be
significant when most of a site is covered with reasonably good quality
concrete or asphalt (Golder 2006).
The calculated attenuation factors may be divided by the bioattenuation

adjustment factors (BAFs) in Table 3 for applicable petroleum hydrocarbon
compounds, which are BTEX, F1 and F2 (except when aviation fuel),
trimethylbenzenes, naphthalene, normal or straight chain alkane compounds
(e.g., hexane, octane), as follows:
Adjusted Attenuation Factor = “J&E Model Vapour Attenuation Factor” / BAF
The framework for the groundwater bioattenuation reduction factors is based

on hydrocarbon source strength, which depends largely on whether there is a
dissolved hydrocarbon source or non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) above the
water table, and distance between the contamination source and building.
Depending on the source concentrations and distance between the source and
building, up to 100X reduction in the attenuation factor is provided.
Table 3: Bioattenuation Adjustment Factors
Media Contamination Criteria Bioattenuation Adjustment

Factors (BAF)
Groundwater Dissolved - Low Benzene < 0.1 mg/L

F1 < 5 mg/L 100X for separation distance* > 1m
F2 < 1 mg/L
Dissolved – High Benzene < 1 mg/L 10X for separation distance* > 1 m
F1 < 15 mg/L 100X for separation distance* >3 m
F2 < 5 mg/L
NAPL Sheen or measurable 10X for separation distance* > 3 m
floating layer 100X for separation distance* >5m
Soil Vapour Dissolved Cg < 1 mg/L 10X for separation distance* > 1 m
TVOCs** 100X for separation distance*>3m

Media Contamination Criteria Bioattenuation Adjustment
Factors (BAF)
Transition dissolved Cg > 1 mg/L < 50 10X for separation distance* > 2 m
& NAPL mg/L TVOCs 100X for separation distance* >4m
NAPL Cg > 50 mg/L 10X for separation distance* > 3 m
100X for separation distance* >5m
Soil All 10X for separation distance* > 1 m
100X for separation distance* >3m
Notes: Above BAFs may only be applied when there is no significant capping effect and biodegradation
supported through oxygen profiles (see Section 5.3.4). Cg = BTEX + F1 + F2 + Methane (CH4)
*
Separation distance between source and the building foundation.
**
total VOCs
4.3.2.8 Back-calculate site specific screening levels for soil vapour and groundwater
Site-specific soil vapour screening levels (Csv) are back calculated as follows:
Csv = CairT/ αv (µg/m )

3
Where
3
CairT = the health based indoor air target concentration (µg/m ) (see
attachment VI), and
αv = the dimensionless soil vapour attenuation factor (adjusted based on
criteria described above) (dimensionless).
The groundwater screening levels developed for the vapour intrusion pathway
(Cgw) can be calculated as follows:
Cgw = CairT / (H ∗ αgw * 1000 L/m3) (µg/L)
Where:
3
CairT = the health based indoor air target concentration (µg/m ),
αgw = the groundwater attenuation factor (adjusted based on criteria described
above) (dimensionless), and
H = Henry’s law constant (dimensionless).
4.3.2.9 Data Evaluation and Next Steps
An important step in the soil vapour screening assessment process is to

evaluate the results in terms of data consistency, adequacy and uncertainty and
appropriate next steps or follow-up actions. The key questions that should be
asked at this stage of the process include:
• Are predictions consistent with the CSM and internally consistent for
different media and sampling locations?

• Are the data adequate to evaluate vapour intrusion potential,
particularly when the screening assessment indicates no further action
is warranted?
• What is the overall uncertainty in the screening process and how
should this influence decisions made?
The evaluation of data consistency may involve comparison of predicted

indoor air concentrations from different media (e.g., soil, groundwater and soil
vapour) and sampling locations evaluated in the context of the CSM. When
there are significant differences between indoor air concentrations predicted
using different media, the data quality and representativeness should be
carefully reviewed. For a dissolved groundwater source, the predicted indoor
air concentrations using groundwater-to-indoor air attenuation factors will
often be higher than those predicted using near-source (top of the capillary
fringe) measured soil vapour concentrations with soil vapour-to-indoor
attenuation factors. Conversely, higher predicted indoor air concentrations
from measured soil vapour compared to groundwater may indicate a
contamination source within the unsaturated soil zone.
The indoor air predictions from soil vapour should generally always take
precedence compared to those predicted from soil or groundwater. However,
when the predicted indoor air concentration from soil vapour is significantly
less than that predicted from soil or groundwater (i.e., >10X to 100X lower),
the conceptual site model and the field data should be careful evaluated.
Large differences between media would be expected when there is a fresh-
water lens on the water table, fine-grained high moisture content soil layers or
bioattenuation. Large difference in indoor air concentrations predicted from
soil vapour and groundwater sampling data may also be attributable to bias
and variability in the soil vapour and groundwater data.
The qualified person must evaluate the site complexity and distribution of
contamination sources and plumes, the observed spatial and temporal
variability to assess data quantity and quality. The data adequacy and
uncertainty must be carefully assessed particularly when used to screen sites
or buildings out of the assessment process.
Appropriate follow-up actions will depend both on the consistency between

predictions and comparisons of the media concentration and screening levels.
A “bright line” approach where the acceptable level definitively defines
whether action is or is not taken should be avoided; instead, consideration
should be given to how close the media concentrations are in relation to the
site screening levels (SL), in light of the uncertainty in the data, as outlined in
Table 4. Particularly, when results are borderline or inconclusive, a multiple
lines-of-evidence approach should be followed where a combination of
measurements from different media are used to decide on appropriate
responses to safeguard human health.

Table 4: Decision Matrix for Recommended Actions
Measured Recommended Action1

concentration is:
< 0.5xSL No further testing typically warranted
> 0.5xSL but < Depending on how close the measured concentration is to
10xSL acceptable SL and data uncertainty, consider the need for
additional subsurface characterization and/or indoor air
testing program1
> 10 x SL Indoor air testing program1 and/or preemptive exposure
controls
1 Indoor air testing program should generally include subslab vapour, outdoor air and ancillary building
testing. Site screening levels (SL) are calculated using approach described in Section 4.3.2.8. This
framework may also be implemented through comparison of measured media concentrations to site
screening levels.
4.3.3 Soil Vapour Screening Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment Model
The Modified Generic Risk Assessment (MGRA) Model provides the option
of generating soil vapour screening levels (SVSLs) for residential and
commercial land uses based on site specific soil types and depths to soil
vapour measurement. The MGRA model uses the same basic assumptions and
exposure scenarios used in the development of the generic soil condition
standards (MOE 2009a) for the vapour intrusion pathways (S-IA and GW2).
The SVSLs calculated by MGRA model can also be used to conduct screening
level soil vapour intrusion assessments for brownfield sites. For details on how
to use this model, as well as sampling and reporting requirements, please refer
to “A Guide to Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment (Tier 2)
Spreadsheet Model”, available at:
http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/land/decomm/condition.htm.
4.4 DETAILED VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT

For the vapour intrusion pathway, a detailed assessment (Tier 3 risk
assessment) will typically include collection and characterization of building
interior data to evaluate potential exposure (when there are buildings present).
Usually, it includes collection of indoor air, subslab soil vapour and outdoor
air concentrations as well as building properties.
A detailed assessment may also include development of site specific screening

levels using different models and/or different input parameters than those

specified under the screening level assessment (Section 4.3.2). In cases where
the assessment is conducted for existing communities and buildings, any
modification of the default input parameters should be based on site-specific
data (e.g. soil type, depth to water table, building conditions). Also the
presence of any model precluding conditions needs to be verified (typically
through a door-to-door survey). However, conditions of closure will typically
include verification of model predictions through indoor air and subslab
vapour testing.
4.4.1 Estimation of Input Parameters
Estimation of input parameters is challenging since only some input

parameters may be directly measured; for others, observations, intuition and
experience will influence the selection of reasonable inputs for vapour
intrusion models. The text below describes approaches and procedures for
estimating input parameter values for use in the Johnson and Ettinger model.
Water-filled and Total Porosity and Bulk Density
As part of a detailed soil vapour intrusion assessment, one option is to measure

soil moisture and density, and to calculate the water-filled and total porosity
based on these measurements. When soil samples are obtained below the
building, a direct measurement approach may be reasonable; however, care
must be taken to minimize disturbance to soil samples since this will result in
inaccurate measurements. Where possible, soil sampling techniques that
minimize disturbance should be used (e.g., Shelby tube sampler).
Where it is not possible to obtain soil samples below the building or where a
future scenario is being evaluated, the use of water retention models may
provide for more accurate prediction of soil moisture conditions below a
building. As a starting point, a water retention estimation method can be used
(e.g. van Genuchten (VG) (van Genuchten, 1980)) assuming relatively dry
conditions below a building.
There are other methods for estimating water-filled porosity. For example, a
water retention curve can be generated from the measured grain size
distribution and volume mass properties of the soil using the method by
Fredlund and Wilson (1997), which builds the curve by successively
estimating a water retention curve for each particle-size group in the grain size
distribution. There are also software programs for estimation of water
retention parameters from soil grain size data (e.g., Rosetta model and
SoilVision model v.4.34). Consideration may also be given to dividing the
capillary transition zone into multiple layers to more closely approximate the
water-filled porosity.

Johnson (2005) recommends the use of a normalized parameter for soil
moisture, consisting of the water-filled porosity divided by over the total
porosity (“water saturation”), to guide selection of reasonable soil moisture
inputs for different soil types.
Soil Vapour Advection Rate (Qsoil)
As indicated in Section 4.3.2.4, the use of the “perimeter crack model” for
calculating Qsoil is not recommended by the MOE. In detailed soil vapour
intrusion assessments and/or site-specific risk assessments (Tier 3),
proponents may use alternative values for Qsoil (other than those
recommended by the MOE in Table 2) based on:
empirical attenuation factors and a specified range of values for the

ratio of Qsoil/Qbuilding. Johnson (2005) used mass balance principles to
show that the Qsoil/Qbuilding ratio is equal to the ratio of indoor air
concentrations divided by subslab vapour concentrations (i.e., the
subslab vapour to indoor air attenuation factor). The Qsoil value could
be calculated from this ratio, if the building air exchange rate and
volume are known (i.e. Qbuilding is known) (Geosyntec 2010). A
detailed rationale regarding the selected empirical attenuation factor
may be required. Typically, the Qsoil/Qbuilding ratio is between 0.0001
and 0.01 (Johnson 2005); or
a specified value for Qsoil (based on values from tracer tests). The
tracer test concept is based on characterizing soil vapour
concentrations below the slab, indoors and outdoors. If the building
ventilation rate is known, and if advection is the main process for
vapour intrusion, then from mass flux considerations, Qsoil can be
calculated. The tracer could be a natural tracer like radon, measured
VOC concentrations (when indoor background contribution is
negligible), or an injected tracer such as He or SF6. If the proposed
Qsoil value is based on published literature, a detailed rationale must
be provided on why the proposed value is applicable to the site and
existing buildings.
In many cases, it will not be feasible to measure the Qsoil, using tracer tests.
For that the recommended approach is to start with the default soil gas flow
rates and to normalize Qsoil such that Qsoil/Qbuild remains roughly constant
and near the mid-point of the empirical range of subslab alpha’s. This is a
reasonable constraint based on comparison of model predictions to the subslab
vapour attenuation factor. There are other possible approaches or adjusting
the Qsoil based on the ratio of Qsoil to building foundation area or perimeter
crack length; however, the differences between these approaches and one
based on the Qsoil/Qbuild ratio are relatively small.

Building pressure measurements can also be used to refine estimates of the
soil gas advection rate. At an initial scoping level, such measurements can be
useful in determining whether, in fact, there is a driving pressure gradient that
would result in soil gas intrusion. Commercial buildings, in particular, can be
positively pressurized effectively eliminating the contribution of soil gas
advection to intrusion.
Soil air permeability tests can also be used to refine the estimated soil-air
permeability input in the Perimeter Crack Model, or other models used to
simulate soil gas flow. These tests can be performed by using a pump to
extract soil gas from a small well or probe and measuring pressure and flow.
There are several mathematical solutions that can be used to estimate soil air
permeability from this data, including those referenced in Johnson et al.
(1990) and Garbesi et al. (1995). It is noted that if the intent is to estimate
Qsoil (i.e., test near foundation soil), then both the test procedure and
interpretation may be complicated by the presence of the foundation and
disturbed soils.
Building Mixing Height
As part of a detailed site assessment, observational data and evaluation of

mechanical ventilation design, in particular cross-floor mixing and leakage,
may be used to refine the mixing height. In some cases, mechanical or HVAC
engineers can provide useful information on mixing heights. It may also be
important to evaluate thermal stratification for some buildings, since this may
affect mixing of vapour within the building.
Building Ventilation Rate
The screening level assessment defaults for building ventilation rates are an air
change rate of 0.30 hr-1 for residential scenario and air change of 1 hr-1 for
commercial scenario. The air exchange rate for residential buildings typically
ranges from 0.2 air changes per hour (ach) for airtight homes to 2.0 ach for
leaky homes (U.S. EPA, 1988). In an Ontario study, air change rates from 70
houses ranged from 0.06 to 0.77, with the lowest air exchange occurring in
summer with closed windows in R-2000 houses (Walkinshaw, 1987). In a
study completed in Saskatchewan and Tilsonburg, Ontario, the average
measured air change rate from 44 houses was 0.34 ach (SRC, 1992), while in a
study completed in the Greater Toronto area, the average air exchange rate
from 44 houses was 0.45 ach (Otson and Zhu, 1997). In regions with
relatively cold climates, the recent trend has been to construct “air-tight”
houses with reduced ventilation rates to minimize energy consumption and
costs (e.g., “R-2000” houses in Canada; Gusdorf and Hamlin, 1995, now
called energy star homes). In Canada, the minimum required ventilation rate
under the CSA F326 standard for “Residential Mechanical Ventilation
Systems” depends on the number and types of rooms in the house but usually
works out to about 0.3 air changes per hour.

As part of a detailed site assessment, several factors could be considered to

possibly refine ventilation rates including HVAC design information and
observations providing qualitative information on ventilation rate (i.e., open
doors and windows). It is also possible to measure the ventilation rate using a
tracer test (e.g., carbon dioxide tracer), as described in the ASTM E741
standard. However, the measured ventilation rate is specific to the building
and environmental conditions under which the test was performed and
therefore may not provide information on longer-term ventilation trends.
Building Size
As part of a detailed assessment, the building size can be measured. For the
J&E model, the predicted indoor air concentrations decrease as the building
size increases, if all other inputs are held constant.
Building Foundation Crack Size or Area Ratio
The crack ratio, expressed as the area of the cracks divided by the subsurface
foundation area, is difficult to measure or estimate. For several radon studies,
the back calculated crack ratio for residential houses ranged from 10-4 to 10-3
using field data from tracer tests and a soil gas flow model (Nazaroff (1992),
Revzan et al. (1991), and Nazaroff et al. (1985)). There have also been
attempts to measure crack widths, although this is practically difficult to do.
Figley and Snodgrass (1992) present data from ten houses where edge crack
measurements were made. At the eight houses where cracks were observed,
the cracks widths ranged from hairline cracks up to 5 mm wide, while the total
crack length ranged from 2.5 to 17.3 m. Most crack widths were less than 1
mm. The crack ratio used for regulatory or guidance purposes varies
significantly. The VOLASOIL (Dutch Ministry of Environment) model
recommends a crack ratio range of 10-6 (good foundation) to 10-4 (poor
foundation) while Johnson and Ettinger (1991) for illustrative purposes
selected a crack ratio of 0.001 to 0.01.
For detailed assessment purposes, a reasonable starting point may be a range

of 10-4 to 10-3, which corresponds to a perimeter crack width of about 1 to 2
mm for residential sized buildings. While a perimeter edge crack between the
foundation walls and base is relatively common, there may also be untrapped
drains, shrinkage cracks in concrete, and/or small cracks surrounding utility
penetrations. If the building has a poor quality foundation, a somewhat higher
crack ratio may be justified, while if the foundation is of high quality or is
coated with a sealant (e.g., epoxy) or other floor coverings, a lower crack ratio
may be warranted.

4.4.2 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing
An overview of key issues for IAQ studies is presented below with details
provided in Chapter 6. An IAQ study requires proper planning. A
communications program, access agreements and pre-sampling survey and
occupant questionnaire are vital. In particular, the survey should identify
potential background sources for the chemicals of potential concern and
building properties or conditions that could influence vapour migration
pathways and indoor vapour concentrations. This information, together with
previous information obtained as part of subsurface investigation programs,
should be used to refine the CSM. Important factors to consider include data
on building type, building foundation construction, near-foundation soils,
potential preferential pathways (e.g., utilities, sumps, drains), building heating
ventilation and air condition (HVAC) system, building operation (e.g.,
operation of appliances, fans, etc.) and meteorological conditions (e.g.,
temperature, wind, barometric pressure).
4.4.2.1 IAQ Study Design
The next step is to develop the IAQ program. For many sites, the scope will
include concurrent indoor air, subslab vapour and outdoor air testing since this
data can often help to distinguish between background and subsurface vapour
sources. Experience gained at sites indicates that the spatial and temporal
variability in indoor air and subslab vapour concentrations tends to be high. A
minimum of two to three subslab soil vapour samples per building is
recommended and multiple indoor air samples should also typically be
obtained. A larger number of subslab vapour samples or high volume
composite samples may be warranted for larger commercial or industrial
buildings. More than one sampling event under different climatic (e.g.,
summer/winter) and building conditions will also generally be required to
avoid basing a decision on potentially non-representative or incomplete data.
A complicating factor is that the timescales for temporal within building
variability can range from a few hours (HVAC operation, wind effects) to
months (seasonal temperature variations).
When contamination is below multiple buildings, the IAQ program should

typically be prioritized to begin with testing of buildings above the highest
concentration areas, although if there are differences in the susceptibility of
the foundation to vapour intrusion, this factor may also influence selection of
buildings. The number of buildings should be sufficient to draw initial
conclusions of concentration trends.
Building Conditions and Methods
The conditions under which the indoor air sampling is to be performed should
also be defined. Typically, the building should be sampled under normal

conditions of occupancy, although in some cases, building conditions may be
controlled to facilitate sampling under either pressurized or depressurized
conditions. Whenever possible, potential background sources of chemicals
should be removed from the building prior to sampling. Ancillary data on
building conditions, such as differential pressure measurements between
indoor and outdoor air and indoor air and subslab gas, and tracer tests to
estimate building air change rates should also be considered. Differential
pressure data may be important for interpretation of subslab vapour data,
which may be affected in different ways depending on whether there is
infiltration of soil vapour into the building, or exfiltration of air from the
building to subslab soil.
Appropriate methods should be followed for collection of indoor air data.

Composite samples (typically 24-hour duration) should be obtained, but longer
duration is preferred where practicable.
4.4.2.2 Background Issues
The possible confounding influence of background chemicals is often an

important issue for data interpretation. Particularly problematic chemicals are
those where background levels may exceed acceptable toxicological
concentrations in indoor air (e.g., benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride,
and tetrachloroethene in a residential setting (Dawson and McAlary, 2009).
Risk management decisions and risk communication can be problematic when
the influence of background is not well characterized.
Sources of background VOCs in indoor air include consumer products,

building materials, combustion products and ambient (outdoor) air. There is
significant variability in background concentrations depending on location,
and building type and use. Although it can be difficult to quantify the
influence of background, a multiple lines-of-evidence approach can assist in
this process. The lines-of-evidence that can be evaluated include review of
possible background VOC sources in buildings, comparison of indoor air
concentrations to published literature values or a control building study,
subslab vapour data, spatial relationships in data providing evidence for
vapour intrusion, and/or relationships between different media concentrations
(constituent ratios) providing evidence for vapour intrusion based on
consistent patterns or ratios observed. Another line-of-evidence is to evaluate
whether measured indoor air concentrations are plausible given the source soil
vapour concentrations and conservative estimate of vapour attenuation
between the source and building. For this line-of-evidence, there should be
representative subsurface media concentrations and attenuation factor used
should be sufficiently conservative to avoid a priori discounting of vapour
intrusion.

4.4.3 Data Evaluation and Next Steps
The decision-making process and determination of next steps should consider

data uncertainty and adequacy, and how close the measured media
concentration is to the acceptable screening level.
When measured indoor air concentrations are less than acceptable risk-based
target concentrations, the data uncertainty and adequacy should be reviewed to
determine whether additional monitoring is warranted. When measured
indoor air concentrations exceed acceptable risk-based target concentrations,
exposure controls may be warranted, although potential contribution of
background sources to measured concentrations in indoor air should be
considered when evaluating the need for exposure controls. The multiple
lines-of-evidence approach described in Chapter 6 should be followed when
evaluating the potential influence of background on indoor air quality
measurements.
When the estimated or measured indoor air concentrations are significantly

above the acceptable risk-based target levels, exposure controls implemented
in the short-term to control receptor exposure may in be warranted. The
Ontario Ministry of Environment should be consulted when determining
appropriate actions when this is the case
4.4.4 Exposure Controls
Exposure controls may include measures to eliminate or reduce contamination

sources or intercept or control the vapour migration pathway (e.g., subslab
depressurization or venting systems).
There are several resources available that provide guidance or common

practices on the selection, installation, and long term monitoring of vapour
intrusion mitigation systems, some of them are:
• ITRC, 2007. Vapor Intrusion - A Practical Guide o USEPA, 2008.

Engineering Issue. Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Approaches,
EPA/600/R-08-115, October.
• ASTM E2435 - 05 Standard Guide for Application of Engineering

Controls to Facilitate Use or Redevelopment of Chemical-Affected
Properties http://www.astm.org/Standards/E2435.htm
• ASTM E2121 - 08 Standard Practice for Installing Radon Mitigation

Systems in Existing Low-Rise Residential Buildings
http://www.astm.org/Standards/E2121.htm

• ASTM E1465 - 08 Standard Practice for Radon Control Options for
the Design and Construction of New Low-Rise Residential Buildings
http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1465.htm
• U.S. EPA. Engineering Issue – Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Mitigation

Approaches. EPA/600/R-08-115. October 2008.
Mitigation system design also depends to some degree on building-specific

conditions, access constraints, owner and occupant preferences and practical
considerations. The qualified person should be aware of the information in the
documents listed above and provide sufficient design detail and performance
monitoring data to justify and defend the selection and performance of any
mitigation system.


CHAPTER 5
SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION
CHAPTER 5 SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................ 5-2

5.1 Context, Purpose and Scope ................................................................................ 5-2
5.2 Study Objectives .................................................................................................. 5-3
5.3 Soil Vapour Sampling Approach and Design...................................................... 5-3
5.3.1 Overview of Sampling Strategy........................................................................... 5-3
5.3.2 Considerations for Sampling Locations............................................................... 5-4
5.3.3 When to Sample and Sampling Frequency........................................................ 5-12
5.3.4 Biodegradation Assessment ............................................................................... 5-13
5.4 Soil Gas Probe Construction and Installation .................................................... 5-15
5.4.1 Probes Installed in Boreholes............................................................................. 5-16
5.4.2 Direct Push Technology..................................................................................... 5-17
5.4.3 Use of Water Table Monitoring Wells as Soil Gas Probes................................ 5-18
5.4.4 Subslab Soil Gas Probes .................................................................................... 5-18
5.4.5 Probe Materials .................................................................................................. 5-20
5.4.6 Short-Circuiting Considerations and Shallow Probes........................................ 5-21
5.5 Soil Gas Sampling Procedures........................................................................... 5-21
5.5.1 Probe Development and Soil Gas Equilibration ................................................ 5-21
5.5.2 Flow and Vacuum (Probe Performance) Check ................................................ 5-22
5.5.3 Sampling Container or Device........................................................................... 5-22
5.5.4 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment......................................................... 5-24
5.5.5 Testing of Equipment for Leaks and Short Circuiting....................................... 5-25
5.5.6 Sample Probe Purging and Sampling ................................................................ 5-26
5.6 Soil Gas Analysis............................................................................................... 5-28
5.6.1 Selection of Method........................................................................................... 5-28
5.6.2 Field Detectors ................................................................................................... 5-29
5.6.3 Field Laboratory Analysis.................................................................................. 5-31
5.6.4 Fixed Laboratory Analysis................................................................................. 5-32
5.6.5 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Considerations......................................... 5-37
5.7 Ancillary Data.................................................................................................... 5-39
5.8 Data Interpretation and Analysis ....................................................................... 5-42
5.8.1 Data Organization and Reporting ...................................................................... 5-42
5.8.2 Data Quality Analysis ........................................................................................ 5-42
5.8.3 Data Consistency Analysis ................................................................................ 5-43
5.8.4 Further Evaluation ............................................................................................. 5-44

5-2
Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization
CHAPTER 5
SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION

This chapter describes methodologies for characterization of soil vapour, since at many
sites soil vapour measurements are an important component of a technically defensible
assessment of soil vapour intrusion. A summary of considerations for sampling and
analysis of other media (soil and groundwater) is also provided as well as ancillary
information that may assist in the interpretation of soil vapour data and evaluation of soil
vapour intrusion.
5.1 CONTEXT, PURPOSE AND SCOPE

This chapter describes methodologies for characterization of soil vapour, since
at many sites soil vapour measurements are an important component of a
technically defensible assessment of soil vapour intrusion. A summary of
considerations for sampling and analysis of other media (soil and
groundwater) is also provided as well as ancillary information that may assist
in the interpretation of soil vapour data and evaluation of soil vapour intrusion.
Comprehensive procedures for soil vapour characterization are needed since

historically greater emphasis has been placed on soil and groundwater testing,
with only limited guidance available for soil vapour. There is significant
recent interest in soil vapour methods and recognition that testing of this
media provides for a more direct indication of the contaminant phase that may
migrate into indoor air. However, it is critical that an appropriate sampling
approach and methods be followed to obtain representative data. Soil and
groundwater concentrations may also be used for evaluating the vapour
intrusion pathway through estimation of the chemical partitioning from soil or
groundwater to soil vapour. While there are limitations and uncertainties
associated with the use of soil data, and to a lesser extent groundwater, for
evaluating soil vapour intrusion (as subsequently described in this chapter),
soil and groundwater data may provide useful additional lines-of-evidence for
evaluation of soil vapour intrusion. The context of this chapter is to provide
guidance on characterization of soil vapour intrusion; however, the concepts
and techniques described are applicable for any site assessment where soil
vapour sampling is proposed.
Since soil vapour characterization programs are highly influenced by site

specific conditions and project-specific objectives and potential constraints, it
is not possible to provide a standardized template for sampling design and
methods. However, the key principles and factors that should be considered in
developing a sampling strategy are outlined and a range of methods are
described to provide the practitioner with the necessary approaches and tools
to investigate this pathway.

5-3
5.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of a soil vapour investigation is typically to provide the data
needed to evaluate potential risk to occupants of buildings who may be
exposed to vapours migrating in indoor air. Specific objectives of the soil
vapour investigation may include the following:
• Compare measured soil vapour concentrations to risk-based generic or

site-specific soil vapour criteria or screening levels;
• Provide soil vapour data needed for input into models used for site-
specific risk assessment;
• Evaluate hydrocarbon vapour biodegradation through collection of soil
vapour samples from vertical profiles or lateral transects;
• Evaluate cross-media transfer (chemical partitioning and attenuation
through the capillary fringe) through comparison of measured
concentrations in co-located groundwater and soil vapour sampling
points;
• Evaluate models used to simulate soil vapour transport through
collection of soil vapour samples at various points along the migration
pathway and comparison to model-predicted soil vapour concentration
profiles; and,
• Evaluate the influence of background chemical sources on indoor air
samples through concurrent collection of subslab vapour and indoor
air samples.
The study objectives should be well defined prior to developing a sampling
plan, as there may be substantive differences in sampling plans depending on
the type of data required and how that data is intended to be used.
5.3 SOIL VAPOUR SAMPLING APPROACH AND DESIGN
5.3.1 Overview of Sampling Strategy

Typically, the early phase(s) of the soil vapour investigation should focus on
characterisation of soil vapour concentrations in close proximity to the known
or suspected sources of vapours since as subsequently discussed, soil vapour
from near to the source is least influenced by spatial and temporal variability
in concentrations. For many contamination scenarios, the source consists of
NAPL or dissolved constituents at the water table; therefore, deeper samples
are strongly recommended to characterize the source. It is also often
important to obtain some initial data on the lateral and vertical variability in
the soil vapour concentrations through the use of transects and vertical
profiles, since these data can improve the confidence in the results and the
conceptual site model. If the initial characterisation indicates soil vapour

5-4
concentrations at or above levels of potential concern, an additional phase of
soil vapour investigation may be required. Alternately or in addition to soil
vapour external (adjacent) to the building, testing of subslab vapour and
indoor air may be warranted as part of subsequent phases.
The sampling design, which includes definition of the number of probes, their
location, when to sample and frequency of sampling, should consider the
characteristics of the contamination source, geologic heterogeneity, possible
temporal changes in site conditions, and where relevant, anthropogenic
features such as utility corridors, particularly where they intersect confining
soil layers. Repeat testing of soil vapour over different time periods to capture
possible seasonal variations will often be warranted.
5.3.2 Considerations for Sampling Locations

An important consideration for the design of a soil vapour study is the
sampling location. While there is a continuum of possible sampling locations,
it is helpful to categorise sampling locations as deep (near source) soil vapour,
intermediate (mid-way between the source and the building), and subslab
(immediately beneath the floor slab) and to identify issues and considerations
for these three generic sampling locations (Table 5).
Deep (Near Source) Soil Vapour
Soil vapour samples obtained from near the vapour contamination source will
tend to be stable seasonally and are relatively unaffected by near-surface
processes (i.e., building, weather conditions), except in instances where a
LNAPL smear zone is present and water levels fluctuate dramatically over
time. Near source soil vapour concentrations are also less influenced by
biodegradation or biotransformation processes and will reach steady state
conditions relatively quickly. The variability in soil vapour concentrations will
tend to increase as the distance from the contamination source increases.
When determining where to locate Example Prediction of Capillary

deep soil vapour probes, it is important Transition Zone Height
to recognize that soil vapour samples
The height above the water table where the
cannot be obtained until there is a transition to continuous gas-filled pores
continuous interconnected network of begins can be approximated using a water
gas-filled pores, which is a function of retention model (e.g., Van Genuchten
the capillary transition zone height model). Using model input parameters for
above the water table. To avoid the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil
zone of excessive moisture, soil gas texture classifications, the predicted height
probes should generally be installed of this transition point is approximately 17
about 0.5 m to 1 m above the water cm for sand and 38 cm for loam. See
table. Many sites have groundwater Golder (2007) for additional information on
monitoring wells screened across the water retention modeling.

5-5
water table, and if they are properly sealed and adequately purged (for
example oxygen and PID readings stabilizing after successive purged
volumes), these can be used to draw deep soil gas samples.
Intermediate (Mid-Way between Source and Building) Soil Vapour
Shallow soil vapour samples are more likely to be affected by geologic

heterogeneity, changes in near-surface conditions such as barometric pressure
or temperature fluctuations, and surface cover (e.g., paved versus non-paved
surface). Near a building, soil gas advection, caused by building
depressurization, and variation in foundation subsoils can cause variability in
soil vapour concentrations. Therefore, it is recommended that near-building
soil vapour samples be collected at a depth mid-way between the building
foundation and the source.
Bioattenuation is an important process for aerobically biodegradable

chemicals (e.g., petroleum hydrocarbon compounds such as BTEX) that
should be taken into account when locating soil gas probes. There are several
case studies indicating a large reduction in soil vapour concentrations over
small distances may result when there are soil layers with high moisture
content (e.g., fine-grained layer) or aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon
vapours (Fischer et al., 1996, Hers et al., 2000). There may also be significant
lateral concentration gradients over short distances as evidenced by large
concentration differences for probes situated on either side of houses (Sanders
and Hers, 2006). However, for some sites, soil vapour concentrations below a
building may be significantly higher than the vapour concentrations beside a
building (i.e., at the same elevation) due to oxygen transport limitations and
drier soils below the building. The results of a modeling study by Abreu and
Johnson (2005) provide valuable insight on possible vapour concentration
patterns for biodegradable contamination below buildings (Figure 8). Based on
these simulations, shallow soil vapour samples external to the building could
lead to non-conservative predictions of indoor vapour concentrations, but
samples collected mid-way between the building depth and source depth
would likely be more representative.

5-6
Hydrocarbon Vapours Oxygen
FIGURE 8. Results of 3-D Oxygen-Limited Soil Vapour Transport Modeling for High
Concentration Source (Cg = 100 mg/L) and Moderate Concentration Source (Cg = 20 mg/L) (from
Abreu and Johnson, 2005)
Subslab Soil Vapour
Characterisation of subslab soil vapour below a building foundation may be

warranted when deeper soil vapour tests indicate potentially unacceptable
health risk or when there is a shallow contamination source. Subslab soil
vapour testing may be advantageous when initially screening buildings (i.e.,
before indoor air quality data is obtained) and also in conjunction with indoor
air testing to evaluate the potential for a complete pathway and indoor sources
of chemicals (see Chapter 6). It is important to recognize that with barometric
pressure fluctuations and positively pressurized buildings, it is possible for
indoor air to move from the building into the subslab soil gas. If indoor air
contains elevated VOC concentrations (e.g., as seen at some dry cleaner sites),
this could confound interpretation of subslab data. The reverse intrusion
phenomenon (vapour extrusion) can be evaluated by monitoring the pressure
differential across the slab using digital micromanometers.
The following factors should be taken into account when designing a sampling
program that includes the collection of subslab soil vapour:
• A coarse-grained soil layer below a building foundation, or small crack

or void below the foundation slab due to settlement will tend to

5-7
promote lateral soil gas flow and will yield gas at appreciable flow
rates with minimal vacuum when sampled;
• There may be spatial or temporal variations in subslab vapour
concentrations as a result of source concentration variability,
biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours or advective pumping of soil
gas caused by barometric pressure changes; and,
• Subslab vapour concentrations may be highest near the centre of a
building for a uniform contamination source; however, the soil gas
advection rates into a building may be greatest at a perimeter crack,
which may be present along the interface between the floor slab and
foundation wall.
Guidance on subslab soil vapour sampling has been developed by various
agencies (ITRC, 2007; EPRI, 2005; USEPA, 2002). Recent data indicates
significant spatial variability in subslab concentrations below even single
family dwelling sized buildings (e.g., USEPA, 2008; USEPA, 2006). Multiple
samples may be needed to adequately characterize this variability, so the scope
and cost of subslab vapour characterization programs can be significant,
especially if monitoring of multiple buildings in a residential neighbourhood is
required.
There are practical drawbacks associated with subslab sampling that should be
recognized. Subslab sampling is intrusive in that drilling or coring equipment
must be used inside the building and floor coverings may be damaged, which
may be disruptive or undesirable for owners and occupants. The work may
require an access agreement from the building owner. It may also be difficult
to determine subsurface utility locations below slabs, although geophysical
techniques (e.g., ground penetrating radar) may be used for this purpose. Due
to the challenges of subslab sampling, it is not always a practical line of
evidence. Future research may identify alternative sub-slab sampling methods
that will overcome these challenges.
Future Land Use Considerations
If the objective of the risk assessment is to predict exposure under future

conditions, the soil vapour sampling design should consider how land use
changes will affect soil vapour measurements and data interpretation.
Changes to surface conditions and development would tend to have the
greatest effect on shallow vapour concentrations and the least effect on soil
vapour concentrations near to the contamination source. Therefore, it is
recommended that soil vapour characterization programs for the future use
scenario focus on sampling of deep near source soil gas.

5-8
TABLE 5: Comparison of Soil Vapour Measurement Locations

Type of
Soil
Where Obtained Characteristics Use of Data and Cautions
Vapour
Data
Deep Soil As near to water Concentrations reach near-steady If deep vapour
Vapour table as practical, conditions quickly, tend to be concentrations are below
(external) subject to stable seasonally and are target levels, vapour to
considerations relatively unaffected by near- indoor pathway likely not
relating to capillary surface changes. significant.
fringe and depth Least affected by biodegradation.For future development
limitations for Should represent the highest scenario, only deep vapour
drilling. concentrations of soil vapour. concentrations should be
used.
Intermediate Close to the Shallow soil vapour Water content and oxygen
Soil Vapour building, but outside concentrations should be lower content beside a building
(external) peri-foundational than deep concentrations. may be greater than
area. Sample depth Include monitoring of O2 and CO2 beneath the building, so
should be mid-way when assessing hydrocarbon external soil vapour
between lowest part vapours. samples may
of foundation and underestimate risks for
the vapour source. hydrocarbons.
Subslab Soil Immediately below Higher temporal and spatial Logistical issues
Vapour foundation slab. variability expected as samples associated with sample
Generally, central are affected by changes in near- collection.
location away from surface conditions such as Costly to collect sufficient
the foundation barometric pumping, temperature samples for statistical
footings preferred. changes, HVAC systems and assessment of spatial and
variability in foundation subsoils. temporal variability using
Potentially more representative for current methods.
hydrocarbons, since sub-slab Depending on where
concentrations already reflect the subsurface vapours enter a
effect of biodegradation between building through the
the vapour source and the building foundation,
building. subslab sample location
Greater potential for non steady may or may not be
state conditions depending on representative of the
distance from vapour source to vapour concentrations
measurement point. entering the building.
May be affected by
subslab utilities (e.g.,
drains, sewers).

5-9
2-3
m
Min 1/2 D Subslab vapour
D May use soil vapour

(provided data is
representative)
Capillary Transition Zone
FIGURE 9. Soil Vapour Sampling Locations and Vertical Profile Concept
FIGURE 10. Lateral Transect Concept

5-10
Lateral Transects and Vertical Profiles
The soil vapour sampling design

may employ transects or vertical Criteria for External Soil Vapour
profiles to characterize spatial
The recommended soil vapour design for
variation in concentrations (Figures vapour intrusion assessment is:
9 and 10). Lateral transects or
vertical profiles can provide useful 1. Sample on at least two sides of
building; probes generally to be
information for more in-depth
located within 2 to 3 m of building.
analysis of the effect of
biodegradation or fine-grained soil 2. Obtain soil vapour profiles at
layers on soil vapour transport and selected locations.
pathway evaluation. Transect or 3. Minimum depth equal to half-way
vertical profile data can increase between lowest part of building
the level of confidence in the CSM foundation and contamination
for soil vapour transport and data source, further constrained to be a
quality. minimum of 1 m below ground
surface.
4. Use maximum near-building
Lateral transects are generally used concentration.
when the contamination source is
laterally removed from the 5. Generally repeat sampling on at
building. Generally, a minimum of least two occasions.
three samples should be used as
part of a transect, consisting of soil gas samples from (i) the edge of
contamination source nearest to building, (ii) the mid-point between source
and building, and (iii) near the edge of building (API, 2005). While three
sampling locations are likely sufficient for many sites, consideration could be
given to additional intermediate probes if the distance between the
contamination source and building is greater than 30 m.
Vertical profiles are generally used when the contamination source is below
the building. Again, three or more samples should be obtained from (i) just
above the contamination source, (ii) mid-point between upper and lower
sampling point, and (iii) a sampling point located near the building and/or a
sub-slab sample. The contamination source must be at least 1.5 m below the
building foundation (and preferably >3 m) for vertical profiles to be effective
in resolving vertical concentration trends.
Additional probes are recommended where there are changes in lithology,

where changes in concentrations are expected, or where the distance between
the source and building is sufficiently large. The soil vapour sampling design
should also consider the potential implications of subsurface utilities for
sampling locations since utilities may represent preferential pathways for soil
vapour migration.

5-11
Recommended Soil Vapour Sampling Locations – External to Building
The lateral spacing of deep soil gas probes needed to characterize soil vapour
source zones is highly dependent on site conditions and the number and size of
buildings where soil vapour intrusion is of potential concern. For large
disperse groundwater plumes, a soil gas probe spacing of several tens of
meters may be adequate. For smaller plumes and hydrocarbon sites where
steep concentration gradients are expected, more closely spaced probes are
warranted (e.g., 5 m to 15 m).
When evaluating potential vapour intrusion into a building, typically soil

vapour samples from at least two sides of the building should be obtained,
unless trends in soil vapour concentrations can be resolved and contoured on a
broader scale. One location should be in the direction of the inferred highest
soil vapour concentrations based on soil and groundwater data. The soil
vapour sampling locations should be relatively close to the building
(preferably within 2 to 3 m), but beyond the zone of disturbance and fill beside
a building, unless property access constraints make this impracticable.
For screening level assessment purposes, the model-predicted concentration

patterns presented by Abreu and Johnson (2005, 2006) support a minimum
depth criterion for soil vapour samples equal to half the distance between the
building foundation and contamination source. The minimum depth should be
further constrained as a minimum of 1 m below the elevation of the foundation
slab base and 1 m below ground surface to be beyond the advective zone of
influence associated with barometric pumping and building depressurization and
of sufficient depth to minimize the potential for atmospheric air to be drawn into
the sample. A maximum depth of 10 m below the foundation is considered a
reasonable upper bound based on practical considerations (e.g., drilling costs).
When the vertical profiles indicate a large degree of bioattenuation (orders-of-
magnitude) between the deep and mid-depth probe, the mid-depth probe result
should be used with caution and consideration should be given to whether the
mid-depth concentration is representative of conditions below the building,
based on the criteria described above.
Recommended Subslab Vapour Sampling Locations – Below Building
The number and location of subslab soil vapour samples that should be tested
will depend on site-specific conditions. For small to moderate sized houses, a
minimum of two to three subslab samples, preferably located in a central
location away from the foundation footings, is considered reasonable for
screening purposes. A greater number of samples are warranted for commercial
building. It is recognized that practical considerations (e.g., homeowner access)
will often dictate the location of subslab soil vapour samples. For larger
buildings, multiple samples are recommended to investigate the variability in
subslab soil vapour concentrations and for some buildings, it may be desirable

5-12
to install sufficient probes to delineate areas with elevated subslab vapour
concentrations. It is expected that future updates of this guidance will include a
more definitive recommendation on the appropriate number of subslab samples
as additional experience is gained in this area.
Characterization at Buildings with Shallow Contamination

A different characterisation approach is typically warranted at sites with contamination below
or near a building, such as dry cleaners where releases often occur via building sumps or
drains, and where subslab or shallow soil vapour samples below buildings should typically be
obtained. Evaluation of preferential pathways may also be important through review of site
plans or geophysical techniques. Indoor air testing may also be useful; however, consideration
should be given to confounding influence of background sources of chemicals (see Chapter 7).
5.3.3 When to Sample and Sampling Frequency

Investigation of the soil vapour intrusion pathway will often require more than
one round of soil vapour sampling since there can be significant temporal
variability in soil vapour concentrations due to changes in source contamination
concentrations, seasonal variations in the water table and conditions for
hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation. For example, if the water table level
decreases, soil contamination, which previously was submerged by
groundwater, could be exposed to soil gas thus resulting in increased
volatilization. For soil vapour samples collected near to the building, there may
be weather or building related sources of variability. In general, the sampling
frequency should coincide with seasonal patterns for factors affecting soil
vapour such as the water table elevation (i.e., high and low levels) and
precipitation (soil moisture) (i.e., wet and dry season).
One sampling event may sometimes be sufficient depending on the results of

initial soil vapour testing. For example, if soil vapour concentrations are
significantly less (i.e., greater than one order-of-magnitude) than
concentrations of potential concern, and if vapour concentrations are unlikely
to change significantly over time, one monitoring event may be sufficient.
Alternately, if soil vapour concentrations are close to screening levels, repeat
testing may be warranted.
Soil vapour sampling can be sensitive to weather changes particularly to

shallow samples (less than 2 m below ground surface). Shallow soil vapour
sampling should be avoided during and after heavy rainfall events since
collection of a representative sample may be difficult. In addition, infiltration
of water into soil can result in negative bias in soil vapour concentrations due
to partitioning of vapour into soil moisture and, in some cases, induce
advective movement of soil gas. The time for moisture to drain from soil
pores will depend on the soil type. Coarse-grained soil (sand or gravel) will

5-13
drain to field capacity within a few hours (from complete saturation) while
fine-grained soil will take longer to drain (Hillel, 1980). Field capacity is the
soil water content after water drainage by the force of gravity is mostly
complete. Based on drainage data, it is recommended that you wait at least
one day after a heavy rainfall event (defined here as 1 cm) for coarse-grained
soils (sand or gravel), and several days for fine-grained soils.
The design of a soil gas sampling program should consider the possible effect
of barometric pressure fluctuations. These fluctuations could influence
shallow soil vapour concentrations when there are thick coarse-grained
unsaturated zones. A conservative approach would be to collect soil vapour
samples when the barometric pressure is decreasing. However, it is generally
not practical to schedule soil gas sampling events to target the desired
barometric pressure. However, barometric pressure data for several days
before and after sampling should be obtained, when available.
Frost cover can also reduce soil gas flux through ground surface, increase
pressure gradients, and affect subsurface soil vapour concentrations.
Consideration should be given to repeat sampling when frost cover is not
present.
5.3.4 Biodegradation Assessment

At some sites, more detailed monitoring of soil vapour may be warranted to
evaluate the biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbon vapours and to
determine the extent to which hydrocarbon vapours are degraded before
reaching the building. When evaluating biodegradation in the context of the
vapour intrusion pathway, it is important to recognize that the building may
influence local conditions for biodegradation below and near to the building.
The recommended biodegradation assessment consists of sampling of vertical

profiles adjacent to the buildings of potential concern, or lateral transects if the
contamination source is offset from the building. Where possible, external
probes should be situated below (preferably the middle of) a surface cover of
similar permeability and size compared to the building (concrete or asphalt of
reasonable quality). To provide for delineation of biodegradation effects, four
vertical probes are generally recommended, although three may be sufficient if
the distance between the building and source is small. The shallowest probe
should generally be installed at least 1 m below ground surface. The deepest
probe should extend to near to the contamination source. Bioattenuation
assessments should also include careful assessment of the contamination
source zone distribution through collection of soil samples and field headspace
vapour testing (e.g., using a photoionization detector) and laboratory analysis
of selected soil samples. A continuous soil core is recommended so that the
lithology can be examined. Fine-grained soils with high moisture content can
act as diffusive barriers, which give the appearance of bioattenuation. Since

5-14
soils below a building will tend to be drier, there may be less attenuation
through diffusion below the building.
Soil gas samples should be tested for the hydrocarbon vapours of potential
concern, and as a minimum, for oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane. These
gases provide an indication of microbial activity occurring through aerobic or
anaerobic processes. For example, depleted oxygen and elevated carbon
dioxide levels are indicators of aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbons.
Consideration should be given to the analysis of certain hydrocarbon
compounds (e.g., cyclohexane, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane) that are more volatile
than the BTEX compounds, and potentially less biodegradable, and which
serve as useful tracers for hydrocarbon vapour transport (Sanders and Hers,
2006).
The assessment of bioattenuation should consider the potential for reduced

biodegradation below buildings and potential non-representative soil vapour
conditions in shallow samples external to the building. The key factors
affecting bioattenuation below buildings include source vapour concentration,
the depth to vapour source below the building, the building size, the surface
cover and potential capping effect, and lateral uniformity of contamination
below the building. The conditions leading to non-representative external soil
vapour concentrations (subslab concentrations that are higher than external
concentrations) and representative external soil vapour concentrations (similar
concentrations) are evaluated in Table 6.
The above qualitative factors should be reviewed when evaluating the use of
external soil vapour data. If conditions suggest shallow data may not be
representative, then it is recommended that deep soil vapour data be used for
assessment purposes. Alternately, consideration could be given to sampling
and analysis of subslab soil vapour samples to confirm that bioattenuation is
also occurring below the building. If multiple buildings are potentially
affected, testing below a subset of building(s) in the highest source
concentration area may be sufficient to demonstrate bioattenuation is
occurring.
Hydrocarbon vapour biodegradation is an area of active research. It is expected

that more quantitative guidance on how to apply the above factors will be
developed over the next few years.

5-15
TABLE 6: Evaluation of Factors Affecting Below Building Hydrocarbon Vapour
Bioattenuation and Soil Vapour Data Representativeness
Conditions that Limit Below Building Conditions that Enhance Below Building
Bioattenuation and Lead to Non- Bioattenuation and Lead to Representative
Representative External Soil Vapour Data External Soil Vapour Data
• Higher source vapour concentrations • Lower source vapour concentrations
(e.g., LNAPL above water table): (e.g., dissolved groundwater plume):
Greater oxygen demand. Less oxygen demand so greater chance
vapours will be degraded by the time they
reach the building.
• Shallow depth to vapour • Deeper depth to vapour contamination
contamination source and larger source and smaller building size: Greater
building size: Less opportunity for opportunity for oxygen migration to
oxygen migration to below the below the building.
building.
• Foundation subsoils that are not well • Foundation subsoils that are well
connected to ground surface: Less connected to ground surface: Greater
opportunity for oxygen migration to opportunity for oxygen migration to
below the building due to near-building below the building through barometric
capping effect (e.g., low permeability pumping and wind-induced advection.
soils or high soil moisture).
• Contamination below entire building • Contamination below part of building
(laterally uniform concentrations): (lateral concentration gradients): Less
Greater oxygen demand. oxygen demand. Collect samples in
direction of highest concentrations.
5.4 SOIL GAS PROBE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION

Soil gas probes can be constructed of a variety of materials and installed using
several techniques. Critical aspects to probe construction include (i) probes
should be constructed from materials that are relatively inert and non-sorptive,
(ii) techniques should be used to minimize the potential for short-circuiting of
atmospheric air to the probe soil gas collection point, and (iii) the probe should
remain sealed between sampling events. The main options for installation of
soil gas probes include:
• Probes installed in boreholes in soil or coreholes;

• Probes installed via direct push technology, or soil gas samples
collected using direct push equipment while it is in the ground; and,
Further discussion on the probe materials and installation methods for each of
the above probe types is described below. Useful information is also provided
in Atlantic PIRI (2006), API (2005), Geoprobe (2006) and EPRI (2005). For
all probe types, it is important that subsurface utilities be located prior to
installation.

5-16
5.4.1 Probes Installed in Boreholes
Drilling methods that limit disturbance to surrounding soil such as core-
barrels, augers or rotary sonic are preferred over methods that result in greater
disturbance (air rotary, which should only be used in bedrock that cannot be
penetrated by augers), although a re-equilibration period of a few weeks or
more before sampling is highly recommended. Mud-rotary or water-rotary
methods should not be used to install soil gas probes.
Probes installed in boreholes are constructed in a similar fashion to

groundwater monitoring wells; however, there are important differences in
design. Generally short screens (0.1 to 0.3 m length) should be used for
probes since typically the objective is to characterize local soil gas
concentrations (i.e., over a small volume), although the screen length may also
be chosen as a proportion of the thickness of the vadose zone. Longer screens
may also be considered for fractured media deposits to intersect a larger
number of fractures that may be impacted by contaminants in soil vapour. The
probe diameter should be kept small (between 6 mm (1/4 inch) and 25 mm (1
inch)) to minimize purge volumes.
Two common probe designs are rigid PVC pipe and “implants” constructed of
steel mesh screens connected to flexible tubing. For probes constructed of
continuous PVC pipe to ground surface, 19 mm (¾ inch) diameter pipe is
commonly available and suitable for soil gas probes (smaller diameter rigid pipe
is more difficult to obtain). While the slot size for groundwater wells is
typically No. 10 slot (0.01 inch), a larger slot size (up to No. 40 slot) may be
used for PVC soil gas probes since there is less potential for the filter pack to
intrude into the probe within the unsaturated zone. Commercially-available
implants are typically 0.15 to 0.3 m long, 12.5 mm (½ inch) in diameter, and
connected to ground surface using 6 mm (¼ inch) tubing. A potential
disadvantage of smaller diameter tubing (i.e., 6 mm or smaller) is frictional
losses if pneumatic tests are to be performed. A threaded cap should be placed
over top of the riser pipe and riser pipe segments should be flush-threaded with
o-ring seal. No glue should be used for construction of probes.
Coarse sand or fine gravel should be placed surrounding the screened portion
of the probe, and a bentonite seal (minimum 0.3 m thick) should be
constructed above the screened portion of the probe. Since soil gas probes are
installed in the unsaturated zone where soil moisture may be relatively low,
careful consideration should be given to the hydration of the bentonite seal. A
competent seal can be constructed through use of dry granular bentonite
(16 mesh) and addition of distilled water to the bentonite during installation.
Granular bentonite has a particle size much like the sand used for a filter-pack,
and so it will settle effectively within the borehole, but hydrates rapidly. Two
or three lifts of granular bentonite and water is usually sufficient to form a
competent seal. Bentonite chips or pellets do not hydrate quickly enough to
form a good seal by this method. Another effective method of sealing the

5-17
borehole annulus is to use a thick slurry of powdered bentonite and water
(“volclay grout”) that is tremied to the base of the hole. In cohesionless soils,
the seal and filter pack should be installed as the rods (or casing) are removed
to prevent collapse of the borehoe walls and an incomplete seal. In cohesive
soils, it may be possible to install a probe after the rods are removed providing
the hole stays completely open and a proper seal can be achieved.
If multiple probes are installed in a single borehole, the borehole above and
below each probe should be sealed with granular bentonite. After allowing the
seal to set overnight, the integrity of the seal should be checked by drawing a
vacuum on each probe, and measuring the vacuum at adjacent probes. For a
competent seal, there will be little cross-communication in vacuum between
adjacent probes and any vacuum observed will develop slowly. Soil gas
probes should be completed with an air-tight valve or stopcock at surface to
prevent atmospheric air from entering the probe, and protected using a well
cover or other similar protective casing for security and weatherproofing. If
multi-level probes are used, each probe should be tagged with a permanent
label, using no glues, or markers. In general, a similar or higher level of care
and quality control to that employed for monitoring wells should be followed
when installing a soil gas probe.
Potential advantages of permanent probes installed in boreholes are that

temporal variability can be assessed through repeat sampling and there is
greater installation flexibility (i.e., deep probes, dense soils). In addition, the
filter pack that surrounds the screen provides for more open area for drawing a
soil gas sample than a driven probe. A potential disadvantage of probes
installed in boreholes may be access restrictions for drill rigs.
5.4.2 Direct Push Technology

Direct-push techniques can be used to install a single soil gas implant in a
borehole. Direct push rods are pushed to the desired depth, and implants
(described above in Section 5.4.1) are installed post-run after the desired depth
is reached by lowering the implant down the hollow rods and attaching it to a
detachable anchor drive point. A sand pack and bentonite seal should be
installed through the push rods as they are removed to minimize the potential
for short-circuiting of atmospheric air from ground surface to the sampling
point. The position of the filter pack and seal should be confirmed using a
tamping rod. Natural collapse of the formation around the probes will not
provide a competent seal and should not be relied upon.
A potential advantage of using direct push technology is that implants can be

rapidly installed with minimal disturbance. A potential disadvantage is that
soil core is not collected for assessment of geologic material properties. In
addition, the presence of overconsolidated till, rubble, gravel or cobbles may
hinder or preclude the use of direct-push technology.

5-18
The use of driven probes is discouraged in low permeability finer-grained soils

as it is difficult to ensure the absence of annular leakage, which is more likely
to become a path of least resistance in low permeability soils. Tracer tests
(e.g., using helium) are recommended to evaluate possible annular leakage
along the outside of driven probes.
5.4.3 Use of Water Table Monitoring Wells as Soil Gas Probes

Soil gas samples can also be obtained from groundwater monitoring wells
screened across the water table provided the well screen extends above the
capillary fringe, and the annulus above the well screen is sealed with a
bentonite slurry or grout. Prior to collecting a sample for analysis, an air-tight
fitting will need to be attached to the top of the well, and the well should be
purged by removing a minimum of two to three casing volumes of air. During
purging, soil gas concentrations may be measured to monitor the effect of
purging, and samples should be collected after field screening readings
stabilize. For typical well diameters, a purge rate of several litres per minute
may be required, and therefore an appropriate sized pump is required for this
approach. Since groundwater wells are typically vented at surface, the amount
of purging required to achieve stable field screening readings may be
considerably more than 2 or 3 casing volumes.
5.4.4 Subslab Soil Gas Probes

Prior to drilling or coring through concrete slabs, relevant structural and utility
information should be reviewed to evaluate whether drilling or coring could
adversely affect the integrity of the building envelope, foundation slab or
subsurface utilities, and whether there are any potential health and safety
issues with drilling or coring. As warranted, geophysical techniques should be
used to identify the location of re-bar within concrete slabs prior to drilling.
After drilling the hole and prior to installation of the probe, the hole should be
temporarily sealed (e.g., using a rubber stopper) to minimize disturbance to
subslab vapour concentrations.
Typically, the objective of subslab soil gas sampling is to characterize vapour

concentrations in foundation subsoils immediately below the slab. Therefore,
permanent probes typically consist of stainless steel or brass inserts installed
within a corehole that are sealed with concrete grout (USEPA, 2004). The
concrete grout should consist of Portland cement, aggregate and water, and
should not contain any additives that could contain VOCs. A fast setting,
hydrating (swelling) cement may be a better option provided there are no
additives that give off VOCs. A subslab probe design by USEPA (2004) is
shown in Figure 11.
An alternate design for installation of a temporary soil gas probe involves

drilling of a smooth-walled small hole that is slightly smaller than the outer

5-19
diameter of the metal insert to be used (e.g., suggested diameter is about 12.5 to
19 mm) . TeflontTM-tape is wrapped around the outside of the metal insert,
which is then forced through the hole to the base of the concrete slab. Another
method of sealing the probe within the corehole is to use a rubber stopper with
tubing inserted through a hole in the stopper.
The insert or tubing should stick up a few centimeters above the concrete floor
and a seal constructed of bentonite or other suitable inert material (e.g.,
modeling clay) should be placed around the insert or tubing. Although
permanent probes sealed in boreholes are preferred, both of the above methods
may be acceptable provided that a high level of care is taken to ensure an
adequate seal. Regardless of the sealant method, a leak tracer test is
recommended to verify the seal.
FIGURE 11: USEPA (2004)

Recommended Design for Subslab
Soil Gas Probes.

5-20
Tubing Study
A study of three tubing materials (PEEK, Teflon and Nylon) by Air Toxics Ltd. (Hayes
et al., 2006) evaluated (i) background artifacts generated by a 2-foot length of tubing,
and (ii) recovery of known 0.5 ppbV standard after gas flowed through a 2-foot length
of tubing. The background test generally indicated highest artifact concentrations for
Nylon tubing, which for toluene and benzene, on average, were 0.77 µg/m3 and 0.43
µg/m3, respectively. The concentrations for Teflon tubing were lower, except for 1,1-
Difluoroethane (average of 13.8 µg/m3). The recovery test indicated good recoveries
(70-130%) for all tubing, except for heavier molecular compounds for Nylon only,
where recovery for naphthalene was 31%. This study shows tubing can influence soil
vapour and air monitoring results, particularly given a short length of tubing was used
for the study. The study indicates that Teflon and PEEK may perform better than Nylon
for low-level analysis (note conversion of ppbV to µg/m3 assumed 20oC).
5.4.5 Probe Materials

Relatively inert and non-porous materials are preferred for soil gas sampling.
While probes constructed of stainless steel are desirable, based on practical
considerations, PVC probes are often installed. There have only been a few
studies evaluating tubing, but acceptable materials are considered to include
TeflonTM, Nylon (Nyla-FlowTM), polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and
ChemfluorTM. High density polyethylene (HDPE) tubing may also be
acceptable, but may be subject to greater sorption than the above materials.
Silicon and Tygon tubing are highly sorptive and should not be used.
Couplings that are compression-fittings or Swage-lok connections are
preferred, although tight barbed-fittings (with tubing pushed over at least 3
barbs) should also provide for a reasonable seal. Glue, tape or other materials
that could emit volatiles should not be used as part of probe construction.
Relatively small diameter probes and tubing should be used to minimize purge
volumes, although if pneumatic tests are performed, tubing diameter should be
sufficiently large to avoid excessive line losses. Sampling trains should be
kept as short as practical to minimize potential sorption.
Only new materials should be used, except when temporary steel probes are
re-used. Steel probes should be decontaminated prior to use. Care should be
taken when storing and handling probe material to avoid contamination.
For security and to prevent damage to probes, metal well protectors or well
covers, with locking caps should be considered.

5-21
5.4.6 Short-Circuiting Considerations and Shallow Probes
Short-circuiting of atmospheric air to the probe can occur between the probe
and soil, and leakage of soil gas and/or atmospheric air can occur at probe
joints. Prevention of short-circuiting and leaks is particularly important for
low permeability soil deposits.
For finer-grained soils, the process of driving a steel probe may cause
deflection of the probe, movement and cracking of soil around the probe, and
hence the potential for short-circuiting during sampling. For driven probes,
the surface surrounding the probe should be sealed with bentonite prior to
sampling, or suitable alternate material that is inert (e.g., modeling clay). It is
important to avoid the lateral or vertical movement of probes once installed to
minimize any separation between the soils and the outside of the probes.
The probe surface seal integrity may be tested by introducing a tracer gas (e.g.,
helium) around the probe at the contact with the ground surface and then
analyzing the collected soil gas samples for the tracer gas.
5.5 SOIL GAS SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Soil gas sampling procedures addressed in this section are soil gas
equilibration, probe performance testing, sampling containers,
decontamination, methods to detect leaks and short-circuiting, and purging
and sampling. The methods used should be documented throughout the
sampling process. A good overview of sampling procedures is also provided
in API (2005), Geoprobe (2006), ITRC (2007) and EPRI (2005).
5.5.1 Probe Development and Soil Gas Equilibration

Soil gas probes should be developed by removing air entrained during
installation or allowed to re-equilibrate via diffusion prior to sampling. Three
probe volumes of air (including the probe pipe or tubing and the pore volume
of the sand pack) should be removed during development. Otherwise, the
probe should be allowed to re-equilibrate prior to sampling. Suggested
minimum equilibration times are: probes installed in direct push holes (about a
day), probes installed in auger holes (a few days). For probes installed using
air rotary drilling, purging and field screening should be performed after
installation until soil vapour concentrations stabilize, and then the probes
should be allowed to re-equilibrate for a few weeks prior to sampling.

5-22
Equilibration Time for Sand Pack

To answer how long does it take for the sand pack to equilibrate with surrounding soil gas,
USEPA (2006) used a diffusion model to calculate equilibration times for different distances
and soil water contents and found in most cases two hours would be sufficient for essentially
steady state conditions to be reached. For example, for a 10 cm diameter borehole, the
equilibration time plot shows a required time of few minutes to less than a few hours for vapour
within the sand pack to come to equilibrium depending on the moisture content.
5.5.2 Flow and Vacuum (Probe Performance) Check

The performance testing of selected probes should be conducted prior to soil
gas sampling. The objective of the performance test is to verify the flow and
vacuum are within acceptable ranges prior to sampling. The test is conducted
by withdrawing soil gas from the probe at the desired flow rate using a pump
and measuring the vacuum. If the vacuum exceeds 10 inches of water, a lower
flow rate should be used to reduce the vacuum, where practical. Flow and
vacuum measurements may also be used to estimate the soil-air permeability
using mathematical models for soil gas flow to a point probe (Garbesi et al.,
1995) or to a well (Johnson et al., 1990). Such tests may involve measuring
vacuum for several different flow rates (i.e., step tests). For subslab soil gas
samples, a lower vacuum (less than 1 inch of water) would typically be
expected since granular materials are commonly present below foundation
slabs.
As a minimum, allow the vacuum generated during performance testing to

dissipate before collecting a soil gas sample for analysis. If a relatively large
volume of soil gas is removed or high pumping rate is employed during the
performance test (which may cause a local disequilibrium), the probe should
be allowed to re-equilibrate using similar criteria described for well
development.
5.5.3 Sampling Container or Device

Sample collection devices can include evacuated steel canisters, sorbent tubes,
glass cylinders and TedlarTM bags. The selection of a collection device is
influenced by investigation objectives, analytical requirements and detection
limits. For field screening using hand-held detectors, soil gas samples are
often collected using Tedlar bags. The use of vacuum chamber (“lung box”)
to fill Tedlar bags avoids passing soil gas through a pump and possible pump
contamination that may result. Gas-tight syringes are often used for on-site
analysis using mobile laboratories (Hayes et al, 2007). Soil gas samples
collected for analysis by a fixed laboratory for VOCs should generally be
obtained using sorbent tubes or stainless steel (e.g., SummaTM) or glass-lined

5-23
(e.g., SilcoSteelTM) canisters. Glass cylinders or Tedlar bags may be
appropriate for light gas analysis (oxygen, carbon dioxide, methane).
Sampling devices are compared in Table 7.
TABLE 7. Soil Gas Sample Collection Containers and Devices
TedlarTM Bags • Tedlar bags are available in volumes ranging from 10 ml to 10 litre;
typically a 0.5 to 1 litre bag is used for soil gas sampling.
• Tedlar bags can be filled using a: 1) small battery-powered electric
pump, 2) peristaltic pump or 3) vacuum chamber. Electric pumps
can become contaminated and thus cross-contamination is possible.
At higher vacuums, pumps do not function well and may leak. An
advantage of peristaltic pumps is that soil gas does not pass through
the pump. The vacuum chamber method involves placing a Tedlar
bag in a sealed chamber that is evacuated, which in turn causes the
bag to fill with soil gas. The vacuum chamber method is
advantageous in lower permeability soils in that there is least
potential for ambient air leakage (e.g., through leaking pumps or
connections).
• Studies indicate significant leakage of Tedlar bags over the first 24
to 48 hours after sampling (Wang et al., 1996; and Andino and
Butler, 1991).
• Tedlar bag samples should be analyzed as quickly as possible.
Although reported analytical holding times are up to seven days,
analysis of bags within 24 and 48 hours is recommended.
Glass Cylinders • Glass cylinders are available in a range of volumes; typically a 0.5
to 1 litre cylinder is used for soil gas sampling;
• The glass cylinder is placed in-line between the probe and pump.
• Glass cylinders are typically supplied by the analytical laboratory
filled with high-purity nitrogen.
• Once purging is completed, the cylinder should be inserted into the
sampling train. An additional five cylinder volumes should be
purged through the cylinder before simultaneously closing both
stopcocks.
• Glass cylinders should be analyzed as quickly as possible.
Although reported analytical holding times are up to seven days,
analysis of cylinders within 24 and 48 hours is recommended.
Gas-Tight • Gas-tight syringes are used to collect small volume gas samples
Syringes (typically 5 to 60 ml). Syringes may be glass/Teflon or plastic, but
there are large differences in sorptive properties.
• Gas-tight syringes are typically used for on-site gas
chromatography (GC) analysis.
• Samples should be analyzed within a short time (30 minutes) of
collection.

5-24
Sorbent Tubes • A wide range of sorbent materials are available. Tubes are selected
based on the types and concentrations of volatile chemicals
expected in soil gas.
• Sorbent tubes are placed in-line between the probe and pump.
• Sorbent tube sampling rates are typically 100 to 200 ml/min; the
flow rate supplied by the sampling pump must be accurately
determined.
• The sampling duration will depend on the expected concentration,
flow rate, chemical type, sorbent and desired detection limit.
• For quality control purposes, sorbent tubes often have a “front” and
“back” section, or two tubes are placed in series to evaluate possible
chemical breakthrough.
Stainless Steel or • Canisters have a relatively inert, passivated interior surface.
Glass-lined Steel • Available volumes range from 400 ml to 6 litres.
Canisters • Canisters are supplied under vacuum. The vacuum is measured
prior to shipping by the laboratory, immediately prior to and after
sampling using a gauge supplied by the laboratory, and by the
laboratory upon receipt. Significant differences in laboratory and
field vacuums (beyond the range of accuracy of the gauge) indicate
possible leakage during shipping.
• There should be a residual vacuum left in the canisters; otherwise,
the sample will not represent the entire planned sampling interval.
• The sampling rate is typically controlled by a flow controller (either
mass flow controller or critical orifice).
5.5.4 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment

Clean equipment and sample containers should be used for soil gas sampling.
This can be implemented through decontamination of equipment or through
the use of new, unused equipment. Care should also be taken when handling
equipment since sampling equipment could be contaminated through dirty
containers, permanent marking pens, hands, vehicle exhaust, etc. The level of
decontamination may depend on the objectives of the soil gas survey and
detection limits for analytical testing.
If the soil gas survey is limited to testing of soil gas samples using a field
photoionization detector (PID) or flame ionization detector (FID) measuring to
part-per-million levels, it may be appropriate to re-use the soil gas probes,
tubing and sampling containers (e.g., Tedlar bags). However, prior to
installing a probe and collecting each sample, a field blank sample comprised
of ambient air should be collected through the entire sampling train and tested
using the field PID or FID. If concentrations in the field blank are elevated
above background ambient levels, the equipment should be cleaned or new
equipment should be used.
If the soil gas survey involves collection of soil gas samples for part-per-
billion analysis, greater care must be taken with respect to decontamination
and verification of clean sampling equipment and containers. It is

5-25
recommended that the analytical laboratory be required to demonstrate that the
containers and flow controllers, if applicable, are clean prior to shipment to the
site and that new sample tubing in all cases be used for each soil gas probe.
Field blanks should be obtained using certified zero gas as opposed to ambient
air.
5.5.5 Testing of Equipment for Leaks and Short Circuiting

There are several ways in which the sampling train can be tested for leaks. A
simple method is to apply either a pressure or vacuum to the sampling train
and to monitor whether the pressure or vacuum holds over time. When under
pressure, a soapy-water solution may be used to identify any couplings that
may be leaking since air bubbles should be observed. An alternate method,
described by API (2005), involves testing of sampling equipment for potential
leaks using a tracer gas (e.g., diluted helium) of known concentration that is
drawn through the sampling equipment at the approximate vacuum anticipated
during sampling.
A leak tracer test may also be conducted by introducing helium beneath a

shroud that covers the probe and part of the sampling train. A soil gas sample
is collected from the probe using a Tedlar bag and analyzed using a hand-held
helium detector that provides readings with a range of 0.01% to 100%.
Advantages of a helium leak tracer test are that data can rapidly be obtained in
the field and it is a relatively simple test to perform and helium does not
interfere with subsequent laboratory analysis. A liquid tracer such as iso-
propanol may also be deployed by wrapping paper towels soaked with the
tracer around the probe and connections in the sampling train. Potential
disadvantages with liquid tracers are that they may interfere with laboratory
analyses, do not provide for near real-time results (unless analyzed by a field
laboratory), and experience suggests the liquid tracer may diffuse or permeate
through very small cracks.
Potential short-circuiting of atmospheric air during sampling can also be

indirectly evaluated through careful examination of oxygen and carbon
dioxide data. For example, oxygen concentrations are generally depleted in
the presence of elevated hydrocarbon vapour concentrations, so if a soil gas
sample contain high concentrations of both hydrocarbons and oxygen, there is
a good chance that atmospheric air leaked into the sample (see Section 5-9 for
additional discussion).

5-26
5.5.6 Sample Probe Purging and Sampling
Purging Probe
The purpose of purging is to

Purging and Sampling Summary
ensure a representative soil gas
sample is collected by removing 1. Allow probe to equilibrate.
stagnant air from the probe and 2. Check for leaks in sampling
filter pack prior to collecting a equipment.
sample. Typically, the objective 3. Calculate the dead volume based on
is to obtain a soil gas sample the inner volume of probe and tubing.
4. Purge three volumes from the probe.
from the geologic material
5. A flow rate between 20 and 200
immediately surrounding the ml/min should generally be used for
probe, therefore excessive purging and sampling.
purging should be avoided. In 6. Monitor the vacuum during purging;
properly sealed probes, reduce the flow rate if the vacuum
concentrations generally stabilize exceeds 5 inches water.
after the probe tubing and sand 7. Use direct reading instrument to
pack are purged (EPA, 2006, monitor VOC concentrations during
Creamer and McAlary, 2006). purging, where practical.
8. When purging is complete, close the
sampling valve and allow the vacuum
Cody (2003) evaluated purge to dissipate before collecting a sample.
volumes on the basis of a
differential equation for the sequential and complete mixing of VOCs over
each time step within the entire volume under consideration (probe and
tubing). On the basis of this equation, the estimated concentration within the
probe volume reaches 90 percent of the input concentration after purging
about three volumes. For narrow diameter tubing, fewer purge volumes are
likely needed to obtain a representative sample due to reduced mixing
resulting from more a “plug flow” phenomena. Based on the above, the
removal of three purge volumes prior to sample collection is considered
appropriate.
Sequential sampling and field screening with portable instruments such as a

PID, FID or landfill gas meter may also be used during the purging process to
demonstrate stable readings before a sample is collected. This technique is
analogous to the low-flow groundwater sampling technique (Puls and
Barcelona, 1996).
Larger Volume Purge Sampling
Larger purge volumes and longer sampling times may be desirable if the intent
is to evaluate conditions beyond the immediate proximity of the soil gas probe
(Lewis et al., 2004; Lewis et al., 2005). If the approximate permeability and
soil gas flow regime is known, a volume-integrated concentration may be
obtained. The concentration trends over time as measured by direct reading

5-27
instruments may also provide qualitative information on spatial variability in
source concentrations. For example, slowly increasing concentrations could
indicate a higher soil gas concentration zone laterally removed from the probe.
Large volume sampling may disturb the local equilibrium and therefore it may
take some time for equilibrium conditions to be re-established.
Sampling Flow Rate
The soil air permeability has an important influence on sampling flow rate
since the vacuum generated increases as permeability decreases. One study
demonstrated that soil vapour concentrations were not sensitive to flow rate of
up to 10 L/min, in properly sealed probes in moderately permeable materials
(Creamer and McAlary, 2006). Conversely, it may not be practical to collect
samples at flow rates of 100 ml/min in fine-grained soil without imposing an
excessive vacuum. High vacuums make it more difficult to collect a soil gas
sample and increase the potential for leakage (if there are small leaks in seals).
Some guidance documents also suggest that high vacuums enhance the
volatilization or desorption of chemicals (ITRC, 2007; API, 2005). Where
possible, the vacuum during sampling should be less than 10 inches water
column (by adjusting the flow rate), although it may be possible to collect
samples at vacuums as high as 100 inches. The flow and vacuum can be
easily measured using a T-junction connected to a digital manometer and
rotameter to determine an appropriate sampling flow rate for a given geologic
material permeability (EPRI, 2005; ITRC, 2007). Practically, the sampling
rate is often dictated by the sampling device. For Summa canisters, use of a
flow regulator is good practice, and typically results in sampling rates between
about 5 and 100 ml/min. For most sorbent tubes, the analytical protocols
indicate that sampling rate should not exceed 200 ml/min.
Sample Collection
Samples for VOCs are typically collected in Summa canisters, although glass
bulbs, Tedlar bags, and glass and Teflon syringes may be acceptable for some
chemicals, and adsorbent media tubes filled with Tenax, PUF/XAD, or other
materials may be necessary for compounds that are not easily recovered from
whole-gas containers (compounds heavier than naphthalene are typically
analyzed by adsorbent media sampling).
Summa canisters should have their initial vacuum checked prior to use to
assure the canister did not leak enroute to the site, and a flow controller
attached prior to sample collection. The residual vacuum after sample
collection should also be recorded and verified upon receipt by the laboratory
to assure that the canister did not leak during return shipment.
Tedlar bags should be filled using a vacuum chamber, and not from the
exhaust of a pump to avoid cross-contamination issues.

5-28
Once purging is complete, soil gas samples from conventional soil gas probes
should generally be collected using the same sampling flow rate as for
purging. For subslab soil gas probes, it may be desirable to collect a subslab
gas sample concurrently with an indoor air sample to reduce influence short-
term variability and enable comparisons to indoor air data over the same time
period. Indoor air samples are typically obtained over a 24-hour period. The
soil gas sampling rate for a 6-litre subslab Summa sample collected over 24
hours is about 6 mL/minute. Sampling of probes at a site should be completed
over a relatively short time period (e.g., within one week) to provide an
internally consistent data set (Lahvis, 2002). If any water is drawn in the
sample container, re-collect the sample after taking measures to eliminate
water.
Sample Handling and Storage
Soil gas samples obtained using syringes, steel canisters or glass cylinders
should not be placed in a chilled cooler for transport since volatiles may
condense out the vapour phase at lower temperature (Hartman, 2002).
Samples should not be subjected to excessive heat.
Tedlar bags and glass cylinders should be placed inside a container

immediately after collection to avoid possible photo-oxidation reactions.
For sorbent tubes, cool storage (approximately 4oC) in sealed containers is

recommended. Sorbent tubes should be stored in a sealed plastic container
containing a bed of activated carbon to minimize the potential for adsorption
of ambient VOCs. All soil gas samples should be transported in separate
containers from soil and groundwater samples.
5.6 SOIL GAS ANALYSIS
5.6.1 Selection of Method

Analytical testing methods appropriate for analyzing soil gas samples will be
dependent on vapour intrusion assessment objectives, sampling method and
data quality objectives. Soil gas programs often consist of a combination of
field testing of soil gas samples using hand-held detectors and laboratory
analysis of selected soil gas samples for specific chemicals of potential
concern. Since analytical testing is a broad topic, only an overview of the key
issues is provided below. Common analytical methods for soil vapour are
summarized in Table 8, with a detailed list provided in Appendix III.
It is important to understand procedures and potential limitations associated

with different testing methods. Since soil vapour and air methods are not as
well defined as groundwater methods, adequate consultation with the

5-29
laboratory is essential. The types of information that should be discussed
include optimal sampling flow rate and duration, detection limits, laboratory
QA/QC requirements and considerations, and the handling and transport of
samples. Communication with the laboratory at the early stages ensures that
important analytical considerations are taken into account during the
development of the sampling plan.
5.6.2 Field Detectors

Field detectors commonly used are PIDs or FIDs, combustible gas detectors or
explosimeters, and multi-gas detectors for compounds such as oxygen, carbon
dioxide and methane, which are important for studies evaluating
biodegradation. PIDs will respond to most organic vapours as well as some
inorganic vapours (hydrogen sulphide, ammonia) depending on the ionization
lamp energy. The sensitivity of a PID varies depending on the compound, and
moisture and flow rate can bias readings; therefore care should be taken when
conducting soil gas surveys. Combustible gas detectors are typically
calibrated to methane in air, but also readily respond to heavier hydrocarbon
(e.g., gasoline) vapours. Filters can be used to enable light (methane) and
heavier organic vapours to be quantified, if desired. It is important to
document the type of combustible gas detector and mode of operation. PIDs,
which measure hydrocarbon vapour concentrations to ppm, or even ppb levels,
are generally more sensitive than combustible gas detectors.
While field detectors are valuable for site screening, the limitations associated
with these instruments, including non-specificity to compounds of possible
interest and the effect of environmental factors and sampling methods, should
be clearly understood (Robbins et al., 1990). Field detectors should generally
not be directly connected to sampling probes when taking measurements,
unless it can be demonstrated that possible sampling flow rate constrictions
and vacuums generated by sampling will not affect the field detector response.
PIDs, in particular, are sensitive to variation in the sampling flow rate.
Samples should generally be obtained in Tedlar bags to facilitate readings
taken using field detectors. All instruments should be calibrated on a daily or
more frequent basis.

5-30
TABLE 8: Summary of Common Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis Methods
Compound Collection Method

Method Comments
Class Device No.
Field VOCs Tedlar Bag PID/FID • Lower cost, real time
Screening results, equipment is
Methods simple to use
• PID sensitive to moisture
Light Gases Tedlar Bag Infrared and dust
(O2, CO2, (CO2, CH4), • FID requires H2 source
CH4) electrochemi and more operator
cal (O2) training
Combustible Tedlar Bag Platinum • Generally ppm detection
Gases catalyst limits (except light gases,
which may be % level)
• Not compound specific
• Some detectors, such as
those for landfill gases,
are designed to sample
against vacuum; other
instruments are sensitive
to vacuum and flow rate
constrictions
Field VOCs (e.g., Glass and Modified • Near real time results
Laboratory BTEX) Teflon GC/PID USEPA
Methods syringe, 8021B • Use of liquid (as opposed
Tedlar Bag GC/MS Modified to gas) calibration
USEPA standards may not provide
8260B representative data for
some compounds
• May need to analyze sub-
set of samples using fixed
laboratory methods
Fixed VOCs sorbent tube, GC/FID1 OSHA 7 / • Lower detection limits
Laboratory solvent NIOSH (except some NMOC &
Analysis extraction methods TVOC methods)
VOCs and sorbent tube, GC/MS USEPA • More rigorous QA/QC
SVOCs thermal TO-17 • Higher cost
extraction • Depending of chemical,
may be issues for sorbent
VOCs Specially– GC/MS USEPA
tube analysis (e.g.,
treated TO-14A
recovery, breakthrough)
(e.g., Summa /TO-15
) canister • High humidity can cause
problems for analysis
PAHs Polyurthane GC/MS USEPA
foam (PUF) TO-13A

5-31
Compound Collection Method

Method Comments
Class Device No.
TVOC & sorbent tube, GC/FID NIOSH
Hydrocarbon solvent 1550
Fractions2 extraction
TVOC & Canister GC/FID USEPA
Hydrocarbon (Summa or (Cryotrap) TO-3
Fractions non treated),
Tedlar Bag
NMOC Canister or FID USEPA
on-line TO-12
Light Gases Canister, GC/TCD ASTM
(e.g.,O2, Tedlar Bag, D1945-03
CO2, CH4, Glass syringe
CO, H2)
Notes:
1. MS is also used by commercial labs but is not part of the reference method.
2. Hydrocarbon fractions can consist of both ranges (e.g., TVOC (C6-10), TVOC (C10-19)) and
aromatic and aliphatic fractions (e.g., CCME CWS-PHC approach)
3. GC = gas chromatograph, PID = photoionization detector, FID = flame ionization detector,
TCD = thermal conductivity detector, MS = Mass Selective detector
4. USEPA = US Environmental Protection Agency
5. NIOSH = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (USA)
6. OSHA = Occupational Safety & Health Administration (USA)
7. NMOC = non-methane organic compounds
8. CCME = Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment
9. CWS-PHC = Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds
5.6.3 Field Laboratory Analysis

Field laboratory methods are used when a greater degree of precision or
component-specific information is required to make real-time decisions than
that provided by a field screening method. The advantages of field laboratory
methods are near real-time results, which can be used to modify programs
while in progress, and potentially lower costs if the number of samples
analyzed is high. Also the ability to collect repeat samples can be an advantage
for assessing sampling, temporal, and spatial variability. The disadvantage of
field laboratory methods are higher detection limits than fixed laboratory
methods based on U.S. EPA TO- protocols (see below). Possible regulatory
requirements for soil gas analytical protocols should also be reviewed when
evaluating field laboratory analysis.
Field laboratory methods include the use of portable gas chromatographs

(GCs) that are brought to the site to analyze grab samples on an on-going
basis. Soil gas air is usually collected using gas-tight syringes and is injected
into the GC (or purge-and-trap apparatus) for analysis. The portable GC
usually analyses data through photo ionization, flame ionization or electron
capture detectors (e.g., modified USEPA Method 8021B). The precision of

5-32
the results can vary depending on the equipment used. There are now some
contractors that provide field testing services using portable mass
spectrometers (MS), which provide greater certainty for compound
identification (e.g., modified USEPA Method 8260B). Modified water
methods (Method 8021B and 8260B) can work well for many compounds, but
for non-polar compounds and heavier molecular weight compounds such as
naphthalene, recovery tends to be poor (Hayes et al., 2005).
5.6.4 Fixed Laboratory Analysis

For risk assessment studies, low detection limits and more rigorous quality
control requirements typically require that soil gas samples be collected using
either active sorbent tubes (i.e., air is drawn through tube using pump) or
passivated steel canisters, and quantified by GC/MS methods. The use of
GC/FID analysis is generally not recommended due to non-specificity of
compound identification.
Sampling using a sorbent tube is an indirect method of estimating the soil

vapour concentration in that the test measures the mass of chemical trapped on
the sorbent. The air concentration is estimated by dividing the mass by the
total volume of air drawn through the tube. The canister method involves
collection of a “whole air” sample enabling direct analysis of the soil vapour
sample. Both methods are described in detail below.
Sorbent Tube Method
The use of sorbent tubes for sampling and analysis of soil vapour is relatively
complicated and there are numerous factors to consider. While a number of
methods are available, it is important to recognize that they are air methods
that have been modified for soil vapour.
Analytical Methods: A key distinguishing factor between methods is

whether thermal desorption (e.g., USEPA TO-17) or solvent extraction is used
(e.g., modified OSHA 7 or NIOSH 1501 methods).
Thermal desorption involves rapidly heating the sorbent to desorb the VOC,
while passing an inert carrier gas through the tube. The VOCs are carried by
the gas and concentrated on a smaller downstream trap, which usually is
cryogenically cooled. For thermal desorption, the whole sample is released
from the sorbent during the heated desorption step. While some of the earlier
thermal desorption units do not allow for the possibility for replicate analyses,
the newest units have the capability of re-collecting a portion of sample during
the primary desorption step to allow for re-analysis. Additionally, sample
introduction parameters can be modified such that less mass is loaded onto the
GC/MS in order to perform sample dilutions (this is important since soil
vapour concentrations, as compared to air, can be very high and potentially

5-33
overload the GC/MS). The sensitivity of thermal desorption techniques
requires a smaller soil gas volume to meet screening levels than solvent
extraction techniques.
Solvent extraction involves use of a solvent such as carbon disulphide to

extract the sample. In contrast to thermal desorption, replicate analyses can be
performed on the extract. While chemical extraction methods are adapted
from industrial hygiene practice and are typically not as sensitive as thermal
desorption, higher detection limits may not be an issue for soil vapour analysis
(but may be problematic for air analyses). To achieve low detection limits,
NIOSH or OSHA methods involving chemical extraction are modified and
typically utilize a larger mass of sorbent combined with longer sampling
durations. As discussed below, longer sampling durations can pose challenges
in terms of breakthrough.
Types of Sorbents: Sorbents used for VOCs commonly used consist of

charcoal, polymeric and/or carbonaceous resins. There are wide variations in
sorbent properties. Since soil gas typically has a relative humidity of close to
100 percent, hydrophobic sorbents are preferred since sorbed water reduces
the retention of VOCs, and because water vapour can affect the GC analysis
(Harper, 1994). Polar VOC compounds can also partition into the water phase
reducing recovery. Elevated ozone levels (150 to 300 ppm) have been
reported to result in reduced recovery for certain VOCs such as styrene and
aldehydes (McClenny et al., 2002). Other issues for sorbent sampling include
sorbent pore size and uniformity, possible reactions between the sorbent and
adsorbed molecules, and slow breakdown of certain polymeric sorbents and
release of aromatic hydrocarbons (Harper, 1994). Special attention should be
paid to sorbents selected for analysis of highly volatile chemicals such as vinyl
chloride, which are difficult to trap using sorbent media.
The laboratory methods typically specify the type of sorbent to use. Coconut
shell charcoal is typically used for BTEX analysis (NIOSH 1501). For
chlorinated solvent compounds, some laboratories use the same method but
substitute newer more sorptive materials such as processed synthetic carbon
(e.g., Anasorb 747) or molecular sieve materials in place of the coconut shell
charcoal. For USEPA TO-17 analysis, tubes containing three materials with
differing sorptive properties (e.g., graphitized carbon black, carbon molecular
sieve) that are designed to optimize the collection process are used. Thermal
tubes designed to perform well under conditions of high humidity should be
selected. Sorbents used for semi-volatile (PAH) analyses (naphthalene and
heavier molecular weight compounds) often consist of TeflonTM-impregnated
glass fibres followed by a resin (XAD-2) sorbent (NIOSH 5515) or
polyurethane (PUF) foam cartridge (USEPA Method TO-13A). Since
trapping of particulates for soil vapour is usually not an objective, typically
only the XAD resin sorbent is used for semi-volatile analyses.

5-34
Sorbent Sampling Volume: The
sampling volume should be Sampling Volume Calculation
carefully determined through
consideration of the expected VOC An example sampling volume
concentration and mass, the calculation is provided for sorbent tube
sorption capacity and required analysis for benzene. Assuming a target
detection limits. When available, indoor air concentration of 3 μg/m3, a
the results of field PID analyses of target detection limit of 30 μg/m3 for a
soil vapour should be soil gas sample is obtained (Eq. 5-1
communicated to the laboratory Section 5.6.5). A typical benzene
detection limit is 0.1 μg (MS detector),
analyst prior to sorbent sampling to
therefore approximately 3.3 litres of soil
guide selection of a sampling gas would need to be drawn through the
duration and flow rate that would tube (0.1μg/30μg/m3 x 1000 L/m3). At a
minimize the potential for chemical sampling rate of 100 ml/min, the
breakthrough. An option is to required sampling duration would be 33
collect two samples over different minutes.
time durations to avoid the
possibility of re-sampling.
Pump Flow Rate: Since the concentration is sensitive to the flow rate, pumps
must be accurately calibrated and provide a constant flow rate throughout the
sampling duration. The pump flow rate must be checked prior to and during
sampling, since actual pump flow rates may vary considerably depending on
the soil air permeability and vacuum. A recent study (Golder Associates,
2007, unpublished) found a significant and roughly linear drop in pump flow
rate under vacuum conditions induced by soil (e.g., 11% drop in flow at 3.4
inches H20, 40% drop at 9 inches H20 and 93% drop at 16.5 inches H20).
Environmental Conditions: Appropriate measures should be taken to

mitigate the effects of high humidity or cold weather when sampling using
sorbent tubes, which may not always be practical to avoid. Reducing the air
flow rate or sampling with varying volumes of air (using multiple samples)
may be a good approach under this circumstance. Further discussion on cold
weather considerations is provided in Exhibit 3.
Canister Method
Low detection limits can be achieved utilizing the Summa canister method
(USEPA Method TO-15) and, in general, the accuracy and precision of
analytical results generated are high. Nevertheless, there are significant issues
for this method as described below.
Analytical Methods: The analytical protocols for the Summa method are
USEPA TO-14A (non-polar compounds) (USEPA, 1999a) and USEPA TO-15
(polar and non-polar compounds) (USEPA, 1999b). USEPA Method TO-15 is
commonly used for soil vapour analyses since there are a number of

5-35
significant improvements for Method TO-15 compared to TO-14A, including
enhanced measures for quality control, specific canister cleaning procedures,
better water management procedures and better recovery of polar compounds.
USEPA Method TO-15 utilizes a gas chromatograph (GC) with a mass
spectrometer (MS) as the detector. When the MS is run in full scan mode up
to 70 compounds can be readily detected with typical reporting limits between
0.2 to 0.5 parts per billion by volume (ppbV). Analytical methodology
considerations are further discussed in Section 6.4.1.
Hardware: Two types of canisters are available: Summa canisters, which are
electro-polished steel canisters and Silco canisters, where the steel is coated
with an inert fused silica layer. The silcosteel canisters internal surface is
intended to be non-reactive with sulphur compounds or compounds that react
with metal surfaces (e.g., polar compounds). However, there is debate
between practitioners on appropriate sampling device for sulphur compounds,
with some advocating the use of Tedlar bags. It is important that the canister
hardware be in good condition. For soil vapour sampling, a one-litre canister
is typically a sufficient volume.
The flow regulator (mass flow controller or critical orifice) should be

appropriately calibrated based on the desired sampling duration and the
vacuum before sampling and residual vacuum after sampling should be
recorded. Flow regulators are temperature and altitude dependent; therefore,
the sampling location should be communicated to the laboratory so that
appropriate adjustments can be made. Laboratories typically conduct
performance studies to verify that flow regulator’s provide for an uniform
sampling rate over the sampling duration, within an acceptable tolerance. If
warranted, flow rates can be verified in the field using an extra canister using
an electronic mass flow meter or rotometer, calibrated for vacuum conditions.
A critical orifice is often used for short duration sampling for soil vapour (i.e.,
up to an hour), but it does not provide for a uniform flow since the flow rate is
a function of the pressure differential. This is not of significant concern for
soil vapour sampling; however, a residual vacuum should remain in the
canister after sampling is complete. For longer duration sampling (e.g., indoor
air sampling), a mass flow controller should be used to provide for a uniform
flow rate. Particulate filters consisting of sintered steel with 2 to 7 micron
pore sizes or deactivated glass frit are placed before the critical orifice. It is
essential that all fittings are tight during sampling.
Equipment Cleaning: The TO methods and hardware were designed to

measure low VOC concentrations in ambient air. At some sites (e.g., dry
cleaners, UST sites with free-phase NAPL), canisters are subject to soil
vapour concentrations that exceed 100,000 to 1,000,000 µg/m3. Experience
has shown that there is a significant potential for contaminant carry over in the
canister, regulator, filter or inlet tube under these conditions. Therefore, all

5-36
equipment must be cleaned and canister blanks tested. Canisters are typically
cleaned by heating the canister and passing humidified zero air under pressure
through the canister. For heavier molecular weight compounds
(trimethylbenzene and heavier), sorption onto metal tubing and filter has been
shown to result in reduced compound recovery (Entech, 2007).
Environmental Conditions: Although a water film on the internal surface of

a Summa canister is needed for an inert surface, excessive humidity can create
challenges for sample recovery and cryogenic focusing prior to analysis,
although an alternate method of multiple focusing steps using non-cooled
sorbent tubes can reduce problems associated with water vapour.
EXHIBIT 3: Considerations for Cold Weather Sampling
In many regions of Canada, environmental investigations may be completed during periods of

relatively cold weather (i.e., freezing temperatures). For soil vapour sampling design the
influence of frost and snow cover on the soil vapour transport should be considered. Frost and
snow cover may limit the flux of contaminant vapours to atmosphere and oxygen recharge to
subsurface. There may also be significant temperature gradients between shallow soil beside and
below a building, where the temperature may be well above freezing. Obtaining a soil vapour
sample within frozen ground, while potentially feasible, is not considered representative and
therefore either deeper external vapour samples or samples from below the building should be
obtained.
Certain pre-cautions should also be taken when conducting soil vapour programs during cold
weather. Field instruments such as photoionization and flame ionization detectors and pumps are
not designed to operate when temperatures are below freezing. Field instruments may be kept
warm in a heated building or vehicle, with field samples collected and transported in Tedlar bags.
Sampling pumps may be kept warm by storing them in insulated coolers or insulated lunch bags
with heat packs. While the cold temperature performance of sorbent tubes is not well understood,
consideration should be given to heating and insulating of sorbent tubes during sampling and
keeping above-ground tubing as short as possible. There may also be condensation through
cooling of warmer soil gas during sampling. Condensation can be particularly problematic for
sorbent tube sampling and therefore sample tubing and bags should be closely observed for any
signs of condensation (e.g., through use of translucent tubing).
Method Selection
The chemical to be measured, detection limit, ease of use, cost, laboratory

certification and quality control are factors that should be considered when
selecting the soil gas analysis method. Sorbent tubes analyzed by modified
OSHA or NIOSH methods may be used to measure a wide range of VOCs to
detection limits typically required for soil vapour; however, breakthrough for
light molecular weight VOCs (e.g., vinyl chloride) can be difficult to control.
Summa canisters can be used to measure a wide range of VOCs including

5-37
naphthalene. Analysis by GC/MS is recommended regardless of the collection
method, except when hydrocarbon fractions are analyzed (see Appendix III).
Tedlar bags should generally not be used to collect samples for laboratory
analyses.
5.6.5 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Considerations

Data Quality Objectives
Data quality objectives should be established as part of the sampling plan in

conjunction with the overall study objectives. In broad terms, the objective is
to ensure that data quality is acceptable and that data can be relied upon for
decision-making purposes. Specific objectives may be developed in terms of
accuracy, precision, data representativeness, data completeness and detection
limits. There may also be specific considerations for cold weather sampling
that should be incorporated in the data quality objectives (Exhibit 3).
The development of a QA/QC plan will help to ensure that the desired data
quality is achieved. Standard operating procedures should be used for
sampling and analytical procedures, including the use of chain of custody
records and identifying sampling locations. Systematic data collection and
planning helps provide for defensible results and increased credibility.
Detection Limits
For risk assessments, the measured vapour concentrations are often used to
predict indoor air concentrations. Required detection limits may be back-
calculated using risk-based target indoor air concentrations combined with a
maximum expected attenuation factor between soil vapour and indoor air. For
subslab or near building soil vapour, a reasonable upper bound attenuation
factor is 0.02. An additional “safety factor” (about 5-10X) should be applied to
provide for greater flexibility in data interpretation and since there is increased
uncertainty near to the detection limit. The target detection limit is calculated as
follows:
DLtarget = Cair / (AF * SF) [5-1]

Where DL is the analytical reporting (detection) limit, AF is the attenuation factor (0.02),
Cair is the target indoor air concentration, and SF is safety factor (5-10).
Testing and Certification that Sampling Device is Clean
For all methods, it is recommended the analytical laboratory demonstrate that

the sampling device (canister, sorbent tube) is clean to below the required
detection limits prior to sampling and analysis, for either a representative
subset or all of the sampling devices. For projects involving soil vapour
analyses where detection limits are in the part-per-billion range, batch

5-38
certification of the sampling devices may be adequate, whereas for projects
involving indoor air analyses at part-per-trillion levels, individual certification
will often be warranted.
Quality Control Samples
Analysis of duplicate samples is required to assess the precision of the method

and variability of the sampling process. The field duplicate samples should be
obtained from the same soil gas probe using identical sampling procedures and
submitted blind to the laboratory. Duplicate samples can either be obtained
simultaneously (i.e., using a splitter) or in sequence. When duplicate samples
are collected in sequence, variability due to temporal changes is introduced.
For indoor and outdoor air sampling, a duplicate sample may be obtained
using a splitter or side-by-side (co-located) samples may be obtained.
The frequency of field and laboratory duplicate sample analyses, while often
each set at 10 percent of the samples analyzed, may depend on the total
number of samples analyzed and analytical method. When only a small
number of samples are tested, it may be desirable to increase the frequency of
testing or pool QC results from multiple programs before drawing conclusions
about data quality. Depending on whether the laboratory has a thermal
desorption unit with re-collection feature, collection of duplicate samples for
thermal desorption analyses may be advantageous in that it enables re-analysis
of a second sample.
While not a duplicate analysis, for sorbent tube analysis, both the front and
back sections of sampling tubes (or two tubes in series) should be analyzed
separately to evaluate for chemical breakthrough.
Depending on project requirements, other quality control samples that may be

analyzed include transport blanks, method blanks and spike samples, as
described below:
• Field transport blanks are sample containers that are shipped with the
other samples, but which are not used for collecting a sample. For
Summa canisters, testing a field transport blank involves filling the
canister with ultra high purity air or nitrogen, which should be supplied
by the laboratory in a separate canister. Such tests may be redundant
when other quality control tests are performed such as laboratory
certification of canisters and testing of the vacuum before and after
sampling, but is an additional quality control test that may be
warranted for some projects
• An equipment blank may be collected by drawing atmospheric air or
high purity inert gas through the sampling train and probe to be

5-39
sampled, prior to installation. This can provide useful data on whether
the sampling train is clean.
• Sample tubes spiked with known concentrations of analytes are used to
evaluate the recovery of the spiked compound and accuracy of the
extraction and analytical procedure. This type of test is normally
performed by the analytical laboratory.
All data should be clearly reported, including blanks, and any suspect results
should be flagged. The interpretation of quality control data is discussed in
Section 5.8.
5.7 ANCILLARY DATA
In addition to measured soil vapour concentrations, the supplemental data

below may assist in understanding the vapour intrusion pathway. This
information may have been collected as part of an environmental site
assessment. However, supplementary data collection may be required if
sufficient information was not collected during investigations completed prior
to the soil vapour sampling program. Additional information is available in
the ITRC (2007) and EPRI (2005) documents.
Passive Soil Vapour Samplers: Passive diffusion samplers contain a

hydrophobic adsorbent material that collects organic compounds over time.
The adsorbed compounds are removed from the adsorbent by thermal
desorption or solvent extraction, and typically analyzed using GC/MS
methods. The passive soil gas method provides the mass of vapours adsorbed
to the media, but currently can not reliably be used to estimate soil vapour
concentrations. Passive soil gas samples are typically deployed for a few days
to weeks, and therefore provide a time-integrated sample. The extended
sampling duration also provides for high sensitivity. In the context of soil
vapour intrusion studies, passive soil gas sampling methods could be useful in
mapping the location of subsurface plumes and for identifying pathways (in
particular when placed in or along utility corridors) for determining locations
for permanent probe placement when the CSM is not well understood.
Passive diffusive samples can be used to estimate VOC concentrations in air

and are described in Chapter 6.
Physical Properties: The properties of significant soil layers of the vadose

zone, including soil moisture, bulk density, air-filled porosity, water-filled
porosity and total organic carbon content may be important in evaluating
vapour intrusion. Care should be taken to minimize re-distribution of soil
moisture or drying of soil during drilling, sampling and storage of samples.
Water retention tests on samples compacted to approximate in situ density can
provide useful data on the likely range of water-filled porosity that could be
expected in soil. Although not commonly performed, consideration can also

5-40
be given to in situ tests to provide estimates of tortuosity (effective diffusion
coefficient) (Johnson et al., 1998; Lahvis et al., 1999) and soil-air
permeability (Baehr et al., 1991).
Hydrogeological Properties: The groundwater elevation during sampling and

during an appropriate period prior to sampling is important when evaluating
the possible seasonal influence on volatilization. The hydraulic conductivity
and gradient are fundamental parameters required to evaluate groundwater
flow systems.
Meteorological Data: There are an increasing number of weather stations

(government, private) for which meteorological data (temperature, barometric
pressure, wind speed and direction, relative humidity and precipitation) can be
readily downloaded. If there is a weather station near the site, this
meteorological data should be obtained. Portable weather stations are also
relatively inexpensive, and barometric pressure can be readily obtained (e.g.,
BarologgerTM). Barometric pressure and precipitation data for a few days
prior to sampling should be obtained to enable trends to be evaluated. Frost
and snow cover should be noted. Meteorological data may be useful in
interpretation of soil vapour intrusion particularly if there were severe weather
conditions during sampling (e.g., rapid change in barometric pressure, strong
winds).
Building Pressure Data: Highly

sensitive manometers (sensitivity less Commercial Building Evaluation
than 1 Pa (1/250 inches of water))
can be used to measure the Some commercial buildings are
differential pressure between the designed to be positively pressurized
building and outdoor air, and through operation of HVAC system.
building air and subslab soil gas. Vapour intrusion will be significantly
Information on pressure gradients curtailed if the building is sufficiently
can be useful in assessing soil gas pressurized (i.e., comparable to 6 to 9 Pa
intrusion potential; for example, soil recommended in ASTM (2001)). For
gas intrusion potential would be low such scenarios, an evaluation consisting
if the pressure in the building is of review of HVAC design, interview
with building engineer to review HVAC
higher than in soil below the
operation, and series of differential
building. When measuring pressures, pressure measurements to capture
consideration must be given to the possible seasonal and barometric
potential influence of wind and other pressure variations may provide valuable
environmental variables on the information on pressure gradients and
measurements. The building pressure the potential for a complete vapour
data should be plotted against intrusion pathway (EPRI, 2005).
barometric pressure and other
weather data to assess whether there are any correlations in the data.

5-41
Building Ventilation Tracer Test: Inert tracers such as carbon dioxide can be
used to evaluate building ventilation characteristics and to estimate air change
rates (ASTM E741-00). The ventilation test involves release of tracer gas
(carbon dioxide) within the enclosed space followed by monitoring of the
concentration decay over time. The concentration decay rate is used to
estimate the air exchange rate. There are also tracer test methods that use
sulphur hexafluoride. For commercial buildings, it may be possible to
estimate the ventilation rate from HVAC system design. The air exchange
rate should be calculated from the make-up volume, and not the total air
handling volume.
Radon Tracer Test: Naturally-occurring radon can be used as a tracer to

evaluate sub-slab to indoor air attenuation (McHugh et al., 2008), although
results may be somewhat biased by radon emissions from concrete itself or
off-gassing from water, if from a groundwater source containing radon. The
potential advantages of using radon, compared to analyses for VOCs, are
potentially lower analytical costs, there are no common sources of indoor
radon, and indoor radon concentrations are in most cases above detectable
levels (unlike VOCs where bias may be caused by non-detect values).
Flux Chamber Test: The surface emission flux rate of volatile chemicals may
be measured by placing an open bottom box on top of bare ground or above a
crack on a concrete floor (where the box is appropriately sealed to the
concrete) and measuring the increase in volatile chemical concentrations in the
chamber over time (static test) or measuring concentrations in air extracted at
a steady rate from the chamber (dynamic test). Flux chamber tests are affected
by the methodology used and conditions at the time of sampling and are
relatively difficult tests to perform. The use or scaling of data for purposes of
a vapour intrusion assessment is also not straightforward, although flux
chamber tests may be useful when emissions to outdoor air are estimated.
Larger-Scale Tracer and Pneumatic Testing: Several different techniques

may be used to estimate soil-air permeability and evaluate soil gas migration
pathways. Helium tracers may be released at probes and travel times
monitored at a central well where soil gas is being extracted. Measurements
of soil gas flow rates, pressures and vapour concentrations may be used for
evaluating contamination source zones and for remediation design.
Tree Coring: Recent studies have shown tree core concentrations of

chlorinated solvent chemicals to be related to soil, groundwater and soil
vapour concentrations (Burken et al., 2010, Struckoff et al., 2005, Vroblesky
et al., 2004), indicating that trees may be a useful screening tool at some sites.

5-42
5.8 DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS
The procedures for data interpretation and analysis of soil vapour data are
described below.
5.8.1 Data Organization and Reporting

The soil gas data should be tabulated and plotted to facilitate evaluation and
review of data relationships and trends. The following data organization and
presentation is recommended:
• Tabulate all data including sample location identifier, sample date,

sample depth, sampling methods (including sampling duration and
flow rate), chemical analysis methods, laboratory detection limits and
results of chemical analysis;
• Tabulate field screening and laboratory analysis data to enable side by
side comparisons;
• Prepare plan drawings showing soil vapour concentration data that
includes pertinent structures (buildings, utilities, paved areas, vegetated
areas);
• Compare soil vapour with nearby groundwater concentration data;
consider geologic conditions when evaluating variability;
• Prepare vertical profiles of soil vapour concentration data that includes
oxygen, carbon dioxide and methane and boring log data where
available; and,
• Identify soil vapour target concentrations and background indoor and
outdoor air concentrations, where available.
5.8.2 Data Quality Analysis

Following receipt of the soil vapour results, the data should be evaluated to
determine whether they meet data quality objectives outlined in the sampling
plan. The data quality checks should include the following:
• Review reported detection limits relative to data quality objectives. In

some cases, sample dilution is required which results in raised
detection limits.
• For Summa canister analyses, review canister pressure before start of
sampling, upon completion of sampling and receipt by the laboratory.
Prior to sampling, the vacuum should be close to 29 inches Hg, and
after sampling is complete, there should be a small vacuum left in the
canister, if not, the sample integrity could be compromised. Oil-filled
gauges supplied by the laboratory for field measurements have an
accuracy of plus or minus 1 or 2 inches Hg, so only approximate

5-43
readings can be obtained in the field using oil-filled gauges. Pressures
may also be measured using digital manometers. Laboratories
typically use a much more accurate pressure gauge to measure pressure
in the canister. Obtain pre-delivery canister testing and certification
results from the laboratory. When there are significant differences in
the elevation at which the sample was obtained and the laboratory, it
may be possible to correct for the effect of ambient pressure on the
sample concentration (i.e., using Boyle’s Law for an ideal gas),
providing that the barometric pressure at the time of sampling and
analysis are recorded.
• For sorbent tube analyses, review results of analyses of front and back
sections of the tube (or two tubes in series) to evaluate possible
chemical breakthrough. Breakthrough can result when the adsorptive
capacity is exceeded, the air flow through the tube is too high, or by
chromatographic effects caused by other compounds. If the laboratory
considers the first tube saturated, then results are potentially biased and
re-sampling should occur. The criterion for evaluating breakthrough is
method and chemical dependent but typically is a concentration in the
second tube that is greater than 10 to 25 percent of the concentration in
the first tube. If the sample media is not saturated, the front and back
concentrations should be added together when reported.
• Compare the precision for laboratory and field duplicate or co-located
samples, as quantified by the relative percent difference (RPD). The
acceptable precision is method and chemical dependent, but for
laboratory duplicates is generally 20 percent. For field duplicates, the
acceptable RPD is higher since there is sampling variability in addition
to laboratory variability.
• Review analytical results for blank samples (e.g., field blanks,
laboratory blanks and trip blanks) to identify possible issues with the
laboratory or field procedures that may have affected the results.
• Recognize that reported concentrations within five times of the
quantification limit are typically more uncertain than higher
concentration values.
5.8.3 Data Consistency Analysis

The results of the soil gas sampling program should be reviewed in terms of
the expected results, based on consistency with the conceptual site model and
internal consistency between sampling points. These consistency checks
should include the following:
• The soil vapour concentrations should be spatially consistent with the

soil and groundwater concentrations, for example, the highest soil

5-44
vapour concentration should be found in source contamination areas
where soil and/or groundwater concentrations are also highest.
• The soil vapour concentrations should decrease with increasing
distance from a source, and, in general, oxygen concentrations should
decrease and carbon dioxide concentrations should increase close to
petroleum hydrocarbon sources. If this pattern is not observed, there
may be additional contamination sources present or there may be data
quality issues (e.g., short circuiting).
• The vertical gradients of petroleum hydrocarbon vapours, oxygen,
carbon dioxide and methane should be internally consistent. A
decrease in hydrocarbon vapour concentrations should be associated
with a decrease in oxygen and increase in carbon dioxide
concentrations. As described in API (2005), stoichiometric
relationships for aerobic biodegradation can be used to quantify the
fluxes and concentration profiles expected.
• Significant depletion in oxygen concentrations are observed close to
petroleum hydrocarbon source zones and below confining layers.
Elevated oxygen concentrations close to hydrocarbon sources indicate
that the soil gas sample was compromised through short-circuiting or
leakage.
• Soil vapour concentrations should be consistent with expected
temporal trends based on an analysis of available existing temporal
data and expected variation based on the conceptual site model.
5.8.4 Further Evaluation

The data quality and consistency should be evaluated to determine whether
there are data gaps or quality issues that warrant additional soil vapour testing.
The soil vapour concentrations will typically also be compared to risk-based
generic (if available) or site-specific screening levels for the vapour intrusion
pathway. Depending on the results of this comparison, additional soil vapour
characterization and/or indoor air testing may be warranted.


CHAPTER 6
INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL
VAPOUR INTRUSION
CHAPTER 6 INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL VAPOUR

INTRUSION ................................................................................................................................ 6-2
6.1 Context, Purpose and Scope ................................................................................ 6-2
6.2 Conceptual Site Model for Indoor Air ................................................................. 6-4
6.2.1 Background Indoor Air Concentrations............................................................... 6-4
6.2.2 Building Foundation Construction....................................................................... 6-9
6.2.3 Building Ventilation............................................................................................. 6-9
6.2.4 Building Depressurization and Weather Conditions.......................................... 6-11
6.2.5 Mixing of Vapours Inside Building ................................................................... 6-11
6.2.6 Vapour Depletion Mechanisms.......................................................................... 6-12
6.3 Development of Indoor Air Quality Study Approach and Design .................... 6-12
6.3.1 Define Study Objectives .................................................................................... 6-12
6.3.2 Identify Target Compounds ............................................................................... 6-13
6.3.3 Develop Communications Program................................................................... 6-13
6.3.4 Conduct Pre-Sampling Building Survey............................................................ 6-14
6.3.5 Conduct Preliminary Screening ......................................................................... 6-14
6.3.6 Identify Immediate Health or Safety Concerns ................................................. 6-14
6.3.7 Define Number and Locations of Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples ................. 6-15
6.3.8 Define Sampling Duration ................................................................................. 6-15
6.3.9 Define Sampling Frequency .............................................................................. 6-16
6.3.10 Preparing the Building for Sampling and Conditions during Sampling ............ 6-17
6.4 Indoor Air Analytical Methods.......................................................................... 6-18
6.4.1 Air Analysis Using USEPA Method TO-15...................................................... 6-18
6.4.2 Air Analysis using Quantitative Passive Diffusive Samplers............................ 6-19
6.5 Data Interpretation and Analysis ....................................................................... 6-24
6.5.1 Data Organization and Reporting ...................................................................... 6-24
6.5.2 Data Quality Evaluation..................................................................................... 6-24

Chapter 6. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-2
CHAPTER 6
INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL

VAPOUR INTRUSION
This chapter describes methodology for completing indoor air quality (IAQ) testing for
evaluation of soil vapour intrusion. The testing of IAQ may be warranted when previous
phases of an investigation indicate the potential for unacceptable risks from vapour
migration into indoor air (or conducted concurrently with subsurface testing depending
on the urgency of IAQ testing).
6.1 CONTEXT, PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The use of IAQ measurements to
evaluate potential health risk Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing
associated with vapour intrusion
is an option for a current
This chapter describes the planning,
exposure scenario (existing process and methods for IAQ studies. The
building). While indoor air key elements and their corresponding
testing can provide a direct sections in the chapter are:
measurement of potential
inhalation exposure, there are a Conceptual site model (S 6.2),
Study objectives (S 6.3),
number of issues that can Sampling approach and design (S 6.3),
complicate a vapour intrusion Indoor air analysis (S 6.4), and
investigation based on indoor air Data validation and interpretation (S
measurements only, and which 6.5).
should be taken into
consideration. These issues include background sources of the chemicals of
interest and often significant variability observed in indoor vapour
concentrations due to building or weather related factors. An IAQ testing
program is also a relatively intrusive activity that particularly for a residential
or institutional setting requires appropriate communication of program
objectives and results with the building owners and occupants.
The basic steps for the design of an IAQ program are similar to those
described for soil vapour characterization and consist of (1) development of a
conceptual site model (CSM), with specific consideration of factors that
influence IAQ based on site conditions, (2) development of IAQ study
objectives, and (3) preparation of a sampling plan. As indicated for soil
vapour characterization, it is not possible to provide a standardized template
for IAQ program design, and instead key principles and factors that should be
considered in developing a sampling strategy are discussed below. A detailed
flow chart of the framework for an IAQ study is provided in Figure 12.

Indoor air sampling should be carried out according to an established plan,
considering the study objectives and the data quality objectives. However, the
plan should be flexible in that if the circumstances change, the plan could be
adapted accordingly. In addition, if relevant information is obtained from
activities such as the pre-sampling building survey or preliminary screening,
the program should be refined to address these changes.
PREPARATORY TASKS
Define study objectives IMMEDIATE HEALTH

Identify target compounds OR SAFETY YES UNDERTAKE
Develop communications plan CONCERNS? MITIGATION
Pre-sampling building survey
Conduct preliminary screening
DEVELOP DETAILED
SAMPLING PLAN
Assess building conditions (integrate

above information)
Define number & locations of indoor
NO
air samples
Define sampling duration
Define sampling frequency
Sampling and analytical methods
PERFORMING THE SAMPLING
Building Preparation
Sampling & analysis
DATA INTERPRETATION &

EVALUATION
Data organization & reporting ASSESSMENT
OF
Data quality evaluation
EXPOSURE
Discerning contributions of back- AND RISK
ground sources
YES NO
ADDITIONAL SAMPLING
NEEDED? END
FIGURE 12: Framework for IAQ Sampling and Analysis Program

Indoor air quality studies for assessment of soil vapour intrusion typically
include some concurrent testing of outdoor air as well as subslab or near
building soil vapour testing. Subslab or near building soil vapour samples
may be used to identify the contaminants that have the potential to migrate
into indoor air. Similarly, outdoor air samples may provide information with
respect to the influence of ambient air quality on IAQ. These types of samples
may provide additional lines-of-evidence that are helpful in assessing potential
VOC sources.
6.2 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR INDOOR AIR

The CSM for soil vapour transport and intrusion into buildings was described
in detail in Chapter 3 and Appendix I. The purpose of this section is to
describe specific aspects of the CSM that could influence IAQ (excluding
subsurface factors), which are background sources of VOCs in indoor air,
building foundation construction, building ventilation, building
depressurization and weather conditions, and vapour depletion processes
within buildings.
6.2.1 Background Indoor Air Concentrations

When evaluating the impact of subsurface vapour sources on IAQ, it is
paramount that background sources of VOCs in indoor air be considered, since
many subsurface contaminants of concern are also common “background”
VOCs. Common background sources of VOCs include household products,
off-gassing from building products (i.e. carpeting, shower curtains, building
insulation, pressed wood products, fabrics), home heating (i.e., heating oil
storage, combustion emissions), tobacco smoke, attached garages (i.e., vehicle
emissions, stored products), volatilization of trihalomethanes from tap water
(particularly when heated) as well as through activities occurring in the home
or workplace. A list of dominant indoor air sources and associated volatile
contaminants is provided in Table 9. Due to these and other indoor air
sources, contaminant concentrations in indoor air are frequently higher than in
outdoor air. Other background sources of contaminants include outdoor
sources such as vehicle or industrial air emissions that enter the building
through air leakage or ventilation. Compounds present in various consumer
products are described in the household products database
http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/.
As a consequence of the large variations in building design, use, and

environmental setting, IAQ data is also highly variable. A number of studies
have been completed in the United States, but fewer studies have been
undertaken in Canada examining background IAQ in residential homes. Table
10 provides a summary of VOC data from key Canadian studies including a
Health Canada Study conducted in 1991 and 1992 across Canada, a study
conducted in the Greater Toronto area in 1996 and a study completed in

Saskatchewan and Ontario in 1991 and 1999. These studies demonstrate that
background concentrations are highly variable, but also show that a large
number of compounds can be expected to be found in residential buildings.
Although background IAQ can be expected to vary between buildings, regions
and time frames, the data from these and other studies can be used to help
interpret the results of IAQ investigations (refer to Section 6.5 for further
discussion).
TABLE 9. Dominant Sources of VOCs in Residential Indoor Air

Source Contaminants
Paints Benzene, Toluene, Trimethylbenzenes, Pentane, Tetrachloroethene
Carpets Benzene, Toluene, Styrene, Trimethylbenzenes, Chlorobenzenes,
Decane
Wood Burning Toluene, Xylenes, Styrene, Trimethylbenzenes, Naphthalene
Polystyrene Board Styrene, Butadiene
Paint Removers Toluene, Acetone, Methylene chloride, Chlorobenzenes,
Tetrachloroethene
Spray Products Xylenes, Acetone
Adhesives/Tapes/Glues Benzene, Toluene, Styrene, Xylene, Tetrachloroethene, Decane
Room Deodorizers Ethanol, d-Limonene, Camphor, Phthalates
Tobacco Smoke Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylenes, Styrene
Gasoline/Driving Benzene, Toluene, Xylenes, Styrene, Trimethylbenzenes
Solvents/Degreasers Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Trichloroethanes, Trichloroethene,
Methylene chloride
Dry Cleaning Tetrachloroethene, Trichloroethene (spot remover)
Moth balls Naphthalene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene
Pressed wood products Formaldehyde
Note: Adapted from Hers et al. (2001)
As a result of these background sources, particular care must be taken in the

collection, review and interpretation of IAQ data. For instance, it is important
to understand, as well as minimize, the effects of indoor sources through an
assessment of building conditions and proper building preparation prior to
sampling (Exhibit 4).

Chapter 6. Indoor Air Quality Testing _____________ ___ 6‐6
TABLE 10. Compilation of Indoor Air Quality Data from Canadian Studies
Health Canada Greater Toronto, Saskatchewan and Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec City,
1991,1992a 1996b Ontario 1991, 1999c 1993d 2002, 2003e 2005f
Contaminant
95th 90th Geometric
Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Median Mean* Max Median Mean* Max Median Max
percentile percentile Mean
Benzene 5.4 67.9 3.42 45.8 15 42.3 2.85 3.99 10.67 54.61 2.15 2.85 5.21 20.99 1.18 1.22 22.37
Toluene 40.8 5730 15.2 186 23.9 110.5 15.51 25.04 88.10 156.43 5.53 11.54 25.47 112.93 24.72 26.47 436.33
Ethylbenzene 8.2 540 1.58 20.9 9.6 32.9 2.38 4.16 15.10 53.21 1.05 4.71 4.76 201.41 2.45 2.69 19.50
m,p-Xylene 20.7 1470 - - 21.6 74.2 8.22 16.33 41.05 317.19 3.59 7.5 16.35 138.97 9.17 9.85 77.08
o-Xylene 5.6 320 - - 5.7 20.3 2.49 4.95 17.38 70.17 1.22 5.08 6.48 205.11 3.03 3.43 26.43
Styrene 0.3 130 - - 4.1 11.3 1.30 8.37 37.02 176.61 0.46 0.69 1.49 6.53 0.69 0.65 14.03
1,3,5-
2.7 640 0.53 1.47 5.1 15 1.62 3.99 9.33 148.32 0.39 3.87 4.75 144.44 0.92 1.26 22.38
Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-
- - - - - - 5.09 10.05 32.96 123.20 2.21 3.97 6.73 56.60 2.61 3.45 68.09
Trimethylbenzene
Naphthalene - - 4.81 83.4 7.2 30 3.00 5.09 17.20 73.35 - - - - 1.12 1.45 23.02
n-hexane 124 5.24 108 14.5 99.4 4.88 7.94 26.90 114.86 - - - - 2.17 2.35 38.55
n-decane 31.4 6450 6.85 91.9 - - 4.98 14.50 53.83 200.85 2.17 5.28 8.09 84.60 6.48 6.42 203.25
n- undecane 6.00 15.61 57.49 313.12 - - - - - - -
n-dodecane - - - - 14.7 91.9 3.41 8.88 24.27 170.00 - - - - - - -
Dichlorobenzenes 18.9 1390 53.4 1600 12.8 337.5 - - - - - - - - - - -
1,2,4-
- - - - - - 0.09 0.23 0.66 2.30 - - - - - - -
Trichlorobenzene
1,4- Dichlorobenze - - - - - - 1.18 8.67 39.98 236.47 - - - - 0.36 0.58 286.57
Tetrachloroethene 2.7 313 1.59 9.55 8.2 30 1.10 3.06 14.84 33.61 0.47 1.15 3.25 9.23 0.69 0.92 179.30
Trichloroethene 0.5 165 - - 2.3 6.5 0.17 0.30 - 3.53 <0.02 0.06 0.19 0.87 0.35 0.37 4.68
1,1-Dichloroethene - - - - - - 0.04 0.15 0.77 2.02 <0.01 0.27 0.83 4.05 - - -
Vinyl Chloride - - - - - - - - - 1.00 - - - - - - -
Dichloromethane - - - - - - 9.19 48.99 178.80 1209.91 1.87 14.98 43.21 408.37 7.04 7.93 1687.44
1,1,1- Trichloroethane - - - - - - 2.48 9.94 54.07 115.79 - - - - - - -
1,2-Dichloroethane <0.1 1.7 - - 7.4 25 - - - - <0.02 0.03 <0.02 0.71 - - -
Carbon Tetrachloride - - - - - - 0.48 0.57 0.90 4.51 - - - - - - -
Bromodichloromethane - - - - - - 0.17 0.28 0.77 1.32 - - - - - - -
1,3- Butadiene - - - - - - 0.15 0.24 0.65 2.40 <0.32 0.5 1.64 3.65 - - -
Cyclohexane - - - - - - 0.44 0.80 2.84 11.02 4.51 6.58 15.1 54.12 - - -
Isoprene - - - - - - 2.95 5.26 16.76 43.38 - - - - - - -

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment
Health Canada Greater Toronto, Saskatchewan and Hamilton, Ottawa, Quebec City,
1991,1992a 1996b Ontario 1991, 1999c 1993d 2002, 2003e 2005f
Contaminant
95th 90th Geometric
Mean Max Mean Max Mean Max Median Mean* Max Median Mean* Max Median Max
percentile percentile Mean
Acetaldehyde - - - - - - 0.00 40.89 85.26 792.41 - - - - - - -
Hexanal - - - - - - 9.33 16.79 44.75 57.40 - - - - - - -
Acetone - - - - - - - - - - 28.48 44.44 76.4 455.87 - - -
Chloroform - - - - - - - - - - 1.19 1.72 4.39 8.23 3.15 3.18 18.59
2-propanol - - - - - - - - - - 3.32 18.14 68.76 238.17 - - -
2-butanol - - - - - - - - - - 1.48 2.54 6.66 16.45 - - -
Phenol - - - - - - - - - - 0.42 0.70 1.67 5.16 - - -
Carbon disulfide - - - - - - - - - - 0.13 0.34 0.86 3.29 - - -
1-butanol - - - - - - - - - - 0.4 4.25 5.96 139.66 - - -
4-methyl-2-pentanone - - - - - - - - - - 0.16 0.26 0.8 1.40 - - -
Acrylonitrile - - - - - - - - - - 0.06 0.27 0.26 8.89 - - -
2-butoxyethanol - - - - - - - - - - <0.28 2.85 7.06 41.44 - - -
Methyl methacrylate - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 0.05 0.06 1.12 - - -
Methyl tert-butyl ether - - - - - - - - - - <0.05 0.17 <0.05 3.32 - - -
Chlorobenzene - - - - - - - - - - <0.01 <0.012 <0.01 0.04 - - -
3,5-dimethylaniline - - - - - - - - - - <1.2 <1.2 <1.2 4.71 - - -
1,2-dichlorobenze - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 0.11 - - -
1,3-dichlorobenze - - - - - - - - - - 0.15 0.77 1.05 16.19 - - -
2-ethoxyethanol - - - - - - - - - - <0.13 0.43 <0.13 27.14 - - -
2-methoxyethanol - - - - - - - - - - <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 <0.23 - - -
1,2-dichloropropane - - - - - - - - - - <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 - - -
Ethylene dibromide - - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - - -
1,1,2,2-
- - - - - - - - - - <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 - - -
tetrachloroethane
Cumene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.8 0.88 45.48
α-pinene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7.95 9.74 800.68
d-limonene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 28.54 28.06 329.89
p-cymene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.49 1.55 32.90
Concentrations in units of ug/m3

*
Arithmetic mean
a
Davis and Otson (1996)
b
Otson and Zhu. 1997.

c
Saskatchewan Research Council. 1992.
d
Hamilton 1993 Indoor Air Statistics
e
Zhu et al. (2005)
f
Héroux et al. (2008)
Davis, C.S. and R. Otson (1996) “Estimation of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from Canadian residences.” Volatile Organic Compounds in the Environment, ASTM STP 1261.
Héroux, M.-È., D. Gauvin, et al. (2007). "Housing characteristics and indoor concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Quebec City, Canada." Indoor and Built Environment 17: 128–
137.
Otson, R. and J. Zhu (1997) “I/O values for determination of the origin of some indoor organic pollutants.” Proc. Air & Waste Managements Association’s 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, June 8 to 13, 1997.
Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) (1992) “Volatile organic compound survey and summarization of results.” Report I-4800-1-C-92. Prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. April.
Zhu, J., R. Newhook, et al. (2005). "Selected volatile organic compounds in residential air in the city of Ottawa, Canada." Environmental Science & Technology 39: 3964-3971.

6.2.2 Building Foundation Construction

The building foundation construction will influence soil vapour intrusion rates
into the building. For example, soil vapour can migrate through relatively
small cracks or openings in the foundation or through utility penetrations. Soil
vapour intrusion rates may vary depending on type of foundation, which
include basement, slab-on-grade, crawlspace or earthen floor construction.
For houses, there is often a perimeter edge crack between the foundation wall
and slab for concrete floor slab construction. Compared to houses,
construction methods for commercial buildings may be different including
some buildings where measures are taken to seal concrete foundations, which
would tend to reduce (but not completely eliminate) soil vapour intrusion.
Utilities represent potential entry points for soil vapour intrusion regardless of
building type.
6.2.3 Building Ventilation

Through building ventilation and exchange with fresh air, soil vapour
concentrations are diluted upon mixing with indoor air. Building ventilation
or air exchange rates vary depending on climate, construction and season. A
review of approximately 2,800 building ventilation measurements in houses
across the U.S. grouped the results according to regions (defined by heating
degree-days) and four seasons (Murray and Burmaster, 1995). The average
yearly air change per hour (ACH) for the four regions ranged from 0.4 to 0.98
hr-1. For the north central to eastern part of the US (which most closely
approximates most regions in Canada), the average ACH in summer was 0.82
hr-1, the average in fall was 0.25 hr-1, the average in winter was 0.36 hr-1 and
the average in spring was 0.44 hr-1. In Canada, air exchange rates in energy-
efficient (“R-2000”) homes can be quite low based on tight construction (i.e.,
0.1 to 0.2 hr-1). In an Ontario study, air exchange rates from 70 houses
ranged from 0.06 to 0.77 ACH, with the lowest air exchange occurring in
summer in R 2000 houses with closed windows (Walkinshaw, 1987). In a
study completed in Saskatchewan and Tilsonburg, Ontario, the average
measured air exchange rate from 44 houses was 0.34 ACH (SRC, 1992), while
in a study completed in the Greater Toronto area, the average air exchange rate
from 44 houses was 0.45 ACH (Otson and Zhu, 1997).
For commercial buildings, design air exchange rates must meet minimum
requirements based on building occupancy, although actual ventilation system
efficiency may be variable depending on operation of the HVAC system.
Standards in Canada and the U.S. both specify minimum ventilation rates for
residential and commercial buildings. For example, ASHRAE (2007)
indicates that for office use, 20 standard cubic feet of outdoor air is blown into
the building per person to maintain sufficient fresh air supply, which
corresponds to an air exchange of about 0.72 ACH for typical occupancy.
Ventilation rates for institutional buildings are higher. The USEPA BASE

study of one hundred randomly selected commercial buildings, which
represented a wide range in construction, found that the 25th, 50th and 75th
percentile air change rates were 0.47 hr-1, 0.98 hr-1 and 2.62 hr1, respectively
(NIST, 2004). When conducting a site specific assessment, it may be
instructive to obtain information on building ventilation from building HVAC
engineers since often design and test information providing data on air flow
rates for return and supply air will be available.
EXHIBIT 4. Preparation of Building for IAQ Sampling

Summary of measures implemented prior to IAQ sampling:
• Removal of products that are known significant sources of VOCs, such as fuel containers, paint, paint
strippers or solvents, as practical; ordinary storage of normal amounts may not need removal, but
should be noted in the field notes.
• Ensuring that containers of VOC-containing products are tightly sealed, as practical;
• Combustion sources (e.g., candles, wood stoves, tobacco products, incense, etc.) should be
extinguished prior to sampling (preferably 24 hours prior to sampling);
• Consideration should be given to delaying sampling to allow elevated VOCs associated with new
construction materials, paint, furnishings or sealing work to dissipate;
• After removal or control of known VOC sources (preferably several days before sampling), ventilation
may be required to help eliminate residual contaminants. This may be done through operation of the
building HVAC system or opening of doors, windows, or operation of exhaust fans. It should be
completed at least 24 hours prior to sampling; and,
• HVAC systems (heating and cooling) should generally be operating under normal occupied conditions
for at least 24 hours prior to and during the scheduled sampling time (unless the objective is to
artificially control building conditions).
• Survey of potential outdoor air sources within a 300 meters radius of the site
Measures to be avoided 24 hours prior to and during sampling:

• Storage or use of fuel products, solvents, glues or petroleum-based materials within building or
attached garages;
• Operation and storage of automobiles in attached garages; and,
• Operation of fireplaces.
The residents of the home should be given the instructions listed below to follow 24 hours prior to and
during the sampling event:
• Do not open any windows, fireplace openings or vents.
• Do not operate ventilation fans unless special arrangements are made.
• Do not smoke in vicinity of sampler and or disturb sampler in any way.
• Do not use oil based paints or varnishes.
• Do not store containers of gasoline or oil within the house or attached garage
• (except for heating fuel oil tanks).
• Do not clean or polish furniture or floors with petroleum or oil-based products.

6.2.4 Building Depressurization and Weather Conditions
The indoor and outdoor temperature, number of storeys, degree of air leakage
between floors, and presence of chimney, flues, exhaust fans and vents, may
contribute to the pressure differentials that affect the rate of intrusion of soil
gas. Of particular importance is the “stack effect” that may occur during the
heating season as a result of hot air rising in a building and leaving near the
top of the building (e.g., through a chimney, leaky attic, exhaust vent). This
creates a negative pressure in the building, thus drawing outdoor air and soil
gas into the building through openings with the lower regions of the building
(i.e., doors, windows, cracks and/or the building foundation). Pressure
differences during the heating season for houses with basements typically
range from 2 to 10 Pa, but may be as high as 15 Pa (Figley, 1997; Hers et al.,
2001).
The operation of the HVAC system may also result in building

depressurization through intake and exhaust systems that are not balanced or
through insufficient combustion air. The operation of fans and fireplaces also
can result in a depressurized building. For commercial buildings, the HVAC
system may be designed to provide for positive pressure under most
conditions, but for tall buildings, the stack effect may be sufficient to maintain
a negative pressure at ground level during cold weather. Commercial building
pressures may also depend on operation of the HVAC system and exhaust fans
(e.g., fume hoods, oven vents). The ASTM (2003) standard for radon
mitigation specifies a pressure differential of 6 to 9 Pascals as sufficient to
curtail vapour intrusion; for some buildings HVAC units may create a similar
level of positive pressure thus counteracting the pressure gradient for vapour
intrusion (EPRI, 2005).
Wind force may create pressure differentials between upwind and downwind
sides of the building, which is another mechanism that causes the building
interior to be underpressurized. Changes in barometric pressure as a result of
meteorological conditions can also cause pressure differences between the
building interior and exterior. These pressure differences may occur at
varying temporal scales (hourly to seasonally), but in general, the most
significant pressure differences occur under severe winter conditions.
In summary, weather conditions and HVAC operation may have a marked

effect on air exchange rates and pressure differences between indoor and
outdoors, which can both affect the rates of soil vapour intrusion into
buildings and the degree of mixing and dilution within the building structure.
6.2.5 Mixing of Vapours Inside Building

Within the building, contaminants will diffuse as a result of chemical gradients
and disperse through air movement. Mixing between building floors will
depend on the HVAC system and air leakage between floors. Elevator shafts

often include a sump with a drain hole at the bottom to allow any water from
fire-suppression systems to drain away, which may allow entry of sub-surface
vapours. The movement of the elevator itself can cause pressure differential
that may facilitate soil vapour entry. Furthermore, buildings tall enough to
need an elevator will often have a significant stack effect when the
temperature outside the building is lower than inside, which is the case for at
least half the year in most of Ontario. Elevator shafts can also represent
conduits for inter-floor migration of vapours.
6.2.6 Vapour Depletion Mechanisms

Chemical or physical mechanisms may result in the removal of vapours from
indoor air, in addition to dilution through building ventilation. Since soil
vapour intrusion typically occurs over timescales of months to years, the
removal of volatiles in air through adsorption onto building materials is
unlikely to have a significant long-term effect on indoor vapour concentrations
since adsorption sites on building materials will likely be filled over time.
Adsorption onto building materials can be reversible (i.e., desorption can
occur) and thus should also be considered as a source of volatiles, depending
on building conditions. For example, even after soil vapour intrusion is
mitigated (e.g., through a subslab venting system), there may be a period of
time over which a chemical of concern is detected in indoor air as a result of
desorption from building materials. Chemical transformations due to processes
such as photo-oxidation are generally relatively slow processes relative to air
exchange rates (i.e., half-lives of days) and biodegradation is unlikely to be a
relevant process in an indoor environment.
6.3 DEVELOPMENT OF INDOOR AIR QUALITY STUDY APPROACH

AND DESIGN
6.3.1 Define Study Objectives

The study objectives should be well-defined prior to developing a sampling
plan, as the sampling plan could vary substantially depending on the type of
data required and how that data is intended to be used. The primary goal of
the IAQ study is often to provide data that could be used to evaluate exposure
and potential human health risk through inhalation of indoor vapours. To
meet this objective, the building conditions and sampling locations should
generally reflect typical exposure conditions, as further described below.
Samples collected to meet this objective are typically referred to as “exposure
point” samples.
There may be other specific objectives of the IAQ study that would result in a
different sampling strategy. For example, if the goal is to evaluate potential
entry points for soil gas into a building, samples may be collected from close
to cracks or within utility openings. Samples collected to meet this objective
are typically referred to as “pathway” samples. If the objective of the IAQ

study is to evaluate the potential influence of background sources of indoor air
quality relative to subsurface sources, several indoor air samples from
different locations within a building may be required. In addition, the building
environment may be artificially controlled at the same time IAQ sampling is
conducted to assist in evaluation of background sources, as described in
Section 6.3.10.
The study objectives can also be broadly defined in terms of the phase or level
of investigation. An initial preliminary investigation may consist of a limited
number of IAQ samples. If the preliminary investigation indicates a potential
indoor air quality concern, additional investigation may be appropriate.
Finally, if vapour intrusion mitigation systems are installed, follow-up IAQ
monitoring may be required for some period of time.
6.3.2 Identify Target Compounds

The target compounds for the sampling plan are dependant upon the
contaminant source under evaluation. Target compounds would generally
include the primary constituents of the contamination source and may also
include potential breakdown products of these constituents. In addition to
contaminants of potential concern, other compounds that are present as
background constituents and that could be useful as tracers should also be
considered. For an IAQ study designed to evaluate soil vapour intrusion from
contaminated soil or groundwater, a screening process based on volatility and
toxicity can be used to identify target compounds (Health Canada, 2007).
Target compounds may also be identified based on the results of previous
indoor air sampling at the site or based on the history of the site and/or
neighbouring properties.
For petroleum hydrocarbons, target compounds also may include petroleum

fractions as well as specific chemicals of potential concern. Specific
chemicals are often the more potent chemicals associated with the petroleum
fraction and include carcinogenic compounds such as benzene.
6.3.3 Develop Communications Program

An important part of the IAQ program is communication with the building
occupants and owners and other stakeholders, to keep them informed and
involved in the process. This can be done throughout the sampling process,
but is especially important in the preparatory stage. Issues to address with
building occupants include: why the study is being conducted and what the
study objectives are; scheduling the pre-sampling building survey; discussing
the types of activities to avoid prior to the sampling events and background
chemical issues (see Section 6.3.10); scheduling and discussing the sampling
that will be conducted; and communication of the results of the sampling
program. Consideration should be given to the development of an access
agreement between parties prior to sampling.

6.3.4 Conduct Pre-Sampling Building Survey
Buildings should be inspected prior to and during IAQ testing to assess
whether there are potential background sources of chemicals and also to
describe building conditions that may influence indoor air concentrations.
Building occupants may also be interviewed to derive additional information
on factors that may affect IAQ and to determine the building occupancy
characteristics. Examples of a pre-sampling building survey, that could be
used to direct a building inspection and occupant interviews, are those
published by ITRC (2007) and NJDEP (2005). The pre-sampling building
survey may be used as a tool to refine the sampling plan and identify any
building preparation activities that should be considered prior to sampling (see
Section 6.3.10). Relevant portions of the survey should be reviewed again at
the time indoor air sampling is performed. A survey should be completed for
each building being investigated.
6.3.5 Conduct Preliminary Screening

In conjunction with the pre-sampling building survey, a preliminary screening
of the study building using a portable air monitoring instrument such as a
photoionization detector (PID) can provide useful information on background
VOC sources in indoor air. When sensitive PIDs are used (low ppbV range),
they may also be capable of identifying entry points where soil gas intrusion is
occurring. It is important to note that most direct-measuring instruments
measure multiple organic compounds with varying responses and are not
capable of identifying specific compounds. Furthermore, for most
conventional PIDs/FIDs, the sensitivity of these instruments is often
insufficient to detect compounds at levels that may be of concern for human
health. Therefore, while they may be a useful tool for identifying indoor VOC
sources or targeting sampling locations at some sites, they may not be used to
rule out the presence of background contaminants in indoor air.
The PID measurements in some environments may be biased high. For

example, condensation on the PID sensor results in a slowly rising false
positive response that may reach several hundred ppm (Western Australia
Department of Environment, 2005). Microparticles of dust and wood soot
absorb moisture more readily than a clean sensor surface exacerbating the
effect of moisture; therefore, relevant conditions during sampling should be
noted, and the instrument calibration should be checked frequently.
6.3.6 Identify Immediate Health or Safety Concerns

If the building survey or preliminary screening identify immediate health or
safety concerns associated with chemical odours or where occupants exhibit
acute effects attributable to inhalation of volatiles in indoor air (e.g.,
headaches, dizziness, nausea), further actions should be taken to identify the
chemical source and mitigate the hazard (increase ventilation, relocate

occupants, etc.), as warranted. There may also be instances where there are
safety concerns associated with the accumulation of potentially explosive
levels of methane or oxygen deficient conditions inside or near to buildings. In
the case of methane gas from landfills infiltrating structures through
subsurface transport, the MOE’s Guideline for Assessing Methane Hazards
from Landfill Sites should be followed. In this case PID measurements and/or
continuous samplers are used to assess or provide warning of explosion
hazards.
6.3.7 Define Number and Locations of Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples
The number and locations of indoor air samples will be dictated by several
factors. If a preliminary investigation of IAQ is being undertaken, a limited
number of samples may be sufficient. If the study objectives require a
statistical approach or analysis of results, multiple samples would be required.
The building characteristics including size, construction and ventilation
patterns will also influence the required number of samples. For example, if
the building is a small house with reasonably good ventilation, the indoor air
concentrations within the house may be relatively uniform.
For a larger house, commercial building, or school, where indoor air

concentrations may vary in different parts of the building, multiple samples
are required to characterize indoor air quality. For a residence with multiple
floors, consideration should be given to collecting at least one sample per floor
(per sampling event) to characterize inter-floor variability. Where minimal
sampling is conducted for a preliminary assessment, it is generally preferable
to target the first level of the building (e.g., basement) since vapour
concentrations are expected to be highest in lower regions of the building in
instances of soil vapour intrusion. Exposure samples should be collected
within the typical breathing zone at a height of approximately 1 to 1.5 m
above the floor, preferably near the centre of the room, which is generally
representative of overall room conditions.
Outdoor air will influence IAQ and may also contain chemicals at
concentrations that exceed risk-based concentrations. Therefore, it is good
practice to obtain outdoor air samples as part of the IAQ program. The
number of samples will be site specific, but several samples obtained from
multiple locations may be needed. As part of the outdoor air program, it is also
important to identify emission sources such as gasoline stations, major
highways, paving operations and remediation systems. It is important to
protect outdoor air samplers from the elements (rain or snow) and vandalism.
6.3.8 Define Sampling Duration

The duration for sample collection may depend on the study objectives. The
selected sample duration should yield an average concentration of chemicals
of potential concern over the expected daily exposure duration. For a

residential scenario, it is possible that residents may be present in the home 24
hours per day. Therefore, a 24-hour sample duration is the minimum duration
recommended for a residential scenario, unless technical or time
considerations require shorter time frames. To provide perspective on
sampling duration it is noted that it is generally recommended that radon
samples be collected over a period of one week or longer to account for
temporal variability (www.epa.gov/radon). Studies of radon provide valuable
insight on potential indoor air concentration variability for vapour intrusion.
For example, Groves-Kirkby et al. (2006) in a study comparing time-
integrated indoor radon sampling for different time scales concluded that
natural variability caused many one-week results (compared to three month
tests) to be equivocal when compared to action levels, necessitating repetition
of the measurement. Continuous radon monitoring indicated roughly diurnal
(24-hour) variations that were up to one order-in-magnitude. Font et al.
(2001) found that soil moisture levels caused by precipitation caused
variations in indoor radon concentrations. The feasibility and need for longer
duration active air sampling for evaluation of vapour intrusion is an area of
current research.
For a commercial scenario, a minimum sample duration equivalent to the

standard 8-hour commercial exposure duration is recommended. Ventilation
systems are often designed for energy efficiency reasons to run at minimal
levels outside of normal working hours, so a sample collected over longer
periods to average temporal variability may be best collected in successive 8-
hour increments. A longer or shorter sample duration could be selected, if
warranted, based on site-specific conditions and site use.
When determining the sampling duration, potential limitations in the sampling

device should be considered. For example, for Summa canisters, the flow
controller accuracy may be difficult to control for longer than 2-hour samples.
For sorbent tubes, chemical breakthrough and moisture interference may be an
issue for long-term samples, depending primarily on the sampling duration
and flow rate. For this, sorbent tubes are not recommended when dealing with
vinyl chloride contamination. Passive diffusive samplers are better suited to
longer sampling periods than active adsorptive or active whole-gas sampling
methods.
6.3.9 Define Sampling Frequency

The sampling frequency will depend on study objectives, the nature of the
contamination source and variability expected due to factors such as building
characteristics, weather conditions and occupancy characteristics during
sampling. Since it is not possible to accurately predict concentration
variability due to the site-specific and complex nature of the processes that
contribute to soil vapour intrusion, repeat sampling is generally required to
establish concentration variability at a given site. In general, a minimum of

two sampling events that capture possible seasonal variability (e.g.,
winter/summer) are recommended; however, additional sampling events may
be warranted at some sites. In general, higher indoor vapour concentrations
would be expected when sampling is performed under winter conditions
because of lower air exchange rates, higher stack effect and less vertical
ground permeation through frozen soils. Repeat sampling may also be
warranted, for example, if the subsurface source concentrations are changing
over time (e.g., mobile groundwater plume, water table fluctuations with an
LNAPL smear zone being sometimes submerged and sometimes not).
6.3.10 Preparing the Building for Sampling and Conditions during Sampling
A list of measures that should be considered when performing IAQ sampling
programs is provided in Exhibit 4. Building occupants should be informed of
the required measures or sampling conditions in advance of the sampling
event.
In some cases, it may be desirable to adjust building HVAC conditions to

control conditions for soil gas intrusion. For example, monitoring of IAQ
under conditions of positive and negative building pressure may confirm
whether volatiles measured in indoor air are from subsurface or background
sources. One way to control building conditions is to either extract or blow in
air using a blower or fan. This
Canister Cleaning Study
test may be implemented by
replacing a door of a building EPRI (2005) report laboratory QC data
with custom door of the same where 100 canisters were tested after they
size fitted with a blower (i.e., were cleaned, with results as follows:
referred to as a “blower door
test”). Chemical Number Avg. Max
Detects Conc. Conc.
(μg/m3) (μg/m3)
Consideration should be given to
Benzene 100 0.046 0.52
obtaining ancillary data (see
Section 5.8), such as the PCE 30 0.063 0.30
differential pressure between the TCE 79 0.055 1.42
building and outdoor air and VC 0 non detect non detect
meteorological data, to aid in the Note: PCE = tetrachloroethene, TCE =
trichloroethene, VC = vinyl chloride
interpretation of indoor air data.
It may also be important to A second study involved testing canisters one
monitor the operation of fans, and ten days after they had been cleaned. The
results indicated higher TCE concentrations
central vacuum cleaners, or other for the ten day sample, which was attributed to
mechanical devices that could time dependent desorption from the valve and
influence ventilation and pressure canister. These studies highlight that the
conditions during indoor air challenges for sub-μg/m3 testing of air
sampling. samples.

6.4 INDOOR AIR ANALYTICAL METHODS
The selection of the indoor air analytical method depends on a number of
factors, including data quality objectives, risk assessment objectives, detection
limits and the contaminants of potential concern. Typically indoor air samples
are obtained using either sorbent materials or canisters (e.g., Summa canisters)
and sent to a laboratory for analysis. Since analytical protocols were addressed
in detail for soil vapour, this section is limited to describing differences in
analytical considerations for indoor air. Since there are accepted methods for
collection of indoor air samples using passive methods (unlike soil vapour),
indoor air testing using passive diffusive samplers is also described.
The main differences between soil vapour and indoor air sampling are that
lower detection limits, larger sample volumes and longer sampling durations
are generally required for indoor air testing. The required analytical reporting
limit will depend on the compound, but typically is less than 1 µg/m3.
Detection limits should be optimally at a minimum 10 times lower than
criteria/benchmark values of the target compounds. For some analytes, the
target risk-based indoor air concentration may be below a practically
achievable detection limit and/or below typical background levels in indoor or
ambient air. The low detection limits require that a high level of care be taken
to avoid cross-contamination both by the laboratory (e.g., cleaning of
sampling device) and by persons performing the sampling (e.g., handling and
storage of sampling device). When using canisters, it is important to consider
whether they can be cleaned and certified to the levels at which the analysis
will be performed.
For indoor air testing, Summa canisters (six litre) are frequently used (USEPA
TO-15). To provide the sensitivity required to achieve reporting limits at or
below risk-based target concentrations, GC/MS analysis may need to be
performed in selective ion model (SIM) for some compounds. For active
sorbent tube analysis, modified industrial hygiene methods involving solvent
extraction (e.g., modified OSHA 7 or NIOSH 5515) may not provide
sufficiently low detection limits. Instead, thermal desorption methods may be
required (e.g., USEPA Method TO-17). Summa canisters must retain at least 2
inches Hg of negative pressure to be considered valid sample.
6.4.1 Air Analysis Using USEPA Method TO-15

While a complete discussion goes beyond the scope of this guidance, there are
subtle issues for analytical protocols, which may be important, and are
relevant since some QA/QC requirements in the TO-15 method are either not
prescribed or are deficient. Notable methodology issues include: (i)
calibration standards may be used for up to one year (fresh NIST-traceable
gas-phase standards should be used – a holding time of 14 days common), (ii)
no secondary source calibration standard is required, (iii) there is no
requirement for analysis of surrogate compounds, and (iv) there is a relatively

wide acceptance window for replicate standards (30% relative standard
deviation (RSD)). Another issue is the use of selective ion mode (SIM),
which may be desirable when sub ppbV detection limits are desired.
However, since the use of SIM mode only allows specific masses to be
characterized, other potential compounds are not monitored. The lack of
complete mass ion data may result in inaccurate compound identification and
quantification, which may result in false positives or negatives.
It is recommended that the laboratory demonstrate how their implementation

of the TO-15 method addresses the above quality control issues. The
laboratory to be used is to be accredited by CAEAL (Canadian Association for
Environmental Analytical Laboratories) for the method of analysis being used.
6.4.2 Air Analysis using Quantitative Passive Diffusive Samplers

Quantitative passive diffusive samplers are less commonly used in vapour
intrusion assessments than whole-gas or active adsorptive sampling, but they
are growing in popularity as their capabilities become better known and
demonstrated. These samplers have a known uptake rate so the concentration
of chemicals can be calculated from the mass adsorbed over a known exposure
duration. Passive samplers are easy to use and do not require a sampling
pump. Passive samplers can be deployed for longer periods of time (up to
about a week) to provide time-averaged concentrations. The sampling (i.e.,
diffusive uptake) rate is a function of the diffusive coefficient, which is
compound and sorbent specific, and the geometry of the sampler. Other
factors that affect performance include temperature, pressure, humidity, air
velocity and transient changes in contaminant concentrations.
The following is a short description of some of the passive sampler types

available:
1) Badge-style samplers (e.g., 3M OVM 3500 and SKC Ultra II) have been
used for decades for evaluation of workplace exposures to VOCs. In this
application, the reporting limits are typically in the part per million
(ppmV) range, samples are typically collected over an 8 hour period and
the absorbent medium is typically charcoal, which is extracted using
solvent (e.g., carbon disulphide, CS2) and analyzed using GC/MS
methods (GC/FID is not recommended). Recently, passive diffusive
badges have been used for indoor air quality studies involving longer
sampling periods and lower detection limits using sorbents that are
thermally desorbed (Chromosorb 106, Carbotrap Z) (OSHA, 2003, Coyne
et al., 2002, Hendricks, 2003). McClenny et al. (2006) report on the
results of a thermal desorption method involving the SKC Ultra-II filled
with Carbotrap C, where compound-specific method detection limits on
the order of 0.03 to 0.3 ppbV were reported. At these levels, badge-style
samplers can also be used for assessing VOC vapour concentrations at
levels protective of long-term exposures.

3M OVM 3500 SKC Ultra II
2) Radiello® is a radial symmetric diffusive sampler, filled with graphitized

charcoal for thermal desorption or activated charcoal for solvent extraction
by CS2 (Bruno et al., 2004), or other sorbents for specific compounds.
The radial design increases the uptake rate, which improves the sensitivity
of the sampler (lower reporting limits) with a
shorter exposure time. The Radiello has been
extensively tested for a wide range of
compounds, and the experimentally-determined
uptake rates have been published, including
correlations for the uptake rate as a function of
temperature. The microporous polyethylene
body through which the vapors diffuse is
manufactured with different pore-sizes to adjust
the sampling rate. This body also provides a
moderate resistance to wind, so advective
uptake tends not to cause excessive positive bias
in high wind-speed settings. Calibration
constants for the sampler can be determined
experimentally for each individual analyte, or
can be estimated from the physico-chemical
properties of the analytes. (http://www.fsm.it/padova/homepage.html).
3) Automatic Thermal Desorption (ATD) tube samplers. This device uses

a standard ATD Tube as the body of the sampler, which is sealed at one
end and open at the other. Adsorbent media (e.g. Tenax TA or Carbograph
1TD) is packed into the closed end, and held in place with quartz wool.
During a measured time, the sampler is opened at the other end to expose
the sampler to any ambient vapor concentrations (Co), and a concentration
gradient is created through the air inside the tube. The tube contents are
analyzed by thermal desorption, gas chromatography and mass

spectroscopy or flame ionization detection (ATD/GC/MS&FID), as
appropriate.
Application of the method to determine VOCs in indoor, ambient and

workplace air is described in international standard EN ISO 16017-2. This
standard provides guidance on the selection of appropriate sorbents for
particular purposes where key considerations are the properties of the
target analytes, the concentration of interest and the required averaging
time of the measurement. The selection of an appropriate sorbent relates
predominantly to the volatility of the target analyte/s and there is a
requirement for the sorbent – analyte interaction to be appropriate to allow
quantitative retention of the analyte, but also as efficient release as
possible when heat is applied in a flow of gas in the thermal desorber. The
ISO standard also recommends conditions for the thermal desorption of
the different sorbents for the analysis by ATD/GC/MS&FID).
The stronger sorbents tend to also absorb water, which can be a problem in
the analysis and can be limiting for some applications. Weaker absorbents
such as Tenax do not retain water but more volatile compounds are not
strongly retained and may be lost from the sampling tube by back
diffusion. These types of processes can result in non-ideal behaviour of the
samplers, which means that the actual performance of the sampler in the
field may deviate from that calculated on the basis of the dimensions of
the sampler and the rate of diffusion of the analyte in air. International
standards are available describing the process of assessment of the sampler
performance and these involve a series of laboratory and field tests to
assess the uncertainty associated with the measurement of a particular
analyte under defined conditions.
The standard also discusses the impact of environmental conditions such

as humidity, air velocity, temperature, pressure, and occurrence of
transient concentrations on sampler performance. Assuming the correct
sorbent is selected, the standard advises that in practical use the three main
considerations are air velocity, protection from precipitation and security.
The sampler has been shown to perform as designed in locations with low

air movement (e.g. 5 cm s-1), but if placed outdoors an appropriate shelter
should be used because precipitation, direct solar heating and high wind
velocities may adversely affect performance.
4) Waterloo Membrane Samplers™. This sampler is composed of a 1.8

mL standard crimp-top chromatographic autosampler vial partially filled
with a known amount of adsorbent medium and closed with a
polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) membrane (Zabiegała, et. al., 2006,
Górecki and Namiesnik, 2002). The cross-sectional area and thickness of
the membrane are controlled and the partitioning into and permeation
across the membrane has been experimentally determined at different
temperatures for 40 different compounds ranging from n-alkanes and
aromatic hydrocarbons to alcohols and chlorinated organic compounds
containing one to three carbon atoms. The performance of the samplers
was evaluated alongside active air sampling techniques at various
locations in a laboratory setting with excellent results. The sampler-to-
sampler reproducibility in determining the calibration constants was less
than 8% RSD. The analytical limits of quantitation (LOQ) were as low as
0.1 µg/m3 for trichloroethylene (using electron capture detection) for 24
hour sampling, with proportionally lower LOQs for longer sampling
periods. PDMS is used as a stationary phase on capillary columns used in
gas chromatography and the rate of uptake through the membrane is
correlated to the gas chromatographic linear temperature-programmed
retention indices (LTPRI) of the analytes. Thus, the calibration constants
can be easily estimated from the chromatographic retention times of the
analytes. This makes it possible to estimate the concentrations of VOCs
whose identity is unknown at the time of sampling and to quantify
complex mixtures of analytes (e.g. petroleum fractions). The membrane is
also non-porous and very hydrophobic, which avoids concerns for
sampling in high wind-speed or high moisture environments.
Aluminium cap
PDMS membrane
Crimp top vial

Given that passive diffusive sampling methods have only recently begun to be
used for low-level indoor air analysis, considerations relating to their use and
results of selected research studies are summarized below:
• The sampling rate is compound specific; there are varying (up to
four) levels of validation studies. The highest level of validation
are laboratory testing programs designed to evaluate the stability of
the sampling rate under varying conditions and contaminant
mixtures, whereas the lowest level are estimates from the diffusion
coefficient of the analyte.
• The sampling rate is typically relatively stable over a certain time
interval, but will decrease once saturation of the media is
approached;
• In stagnant air, the sampling rate will decrease; one study indicated
a significant decline for sampling face air velocities that were less
than 50 cm/sec (OHSA, 1998). Another study indicated that
badges performed satisfactorily down to face velocities as little as 5
cm/sec, but reported that face velocities inside houses are typically
less than 2.5 cm/sec indicating the potential for a “starvation”
effect (SKC, 2006). A review of 28 studies between 1973 and 2003
where the effect of face velocity on sampling rate was evaluated
indicated that except for one study, significant underestimation in
sampling rate was reported (about 20 to 60%) in the wind velocity
range encountered in the indoor environment (Lee and Yun, 2004).
• Back-diffusion of compounds out of the sampler may occur for
some compounds;
• Humidity above 50 percent will reduce recovery of certain
compounds such as vinyl chloride, acetone and methyl ethyl ketone
(3M Bulletin 1028, 2000);
• Extraction recovery varies depending on compound; project
specific recovery tests are recommended by some badge
manufacturers (3M Bulletin 1028, 2001) to address varying
recovery for contaminant mixtures;
• There is an absence of established methods for low-level VOC
analysis and studies involving longer sampling durations; and,
• Detection limits for passive badge-type diffusion samplers are
typically about 1 µg/m3 or higher for common VOCs, although
lower detection limits can be achieved with newer badge or radial
samplers.
Comparisons of active and passive samplers indicate variable results, with

some studies indicating good comparisons between two methods with
environmental factors having no significant influence on the results
(Strandberg et al., 2005; Scobie, 2008), while other studies report a downward

bias in concentrations measured using passive samplers relative to active
methods (Jia et al., 2007).
There have been significant recent developments for passive sampling

technology, which show promise for longer sampling durations and low-level
analysis. However, only passive diffusive samplers that are validated for
specific chemicals and sampling durations should be used. Passive samplers
should be deployed in areas where there is good ventilation to avoid starvation
effect.
6.5 DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS
6.5.1 Data Organization and Reporting

The indoor air quality data should be tabulated and plotted to facilitate
evaluation and review of data relationships and trends. The following data
organization and presentation is recommended:
• Tabulate all data including sample location identifier, sample date,

sample height, sample location within room, sampling methods,
chemical analysis methods, laboratory detection limits and results of
chemical analysis.
• Calculate constituent ratios and evaluate trends with respect to (i)
indoor air to soil vapour or subslab vapour samples, (ii) first building
level to higher level air samples, and (iii) indoor air to outdoor air
samples.
• Note building size, foundation conditions, utility penetrations through
floor, sumps and drains, attached garages, and stains on floor.
• Note building HVAC conditions during indoor air sampling and
qualitatively describe opening of windows and doors, operation of
fireplace, furnace and fans.
• Note potential significant indoor sources of VOCs present during
sampling.
• Identify target risk-based indoor air concentrations and background
indoor and outdoor air concentrations, where available.
6.5.2 Data Quality Evaluation

Following receipt of the indoor air testing results, the data should be evaluated
to determine whether they meet data quality objectives outlined in the
sampling plan. The data quality analysis for indoor air is similar to soil
vapour (Section 5.6).


CHAPTER 7
METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF
CHAPTER 7 METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF BACKGROUND FROM

INDOOR SOURCES ................................................................................................................... 7-2
7.1 Constituent Ratios................................................................................................ 7-2
7.2 Marker Chemicals................................................................................................ 7-2
7.3 Spatial Trends ...................................................................................................... 7-3
7.4 Comparison of Indoor Air Data to Literature Background Concentrations ........ 7-3
7.5 Modification of Building Pressurization.............................................................. 7-3
7.6 Emerging Methods............................................................................................... 7-4
7.7 Comparison of Measured to Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations ..................... 7-4

Chapter 7. Discerning Contributions of Background 7-2
CHAPTER 7
METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF

Since the intent of this guidance is to evaluate impacts to indoor air resulting from soil
vapour intrusion, careful consideration must be given to determining which constituents
are derived from background sources and which are likely related to the contaminant
release or spill. To the extent possible, multiple lines-of-evidence should be considered
when evaluating IAQ data. The relative importance of various lines-of-evidence should
be based on professional judgment and should consider site conditions, data quality, as
well as an understanding of background sources of contamination, factors affecting IAQ
as well as contaminant fate and transport mechanisms.
7.1 CONSTITUENT RATIOS

An evaluation of the ratios between contaminant concentrations in
groundwater, soil vapour, indoor air and outdoor air for concurrent data and
chemicals with similar fate and transport properties can assist in discerning
background sources of contaminants. Chemical ratios in indoor air and soil
vapour should be similar if vapour intrusion is the cause for the elevated
indoor air concentrations. If the ratios are significantly different (e.g., by more
than one order-of-magnitude), there may be background contributions of
VOCs for some or all the chemicals under consideration.
Ratios of more than two compounds can be inspected using multi-linear

diagrams (e.g., tri-linear), where the concentrations of each chemical are
plotted on an axis and where lines are drawn to connect the plotted points
(EPRI, 2005). Depending on the source, the outline may have a characteristic
shape. If groundwater data are used, adjustments should be made to take into
account different relative volatilities between contaminants (i.e., corrected for
varying Henry’s Law constants).
The constituent ratio analysis works best for chemical groups with similar
physical-chemical and fate properties, such as tetrachloroethene and
trichloroethene. Where there are potential significant differences in physico-
chemical properties or biodegradation rates, this technique is less effective.
7.2 MARKER CHEMICALS

Marker chemicals are compounds which are associated with the subsurface
contamination, but not background air sources. An example of a marker
chemical is 1,1 dichloroethene (DCE), which is a degradation product of
1,1,1-trichloroethane and trichloroethene, and which is not known to be
present as a background chemical in indoor air. Therefore, detectable levels of
1,1-DCE in indoor air would suggest soil vapour intrusion is occurring (unless

from an ambient air source). Marker chemicals, if present, are also useful
compounds when evaluating constituent ratios using the method described
above.
7.3 SPATIAL TRENDS

An evaluation of spatial trends may provide insight on differentiating
background sources from the contaminants of interest. For instance, VOC
concentrations in a basement may be higher than in upper floors. This
provides support for a subsurface vapour source, but care must be taken to
ensure that the results were not biased by products stored in the basement.
Also, testing of “pathway” samples collected near foundation cracks, unsealed
utility entry points or other possible preferential transport zones could be
compared to samples collected at other parts of the building. Concentrations
in pathway samples that are elevated relative to concentrations in samples
from other parts of the building may indicate soil vapour intrusion is
occurring. Conversely, elevated concentrations in proximity to chemical
storage inside the building may indicate background sources are significant.
However, spatial differences may be minimal in buildings with efficient
ventilation systems.
7.4 COMPARISON OF INDOOR AIR DATA TO LITERATURE

BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
Indoor air quality data may be compared to published data on indoor air
quality. Typical background sources and concentrations of VOCs in indoor air
were discussed in Section 6.2.1. The data should be compared to data for
buildings of similar type (e.g., single family residence, apartment,
commercial).
The ratio of measured indoor to outdoor air (I/O) concentration may also be
compared to literature values. For some chemicals (e.g., benzene), the I/O
ratio is normally relatively close to one (Hers et al., 2001); therefore, large
divergences may suggest a subsurface vapour source.
7.5 MODIFICATION OF BUILDING PRESSURIZATION

Indoor air quality testing under positive and negative building pressurization
can be used to determine whether soil vapour intrusion is occurring and to
evaluate the possible influence of background sources on indoor air quality.
Indoor air concentrations that are significantly different under positive and
negative pressures suggest vapour intrusion is occurring, since typically, soil
gas advection caused by building depressurization is the main cause for soil
vapour intrusion. Building pressures can be modified through control of the
building HVAC system and use of temporary fans or blowers. While
modification of building pressurization goes beyond the typical scope of

testing for IAQ studies, it could be considered when it is important to
distinguish background from possible subsurface vapour sources.
7.6 EMERGING METHODS

Carbon stable isotope analysis (CSIA) is an emerging method for identifying
potential vapour sources. Isotopes have a different atomic mass (number of
neutrons); one example is carbon 12 and 13. Fractionation may occur when
biodegradation or other transformation processes preferentially break down
lighter isotopes. McHugh et al. (2010) present preliminary analysis where
isotope ratios of TCE were determined by a modified PT-GC-IRMS (purge-
and-trap-gas chromatography–isotope ratio mass spectrometry). The results
indicated a difference in the carbon isotope ratios for a subsurface and indoor
source.
Naturally-occurring radon can be used as a tracer to evaluate sub-slab to

indoor air attenuation for VOCs (assuming similar transport properties across
the building envelope) through simultaneous measurement of VOCs and radon
in indoor air, outdoor air and subslab soil gas. Potential advantages of radon
are that there are limited sources of indoor radon (excluding granite counter
tops and other decorative stone) and indoor radon concentrations are in most
cases above detectable levels (unlike VOCs where bias may be caused by non-
detect values).
7.7 COMPARISON OF MEASURED TO PREDICTED INDOOR AIR

CONCENTRATIONS
The measured indoor air concentrations may be compared to predicted
concentrations from empirical relations or mathematical models. If the
measured air concentrations are much higher (i.e., an order-of-magnitude or
more) than the predicted concentration, there may be a background source.
For non-degrading chemicals and representative data as defined in Chapter 5,
the upper range in empirical attenuation factors are approximately 1x10-3 for
groundwater-to-indoor air, 1x10-2 for soil vapour-to-indoor air, and 2x10-2
for subslab vapour-to-indoor air (Golder, 2007). Site-specific modeling may
also be performed, for example using the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) model.
When there is good quality input data, the modeled and measured values can
be expected to agree within about an order-of-magnitude (Hers et al., 2003;
Abreu and Johnson et al., 2005; EPRI, 2005). Comparisons using the Johnson
and Ettinger model may not be meaningful if there are conditions that fall
outside of the processes included in the Johnson and Ettinger model such as
preferential pathways, barometric pumping or biodegradation.
This approach pre-supposes that the empirical or model predictions are

accurate and that source concentrations are well characterized. When using
this approach, caution must be taken in that the conceptual site model must be
well understood and data adequacy and quality must be high.


CHAPTER 8
REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION
CHAPTER 8 .................................................................................................................... 8-2

REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................ 8-2

Chapter 8. Reporting and Documentation 8-2
CHAPTER 8
REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION

The reports should clearly document the site characterization data and input parameters
used in the soil vapour intrusion assessment. Generally, the following details should be
provided:
• Field investigation methods and scope;
• Hydrogeological information;
• Contamination characterization including quality control/quality assurance data;
• Description of unsaturated soil lithology and grain size;
• General description of building (type, size, number of storeys) for current land use
scenario and proposed building design for future use scenario;
• Information on subsurface utilities near building, and;
• Description of land use and conditions surrounding building (e.g., paved area,
land spaced areas).
The following additional information on the building can provide added perspective in
terms of the potential for soil vapour intrusion:
• Description of building foundation (slab-on-grade, basement, crawlspace, general
condition of foundation);
• Description of building (approximate age, footprint area, height of each storey,
number of storeys, general information on construction), and;
• Description of building heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems.
The uncertainties in the predicted exposures and risks should be discussed. These include
site characterization data, the partitioning model, vapour attenuation factors and risk
estimates. Sources of variability in site characterization data including factors influencing
spatial and temporal variability should be discussed.
Under a screening level assessment or detailed assessment, all input parameters should be
described and rationale provided for values selected. Where applicable, model sensitivity
should be addressed.
When submitted reports under the Brownfield Regulation (O. Reg 153/04), the
environmental site assessment and risk assessment reports must meet the requirements of
the Regulation.


___________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
CHAPTER 9 .................................................................................................................... 9-2

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 9-2

Chapter 9. References
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
Abreu, L. and P.C. Johnson, 2005. Effect of Vapor Source-Building Separation and
Building Construction on Soil Vapor Intrusion as Studied with a Three-Dimensional
Model. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 4550-4561.
American Petroleum Institute (API) (2005). Collecting and Interpreting Soil Gas Samples
from the Vadose Zone: A Practical Strategy for Assessing the Subsurface Vapour-to-
Indoor-Air Migration Pathway at Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites. November 2005.
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
(ASHRAE), 2001. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001. Ventilation for Acceptable
Indoor Air Quality.
(ASHRAE), 2001. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001. Ventilation for Acceptable
Indoor Air Quality.
(ASHRAE), 2007. Standard 62.1-2007. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air
Quality.
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2010. Standard Guide for Vapor
Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions.American
Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2003. ASTM Standard E-2121. Standard
Practice for Installing Radon Mitigation Systems in Existing Low-Rise Residential
Buildings. February 10.
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2001. ASTM E1465 - 08a Standard
Practice for Radon Control Options for the Design and Construction of New Low-Rise
Residential Buildings
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), 2000. Standard E-741-00 - Standard Test
Method for Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas
Dilution.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1995. Standard Guide for Risk-
Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites. E-1739-95.
American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1992. Standard Guide for Soil
Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone. D5314-92 (Re-approved 2001). pp. 1161-1196.
Andino, J.M. and J.W. Butler. 1991. A study of the stability of methanol-fueled vehicle
emissions in Tedlar bags. Environ. Sci. Technol. 25: 1644-1646.
Atlantic Partnership in RBCA Implementation (Atlantic PIRI). 2003. Atlantic RBCA
(Risk-Based Corrective Action) Version 2.0 for Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlantic
Canada. User Guidance.

Baehr, A. L., and M.F. Hult, 1991, Evaluation of unsaturated zone air permeability through
pneumatic tests, Water Resources Research, 27, 2605-2617.
British Columbia Ministry of Environment, 2010. Technical Guidance on Contaminated
Sites: Vapour Investigation and Remediation. September. Available at:
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/remediation/guidance/index.htm
Bruno, P., M. Caputi, M. Caselli, G. de Gennaro, M. de Rienzo, 2004. Reliability of a
BTEX radial diffusive sampler for thermal desorption: field measurements.
Atmospheric Environment 39(2005): 1347-1355.
Burken, et al. 2010. Draft Report: Phytoforensics: Investigating Subsurface Impacts of
Chlorinated Solvents Using Tree Coring. Environmental Research Center, Missouri
University of Science and Technology.
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2005. Guidance for the
Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapour Intrusion to Indoor Air. Interim Final.
Department of Toxic Substances Control.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada-wide
Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale.
Supporting Technical Document.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2000. Canada Wide
Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in soil: Scientific Rationale.
Supporting Technical Document. December 2000.
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008. Canada-wide
Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale.
Supporting Technical Document.
Cody, R. 2003. Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis: Sources of Random and Systematic
Error in the Characterization of Low Level Organohalide Sources. In: US EPA
Seminar on Indoor Air Intrusion, January 14-15, 2003. Fairmont Hotel, Dallas, Tx.
Coyne, L., et. al., 2002. Using Diffusive Samplers for Monitoring ppb Levels of Volatile
Organic Compounds in Indoor Air, presented at AirMon 02, Lillehammer, Norway.
Creamer, T., and T. McAlary, 2006, “The Effects of Purge Rate and Volume on Sub-slab
Soil Gas Samples,” A Platform Presentation at the Battelle Conference on
Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterrey CA, May 2006.
CRWQCB (California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region) and
the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2003. Advisory – Active Soil
Gas Investigations. January.
CSDDEH (County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health). 2002. Site
Assessment and Mitigation Manual. San Diego, CA.
Dahlen, P. Characterization of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacts to Arizona Groundwater
Resources from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTS). Ph.D. Dissertation,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. 2004.

Dahlen, P., Henry, E., Matsumura, M., and Johnson, P., 2003. Impacts to Arizona's
Groundwater Resources from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs). Report
to Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality and Arizona State Legislature.
Davis, C.S. and R. Otson, 1996. Estimation of Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) from Canadian Residences. Volatile Organic Compounds in the
Environment, ASTM STP 1261.
Dawson, H.E. and T.A. McAlary, 2009. A Compilation of Statistics from Post 1990
Indoor Air VOC Concentration Studies in North American Residences Unaffected by
Subsurface Vapor Intrusion. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation, Winter Vol.
29(1): 60-69.
Dawson, H.,2006. Updated J&E Model - VIAModel.xls [OnlineWWW] Available URL.
http://iavi.rti.org/attachments/WorkshopsAndConferences/1115_-_Dawson.pdf -
Slide 15 [Accessed May 11, 2010]
DeVaull, G, Ettinger, R & Gustnfson, J 2002, Chemical Vapor intrusion from soil or
groundwater to indoor air: significance of unsaturated zone biodegradation of
aromatic hydrocarbons, Soil and Sediment Contamination 11(4), 625-641.
DeVaull, GE 2007, Indoor vapour intrusion with oxygen-limited biodegradation for
subsurface gasoline source. Environmental Science and Technology 41(9), 3241-
3248.
DiGiulio, D. 2003. Raymark Site Preliminary Results. Proceedings of US EPA Work
Shop on Draft Vapour Intrusion Guidance, Atlanta, February 2003.
Diguilio, D., C. Paul, R. Cody, R. Willey, S. Clifford, R. Moseley, A. Lee and K.
Christensen, 2006. Comparison of Geoprobe PRT and AMS GVP soil-gas sampling
systems with dedicated probes in sandy soils at the Raymark Superfund site. USEPA
ORD draft report, 6/5/06.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), 2005. Reference Handbook for Site-Specific
Assessment of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion in Indoor Air. Palo Alto, California,
1008492.
Entech, 2007. Application Note 902: Improving the Performance of Time Integrating
Sampling of TO14 Compounds in Stainless Steel Canisters, Entech Instruments, Inc.,
Simi Valley, California, Accessed May 7,
2007.http://www.entechinst.com/pdf/902AppNote.pdf
Figley, D.A. A Guide for Estimating Indoor Concentrations of Soil Gas Pollutants in
Houses. Prepared for CMHC, 1997.
Fischer, M.L., A.J. Bentley, K.A. Dunkin, A.T. Hodgson, W.W. Nazaroff, R.G. Sextro,
and J.M. Daisay. 1996. Factors affecting indoor air concentrations of volatile
organic compounds at a site of subsurface gasoline contamination. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 30:2948-2957.

Font, L.L; C. Baixeras, C. And C. Domingo, 2001. Uncertainty, Variability, and
Sensitivity Analysis Applied to the RAGENA Model of Radon Generation, Entry,
and Accumulation Indoors; Sci. Total Environ. 272, 25-31.
Fugler, D. and M. Adomait. 1997. Indoor Infiltration of Volatile Organic Contaminants:
Measured Soil Gas Entry Rates and Other Research Results for Canadian Houses. J.
of Soil. Contamination. 6 (1), 9-13.
Garbesi, K., R.G. Sextro, A.L. Robinson, J.D. Wooley, J.A. Owens, and W.W. Nazaroff.
(1996). Scale dependence of soil permeability to air: Measurement method and field
investigation Water Resources Research. 32: 547-560.
Garbesi, K., R.G. Sextro, W.J. Fisk, M.P. Modera, and K.L. Revzan. 1993. Soil-Gas
Entry into an Experimental Basement: Model Measurement Comparisons and
Seasonal Effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27(3): 466-473.
Garbesi, K., et al. 1995. Scale dependence of soil permeability to air: Measurement
method and Field Investigation. Water Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, March,
1996.
Geoprobe®, 2006. “Direct-Push Installation of Devices for Active Soil Gas Sampling
and Monitoring, Technical Bulletin #3099, May, 2006.
Geosyntec Consultants. 2008. Final Scoping Assessment of Soil Vapour Monitoring
Protocols for Evaluating Subsurface Vapour Intrusion into Indoor Air. Prepared for
CCME. July 18, 2008.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2010. A Protocol for the Development of Soil Vapour Quality
Guidelines For Protection of Human Exposures Via Inhalation of Vapours, Final Draft.
Prepared for Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). July 27,
2010.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2004. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Screening Level Risk
Assessment (SLRA) (Draft). Prepared for Health Canada. November.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2006. Influence of Bioattenuation on Vapor Intrusion into Buildings
– Model Simulations Using Semi-Analytical One-Dimensional Model. Prepared for
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection September 2006.
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/air/yr2-part3-biomodeling.pdf
Golder Associates Ltd. 2007. Updated Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Screening
Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) (Draft). In-process guidance being prepared for Health
Canada.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2008. Scoping Report for the Development of a Protocol for
Developing Soil Vapour Guidelines for Volatile Substances. Prepared for CCME.
November.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2008a. Evaluation of Vadose Zone Biodegradation of Petroleum
Hydrocarbons: Implications for Vapour Intrusion Guidance.
Golder Associates Ltd. 2008b. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Health Canada, Final
Draft. Prepared for Health Canada, February 2008.

Górecki, T., J. Namiesnik, 2002. "Passive Sampling", Trends in Analytical Chemistry,
21(4), p 276-291.
Groves-Kirkby, C.J., C.J., Denman, A.R., Crockett, R.G.M., Phillips, P.S., Woolridge, A,
Gillmore, G.K., 2006. Time-Integrating Radon Gas Measurements in Domestic
Premises: Comparison of Short-, Medium and Long-Term Exposures, J.Environ.
Radioactivity, 2006, 86 (1), 92-109.
Harper, M., 1994. Novel Sorbents for Sampling Organic Vapours. Analyst, January, Vol.
119.
Hartman, B. 2002. “How to Collect Reliable Soil-Gas Data for Risk-Based
Applications, Part I: Active Soil-Gas Method.” LUST Line Bulletin 42. October.
www.tegenv.com/articles.
Hayes, H., D. Benton, S. Grewal, N. Khan (2005). A comparison between EPA
compendium method TO-15 and EPA method 8260 for VOC determination in soil
gas. Paper #46. AWMA symposium, San Francisco, CA, April 2005.
Hayes, H., D.J. Benton and N. Khan, 2006. The Impact of Sampling Media on Soil Gas
Measurements. Proc. Of AWMA Vapor Intrusion – The Next Great Environmental
Challenge – An Update, September 13-15, Los Angelos, California.
Hayes, H., 2007. Evaluation of Disposable Syringes for the Collection of Soil Gas. Air
Toxics Ltd.
Health Canada (HC). 2004. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Health Canada
Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA). Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd.
November.
Health Canada (HC) 2008. Final Draft on Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance For Health
Canada. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. February
Hendricks, W., 2003. Performance of SKC Ultra Passive Samplers Containing
Carboxen 1016, CarbotrapZ, or Chromosorb 106 When Challenged with a Mixture
Containing Twenty of OSHA SLTC’s Top Solvent Analytes, Method Development
Team, Industrial Hygiene Division, OSHA, SLTC Salt Lake City, UT..
Hers, I., Atwater, J., Li, L. and Zapf-Gilje, R. 2000. Evaluation of vadose zone
biodegradation of BTEX vapours. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 46, 233-264.
Hers, I., Evans, D, Zapf-Gilje, R. and Li, L. 2002. Comparison, Validation and Use of
Models for Predicting Indoor Air Quality from Soil and Groundwater Contamination.
Journal of Soil and Sediment Contamination, 11 (4): 491-527.
Hers, I., Zapf-Gilje, R., Johnson, P.C. and Li, L. 2003. Evaluation of the Johnson and
Ettinger model for prediction of indoor air quality. Ground Water Monitoring and
Remediation, Summer 2003.
Hers, I., R. Zapf-Gilje, L. Li, L. and J. Atwater, 2001. The use of indoor air measurements
to evaluate exposure and risk from subsurface VOCs. J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc.
51: 174-185.

Hillel, D. 1980. Introduction to Soil Physics. Academic Press. New York, NY.
ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council), 2002. Technical Decision Analysis
for the Potential Use of Passive Diffusion Bag Samplers for Long-Term Monitoring,
Prepared by The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, Diffusion Sampler
Team, May.
ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council), 2007. Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A
Practical Guideline. VI-1. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory
Council, Vapor Intrusion Team. www.itrcweb.org.
ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council), 2007a. Vapor Intrusion Pathway:
Investigative Approaches for Typical Scenarios. VI-1A. Washington, D.C.: Interstate
Technology & Regulatory Council, Vapor Intrusion Team. www.itrcweb.org.
Jia, C., Batterman, S. and Godwin, C., 2007. Continuous, intermittent and passive sampling
of airborne VOCs, J Environ Monit 9 (2007), pp. 1220–1230.
Johnson, P.C., C. Bruce. R.L. Johnson, and M.W. Kemblowski. 1998. In Situ Measurement
of Effective Vapor-Phase Porous Medium Diffusion Coefficients. Environmental
Science and Technology. 32. 3405-3409.
Johnson, P.C. 2005. Identification of application-specific critical inputs for the 1991
Johnson and Ettinger vapor intrusion algorithm. Groundwater Monitoring &
Remediation, 25(1): 63-78.
Johnson, P.C. and R. Ettinger 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion Rate of
Contaminant Vapours into Buildings. Environmental Science and Technology, 25 #8,
1445-1452.
Johnson, P.C., Bruce, C., Johnson, R.L., and M. W. Kemblowki, 1998, In situ measurement
of effective vapor-phase porous media diffusion coefficients, ES&T, 32, 3405-3409.
Johnson, P.C., C.C. Stanley, M.W. Kemblowski, D.L. Byers, and J.D. Colthart. 1990. A
practical approach to the design, operation, and monitoring of in-situ soil venting
systems, Ground Water Monit. Rev., 10(2), 159-178, 1990.
Johnson, P.C. 2005. Identification of application-specific critical inputs for the 1991
Johnson and Ettinger vapor intrusion algorithm, Groundwater Monitoring and
Remediation, v.25, no.1, pp 63 to 78.
Johnson, P.C., 2008. “Introduction to the Vapor Intrusion Pathway,” Platform
Presentation at the USEPA National Stakeholder’s Forum on Vapor Intrusion, AEHS
Conference, San Diego, CA
http://iavi.rti.org/Resources.cfm?PageID=documentDetails&AttachID=370
Kreamer, D., 2001. Field Innovation Forum: Down the Rabbit Hole with Alice –
Sucking Soil Gas All the Way. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. Fall.
Lahvis, M.A. 2002. Guidance on Use of Soil-Gas Surveys to Assess Vapour Transport to
Indoor Air. Shell Global Solutions (U.S.), Inc., Houston, TX.

Lahvis, M., A. Baehr and A. Baker, 1999. Quantification of aerobic and volatilization rates
of gasoline hydrocarbons near the water table under natural attenuation conditions,
Water Resources Research, 35, 753-765.
Laubacher et al., 1997 R.C. Laubacher, P. Bartholomae, P. Velasco and H.J. Reisinger, An
evaluation of the vapor profile in the vadose zone above a gasoline plume, The
petroleum hydrocarbons and organic chemicals in ground water: prevention, detection
and remediation conference, Houston, Tx (1997), pp. 396–409.
Lewis, R.G., S.D. Folsom, and B. Moore, 2004. Modified Active Gas Sampling Manual,
prepared by HAS Engineers and Scientists for the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
Lewis, R.G., S.D. Folsom, and B. Moore, 2005. Modified Active Gas Sampling (MAGS),
presentation at the Florida Dry Cleaners Solvent Cleanup Program Workshop 2005.
ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/reports/wc/conwkshop2005/MAGSPresentation-
RichardLewis.ppt
Luo, E., P. Dahlen and P.C. Johnson, T. Peargin and T.Creamer, 2009. Spatial Variability
of Soil Gas Concentrations Near And Beneath A Building Overlying Shallow
Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Impacted Soils, Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 29,
no. 1/ Winter 2009/pages 81–91
Massman, J. and D.F.Farrier. 1992. Effects of Atmospheric Pressures on Gas Transport
in the Vadose Zone. Water Resources Research 28: 777-791.
McClenny, W.A., Oliver, K.D., Jacumin, H.H., Jr., and Daughtrey, E.H. and Whitaker, J.
2005. 24-Hour diffusive sampling of toxic VOCs in air onto Carbopack X solid
adsorbant followed by thermal desorption GC/MS Analysis – Laboratory studies.
Environ. Monit., 7, 248-256.
McClenny, W.A., Oliver, K.D., Jacumin, H.H., Jr., and Daughtrey, E.H., Jr., 2002, Ambient
volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring using solid adsorbants - recent U.S. EPA
developments, JEM 4(5) 695 – 705.
McHugh, T., K. Gorder, T. Kuder, R. Philp, S. Fiorenza, H. O’Neill and J. Odencrantz. 2010.
Use of CSIA to Distinguish Between Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Sources of VOCs. Proc. of
AWMA Vapor Intrusion Conference, Chicago, Il., Sept. 29-30.Murray, D.M. and D.E.
Burmaster. 1995. Residential air exchange rates in the United States: empirical and
estimated parametric distributions by season and climatic region. Risk Anal. 1995.
15:459-465.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 2004. Analysis of Ventilation Data
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Building Assessment Survey and
Evaluation (BASE) Study, Prepared by Andrew Persily and Josh Gorfain, NISTIR
Report 7145.
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 2006. Vapour Intrusion
Guidance.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA), 2003. Performance of SKC Ultra
Passive Samplers Containing Carboxen 1016, Carbortap Z, or Chromosorb 106 When

Challenged With a Mixture Containing Twenty of OSHA SLTC’s Top Solvent
Analytes. Prepared by Warren Hendricks for Organic Methods Evaluation Branch,
OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115-1802. February.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA), 1998. Determination of the
Sampling Rate Variation for SKC 575 Series Passive Samplers. Prepared by Warren
Hendricks for Organic Methods Evaluation Branch, OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84115-1802. April.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 1996. Rationale for the Development and
Application of Generic Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Criteria for Use at
Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Criteria Development Subgroup of the Criteria
Development, Site Assessment, and Site Specific Risk Assessment Work Group.
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). 1996a. Rationale for the
Development and Application of Generic Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Criteria
for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario 1996".
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). 1996b. Guidance on Sampling
and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Standards
Development Branch. Version 1.1.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2005. Procedures for use of Risk Assessment
under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2009. Rational for Development of Generic
Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Dated
December 22, 2009.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2009a. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment
Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Dated July
27, 2009.
Ostendorf, D.W. and D.H. Kampbell. 1991. Biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours in
the unsaturated zone. Water Resources Research. 27 (4):453-462.
Otson, R. and J. Zhu. 1997. I/O Values for Determination of the Origin of Some Indoor
Organic Pollutants. Proc. Air & Waste Managements Association’s 90th Annual
Meeting and Exhibition, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 8 to 13, 1997.
Province of Ontario (Ontario). 2004. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use
Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Dated March 9, 2004.
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Puls, R.W. and M. J. Barcelona, 1996. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water
Sampling Procedures, Ground Water Issue, EPA/540/S-95/504, April 1996.
Robbins, G.A., B.G. Deyo, M.R. Temple, J.D. Stuart, and M.J. Lacy. 1990. Soil-Gas
Surveying for Subsurface Gasoline Contamination Using Total Organic Vapour
Detection Instruments Part I. Theory and Laboratory Experimentation. Groundwater
Monitoring and Remediation. Summer.

Sanders, P. and I. Hers, 2006. Vapor Intrusion in Homes over Gasoline-Contaminated
Groundwater in Stafford, NJ. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Spring
2006.
Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC), 1992. Volatile Organic Compound Survey and
Summarization of Results. Report I-4800-1-C-92. Prepared for Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation. April.
Scobie, H., Bailey, S., and Fellin, P. 2008. The Use of Passive Sampling Devices in a
Vapour Intrusion Study. AWMA Vapour Intrusion Workshop, Ottawa, Ontario,
October 28, 2008.
SKC, 2006. Measuring sub-ppb levels of VOCs in Indoor Air. Technical Note.
Publication 1720, Issue 0611.
Strandberg, B., Sunesson, A-L., Olsson, K., Levin, J-O., Ljungqvist, G., Sundgren, M.,
Saellsten, G. and Barregard, L. (2005). Evaluation of two types of diffusive samplers
and adsorbents for measuring 1,3-butadiene and benzene in air. Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 39, pp.4101–4110.
Struckhoff, G.C., Burken, J.G. and Schumacher, J.G. 2005. Vapor-phase exchange of
perchloroethene between soil and plants. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39(6), 1563-1568.
Suthersan, S.S. 1997, Remediation Engineering: Design Concepts, CRC Press LLC,
USA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2008. U.S. EPA’s Vapor
Intrusion Database: Preliminary Evaluation of Attenuation Factors (Draft). Office of
Solid Waste. March 4, 2008.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), 2006. Assessment of Vapor
Intrusion in Homes Near the Raymark Superfund Site Using Basement and Sub-Slab
Air Samples, EPA/600/R-05/147, March 2006
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2004b. User’s Guide for
Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Into Buildings. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2004a. Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) for Installation of Sub-Slab Vapor Probes and Sampling Using EPA
Method TO-15 to Support Vapor Intrusion Investigations. Draft. Office of Research
and Development, Ada, OK. February 12.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2003. Vapour Intrusion and
RCRA Corrective Action (CA); Environmental Indicators (EI) Fact Sheet. Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2002. Draft Guidance for
Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils
(Subsurface Vapour Intrusion Guidance). Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999a. Compendium of Methods for
Toxic Air Pollutants, Second Edition, Method TO-14A. Center for Environmental
Research Information, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999b. Compendium of Methods for
Toxic Air Pollutants, Second Edition, Method TO-15. Center for Environmental
Research Information, Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH.
Vroblesky, D. A., Clinton, B. D., Vose, J. M., Casey, C. C., Harvey, G. J., and Bradley, P.
M., 2004, Ground Water Chlorinated Ethenes in Tree Trunks: Case Studies, Influence
of Recharge, and Potential Degradation Mechanism, Ground Water Monitoring and
Remediation. Summer 2004, p. 124–138.
Vroblesky, D.A., Hyde, W.T., 1997, Diffusion samplers as an inexpensive approach to
monitoring VOC's in ground water: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation,
Summer 1997, p. 177-184.
Waitz, M.F.W., J.I. Freijer, P. Keule and F.A. Swartjes. 1996. The VOLASOIL risk
assessment model based on CSOIL for soils contaminated with volatile compounds.
National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Walkinshaw, D.S. 1987. Indoor Air Quality in Cold Climates: Hazards and Abatements
Measures Summary of an APCA International Speciality Conference, J. Air Pollut.
Control Assoc., 36, 235-241.
Wang, Y., T.S. Raihala, A.P. Jackman, and R. St. John. 1996. Use of Tedlar Bags in VOC
Testing and Storage: Evidence of Significant VOC Losses. Enviro Science and
Technology 30: 3115-3117.
Western Australian Department of Environment (WADE). 2004. Petroleum and Solvent
Vapours: Quantifying their Behaviour, Assessment and Exposure. CSIRO Land and
Water.
Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. 2003. Chemical Vapour Intrusion
and Residential Indoor Air; Guidance for Environmental Consultants and
Contractors. State of Wisconsin, Department of Health and Family Services, Division
of Public Health.
Zabiegała, B., M. Partyka, T. Górecki, J. Namieśnik, 2006. Application of the GC
retention index system for the determination of the calibration constants of
permeation passive samplers with PDMS membranes, Journal of Chromatography A,
1117 p 19-30.
3M Technical Data Bulletin, 2000. Organic Vapor Monitor Sampling and Analysis
Guide (1028); 3M: St. Paul, MN, 2000. Available at: http://
www.3m.com/intl/ca/english/market/traffic/ohes/pdf_pub/1028.pdf (accessed 2006).

___________________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER 10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CHAPTER 10 ................................................................................................................ 10-2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................ 10-2

Chapter 10. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 10-2
CHAPTER 10
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACH air change per hour

AEC area of environmental concern
API American Petroleum Institute
APHA American Public Health Association
APEC Area of Potential Environmental Concern
AST Above Ground Storage Tank
ASTM American Society Testing Materials
AAP atomic adsorption spectrometry
ATSDR US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
bgs below ground surface
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes
CAEAL Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories
CCV Continuing Calibration Verification
CPPI Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute
CPT cone penetrometer test
Carcinogenic cancer-causing chemical
CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
CEQG Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines
CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
CEM conceptual exposure model
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
COPC contaminant of potential concern
CSM conceptual site model
CSA Canadian Standards Association
CV coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean), same as
relative standard deviation)
CWS-PHC Canadian Wide Standards - Petroleum Hydrocarbons (CCME guidance)
DQI data quality indicators
DNAPL dense non-aqueous phase liquid (i.e., liquid that is more dense than water)
DRA detailed risk assessment
ECD electron capture detector
F2 Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C11-16 (CCME)
F3 Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C17-34 (CCME)
F4 Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C35+ (CCME)
FID flame ionization detector
GC/FID gas chromatography/flame ionization detection
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
HVAC building heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems
HI hazard index (sum of HQs)

HQ hazard quotient
HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning
IAQ indoor air quality
I.D. inside diameter
INAC Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
J&E Johnson and Ettinger
LCS laboratory control sample
LIF laser-induced fluorescence
LRL laboratory reporting limit
LNAPL light non-aqueous phase liquid (i.e., liquid that is less dense than water)
MDL Method Detection Limit
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/L milligrams per litre
MIP membrane interface probe
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether
NAPL non-aqueous phase liquid
NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine
NOAEL No Observed Adverse Effect Level
PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCE perchlorethylene
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Phase II ESA Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
ppm parts per million (equivalent to mg/kg or mg/L)
ppb parts per billion (equivalent to ug/Kg or ug/L)
PQL practical quantification limit
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
O2 Oxygen
PARCC Five principal DQIs consisting of Precision, Accuracy,
Representativeness, Comparability, and Completeness
PID photo ionization detector
PVC polyvinyl chloride
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
Qsoil advective soil gas flow rate into building
Qbuild building ventilation rate
RA risk assessment
redox oxidation reduction potential
RL reporting limit
RPD relative percent difference
RSD relative standard deviation (standard deviation divided by mean), same as
coefficient of variation)
SABCS Science Advisory Board for Contaminated Sites (British Columbia)
SCC Standards Council of Canada
SF slope factor

SFR single family residence
SLRA screening level risk assessment
SOP suggested operating procedure
SSD subslab depressurization (i.e., an example of a vapour intrusion mitigation
system)
TC tolerable concentration
TCE trichloroethene (trichloroethylene)
TIC tentatively identified compound
TRV toxicity reference value
Type 1 error Null hypothesis (baseline condition) is rejected when it is actually true.
Probability of this error occurring is called alpha (α) or level of
significance.
Type 2 error Null hypothesis is not rejected when it is actually false. Probability that
this error will occur is called beta (β) or statistical power.
UR unit risk
USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency
USSCS US Soil Conservation Service (for soil texture classification)
UST Underground Storage Tank
μg/g micrograms per gram (Soil)
μg/L micrograms per litre (Water)
UV ultraviolet
VOC volatile organic compound
WHO World Health Organization
XRF x-ray fluorescence


-AI-1-
APPENDIX I
CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION AND CONCEPTUAL SITE

MODEL CHECKLIST
This appendix is taken from draft Health Canada “Guidance Manual for Environmental Site
Characterization in Support of Human Health Risk Assessment”, September 2008 (prepared
by Golder Associates Ltd.). This Appendix is included with Health Canada permission, but
may not necessarily reflect its policy at this time.
A conceptual site model (CSM) is a visual representation and narrative description of the
physical, chemical, and biological processes occurring, or that have occurred, at a contaminated
site. A well developed CSM provides decision makers with an effective tool that helps to
organize, communicate and interpret existing data, while also identifying areas where additional
data is required. The CSM should be considered dynamic in nature and should be regularly
updated and shared as new information becomes available. An example of a CSM for soil vapour
intrusion is shown in Figure 1 below. The following sections present an overview of
contamination sources and fate and transport processes, followed by specific CSM’s of interest
for vapour intrusion (Exhibit 1).

-AI-2-
FIGURE 1: Example of a Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion

into a Residential Building (adapted from US EPA, 2002)
Contamination Sources
Common contaminants of potential concern for soil vapour intrusion comprise a range of organic
chemicals including petroleum hydrocarbons from fuel products, coal-tar or creosote, and
chlorinated solvents.
Petroleum hydrocarbons are associated with fuels such as gasoline, jet fuel and diesel and are
mixtures of hundreds of compounds. While often the focus of risk assessments are benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX), these compounds only represent a small fraction of
hydrocarbon vapours and there may be other specific compounds of interest such as hexane,
decane, trimethylbenzenes and naphthalene, depending on the fuel type. Typically, analytical

-AI-3-
tests for hydrocarbon vapours will also include hydrocarbon fractions based on carbon chain
length (e.g., F1 and F2 as defined in CCME (2001)) and aromatic and aliphatic fractions.
Coal-tar, associated with former manufactured gas plants (MGP), and creosote, associated with
wood preservation, have similar organic contaminants of potential concern composed of
monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, such as BTEX, and PAHs. There is significant variation in
the volatility and mobility of PAH compounds ranging from naphthalene, considered a semi-
volatile, to five- and six-ring PAHs, which are essentially non-volatile. While some of the
heavier PAH compounds are identified as COPCs for the vapour intrusion pathway based on
conservative screening approaches (e.g., Health Canada and USEPA vapour intrusion guidance),
their vapour concentrations are relatively low and organic carbon partitioning coefficients (Koc)
tend to be higher. As a consequence, the mobility of heavier molecular weight PAHs via soil
vapour transport is limited and, for practical purposes, is not of potential concern for vapour
intrusion. Similar considerations apply to other heavier molecular weight organic chemicals with
similar properties.
Common chlorinated solvents include tetrachloroethylene or perchloroethylene (PCE),

trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), and associated breakdown products of
biodegradation or abiotic transformation (e.g., cis- and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene (cis-1,2-DCE),
1,1-dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE) and vinyl chloride). Most chlorinated solvents are relatively
mobile and persistent within the unsaturated zone due to their relatively low solubility, high
volatility and their resistance to degradation under aerobic conditions.
Inorganic chemicals such as mercury may also pose a potential vapour inhalation risk since
elemental mercury has a high vapour pressure and mercury vapours are relatively toxic.
Soil gases such as methane, carbon dioxide and, in some cases, hydrogen sulphide, may be
generated as a by-product of the anaerobic decomposition of organic chemicals such as petroleum
fuels, waste material (e.g., refuse) and/or native organic matter (e.g., peat). The presence of these
gases may represent a potential safety hazard through explosion or asphyxiation. Methane is
explosive in the range of 5 to 15 percent by volume in air. Gas produced by microbiological
activity may generate pressure gradients that enhance subsurface vapour migration through
advection. Another source of pressure-driven gas is leaking natural gas lines. The CSM
subsequently described in this chapter does not address assessment of sites where there is
potential for significant pressure-driven gas flow.
Chemical Transfer to Vapour Phase (Volatilization)
Chemical transfer to the vapour phase may occur through partitioning of NAPL present above the
water table into soil gas (“vapourisation”) or partitioning of dissolved chemicals in soil-water

-AI-4-
above the water table into soil gas (“volatilization”). The NAPL is referred to as a primary
source of vapours while a dissolved phase plume is referred to as a secondary source. Soil
contamination within the unsaturated zone also represents a potential source of vapours.
The distribution of NAPL relative to the water table will have a large influence on its potential to
volatilise and migrate to indoor air. If the NAPL is situated below the water table, then
volatilisation will be relatively limited since, as subsequently discussed in this chapter, the mass
transport through groundwater is relatively slow due to the low diffusion rate in water, and since
vertical dispersion tends to be limited.
For a secondary source where chemicals are present only as a dissolved phase in groundwater,
their distribution below the water table will also determine their potential to volatilize. If volatile
chemicals are present near the surface of the water table, volatilization will readily occur. In
contrast, if there is a layer of “clean” groundwater above contaminated water, then the rate of
volatilization will decrease.
Equilibrium partitioning models are typically used to estimate the distribution of chemicals
between different phases. Where NAPL is present above the water table, a two-phase model
based on the vapour pressure of the chemical is used to estimate the soil vapour concentration.
Raoult’s Law is used to account for partitioning for a multi-component mixture of chemicals,
which is a function of the mole fraction and vapour pressure, as follows:
Cv = 1000 * MW * X * VP / (R * T) [1]
where Cv is the soil vapour concentration (mg/m3), MW is the molecular weight (g/mole), X is the
mole fraction (dimensionless), VP is the vapour pressure (atm), R is the gas constant (m3-atm/K-
mole), and T is the temperature (K).
For dissolved chemicals in groundwater, the Henry’s Law constant is typically used to estimate
the vapour concentration in equilibrium with water, as follows:
Cv = 1000 * Cg * H’ [2]
where Cg is the groundwater concentration (mg/L) and H’ is the dimensionless Henry’s Law
constant. Since it is not possible to obtain a soil gas sample at the water table (i.e., due to the
capillary transition zone), the measured soil vapour concentration should be lower than that
predicted using the Henry’s Law constant. This is because there will be attenuation of chemical
concentrations by diffusion (and possibly biodegradation) within the capillary fringe and
transition zone between the water table and region where there are continuous gas-filled soil

-AI-5-
pores. The attenuation within the capillary zone has implications for soil vapour intrusion
modeling and comparison of measured and predicted soil vapour concentrations.
Where there is soil contamination, but no NAPL, a three phase model 1 for partitioning between
sorbed, aqueous, and vapour phases can be used to estimate the soil vapour concentration, as
follows:
Ct = Cw (Kd + (θw + θa*H’/ρb)) Kd = Koc * foc [3]
where Ct is the total soil concentration (mg/kg), Cw is the soil-water concentration (mg/L), Koc is
the organic carbon-water partition coefficient (L/kg), foc is the fraction organic carbon
(dimensionless), θw is the water-filled porosity (dimensionless), θa is the air-filled porosity
(dimensionless), H’ is the Henry’s Law constant (dimensionless) and ρb is the bulk dry density
(kg/L). If, under equilibrium, the three phases become saturated by the chemical, then the
remainder of the chemical will be in its pure form (i.e., NAPL). Guidance on calculation of the
soil saturation (“Csat”) concentration for NAPL is provided in USEPA (1996).
For non-ionizing organic chemicals, a linear equilibrium partitioning model is widely used to
predict absorption of organics into native organic carbon. Studies have shown that the sorption of
organics by soils is highly correlated with the foc (e.g., Chiou et al., 1979; Hassett et al., 1980;
Hassett and Banwart. 1989), provided the foc is above a critical level. USEPA (1996) suggests
that when foc is below about 0.001, adsorption to inorganic mineral surfaces becomes important.
While soil partitioning models are well established, the accuracy of such models to predict soil
vapour concentrations is poor. Therefore, it is generally not good practise to try to estimate soil
vapour concentrations from soil concentration data. Instead, they should be predicted from
groundwater data using Henry’s Law constant (when appropriate) or directly measured.
Vadose Zone Fate and Transport Processes
Fate and transport processes in the vadose zone that influence the movement of chemicals from a
contamination source toward a building include: diffusion; advection; dispersion; partitioning
between soil, water and gas phases; and, biodegradation reactions. Several of the fate and
transport processes that influence soil vapour intrusion are conceptually shown in Figure 1. In
this example, volatilization is occurring just above the top of the capillary fringe to create soil
vapours. These vapours are subsequently transported upwards toward the ground surface via
1
A four-phase model for partitioning between the sorbed, aqueous, soil-air and NAPL phases has been developed and
applied to the vapour intrusion pathway (Park and San Juan, 2000). The four-phase model better accounts for
mass and volume conservation between all four phases and may enable more accurate estimation of mole fraction
in the NAPL phase, for a multi-component mixture.

-AI-6-
diffusion. Closer to the building, if the building is depressurized relative to atmospheric pressure,
advective soil gas transport may be the dominant process. The rate of volatilization at the
contamination source is controlled by the mass flux rate for chemical migration away from the
source. This will vary temporally as a result of fluctuations in various factors such as moisture
content, temperature and elevation of the water table.
Diffusion
Diffusion is the movement of molecules from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower
concentration, as influenced by their kinetic energy. The rate that a chemical will diffuse is a
function of the concentration difference, or gradient, and the compound- and temperature-
dependent diffusion coefficient. The mass flux, J (M/L2-T), is calculated by Fick’s Law, as
follows:
J = -Deff * δC / δZ [4]
Where Deff is the effective diffusion coefficient (L2/T), C is the vapour concentration
(mass/volume of gas) and z is the distance over which the concentration change is measured (L).
The diffusive flux is less in soil than in a gas-filled volume as a result of the tortuosity or non-
linear migration path for diffusing gas species. Mathematically, this is expressed as the effective
diffusion coefficient, typically estimated from the Millington-Quirk relationship (1961):
Deff = Da * θa 3.33. / θ 2 + Dw/H’ * θw 3.33. / θ 2 [5]
Diffusion coefficients in air (Da, L2/T) are about four orders-of-magnitude higher than in water
(Dw, L2/T); therefore, diffusion is much faster through the air-filled soil pores, than through
water-filled soil pores, and the second term in equation 4-9 tends not be important except under
nearly saturated conditions or for compounds with very low Henry’s Law constant (i.e.,
dimensionless H’ less than 0.001) (EPRI, 2005). When contamination is limited to dissolved
chemicals in groundwater, diffusion through the capillary fringe is often the rate-limiting process
because the moisture content in the capillary fringe is high, and may even be completely
saturated. The thickness of the capillary fringe increases with decreasing soil grain size.
Diffusion rates may also be highly sensitive to the presence of fine-grained, high moisture content
soil layers within the vadose zone. There may also be a “rain-shadow” below a building with
locally drier soils beneath the building (although drains and gutters may influence the soil
moisture distribution).

-AI-7-
Sorption
As soil vapours migrate away from contamination source zones, the transport of soil vapours will
be retarded due to sorption to the soil matrix and transfer of chemicals into soil water. Soils with
higher native organic carbon will tend to have a greater sorption capacity. While partitioning into
soil water will occur rapidly, for some chemicals biodegradation may occur simultaneously to
reduce the concentration in soil water. This allows for the continuous partitioning of the chemical
into the soil water, thus reducing the concentration in the vapour phase.
Biodegradation
Different organic compounds will biodegrade at different rates, and with various oxygen
demands. For example, the aerobic biodegradation of volatile petroleum hydrocarbons in the
vadose zone (e.g., BTEX) has been demonstrated through several investigations (Ostendorf and
Campbell, 1991; Ririe et al., 1998; Roggemans et al., 2002; Hers et al., 2000; Hers et al., 2002).
Several of these studies indicate orders-of-magnitude bioattenuation of hydrocarbon vapour
concentrations over relatively small distances within the vadose zone. Since chlorinated solvents
such as PCE and TCE degrade primarily under anaerobic conditions through reductive
dechlorination (Wiedemeier et al., 1999), biotransformation of these compounds will usually be
limited due to the presence of oxygen within the unsaturated zone. There is evidence of aerobic
biodegradation of vinyl chloride.
Vadose Zone Advection
Gas-phase advective transport can occur as a result of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure (e.g.,
barometric pumping), water movement, water table fluctuations, and density gradients due to
composition and temperature variations (soil gas advection due to building depressurization is
discussed in Section 4.4.4). For most geologic environments, diffusion is the dominant vadose
zone transport process; however, soil gas advection can be important where there are high
permeability, relatively deep unsaturated zone deposits (i.e., tens of metres deep) and/or
methanogenesis is significant. Choi and Smith (2005) through a modeling study found that
pressure-driven advective flux increased for deep, drier, permeable deposits; nevertheless, for all
combinations of scenarios, the diffusive flux was at least one order-of-magnitude greater than the
advective flux. Where there are relatively high soil gas advection rates, dispersion may also be
important. Dispersion is a mixing process that is caused by small-scale variations in air velocities
in soil. The effects of these velocity variations are similar to the effects of diffusion (Auer, 1996).

-AI-8-
Near-Building Processes for Soil Vapour Intrusion
The primary process for soil vapour intrusion into buildings is typically soil gas advection,
although vapour migration will also occur as a result of diffusion through the building foundation.
Model sensitivity analyses suggest that soil gas advection will be the dominant mechanism when
the building depressurization (relative to ambient air) is greater than about 1 Pascal (Hers et al.,
2003; Johnson, 2005), which will be exceeded at many residential buildings.
Soil gas advection can occur through untrapped floor drains, edge cracks at the building wall and
floor slab interface (shown in Figure 1), unsealed entry points for utilities, expansion joints and
other cracks and openings, if present. Field research programs that include pressure data for soil
adjacent to the residential building foundation indicate that most of the soil gas flow occurs
within 1 to 2 m of the foundation (Garbesi et al, 1993; Hers et al., 2002). Therefore, the
properties of the backfill surrounding the foundation are important, as well as any nearby utility
corridors. Field measurements and model simulations indicate that for most sites, the
permeability of soil near the building will control the rate of soil gas flow, as opposed to the
permeability of the building foundation.
Depressurization of the building airspace relative to the ambient (outdoor) air pressure can be
caused by a number of factors including temperature differences between indoor and outdoor air
(i.e., “stack effect”), wind-loading and operation of the building heating, ventilation and air-
conditioning (HVAC) systems. The operation of HVAC systems can cause a building to be
depressurized through insufficient combustion air for furnaces or unbalanced heating and
ventilation systems where the exhaust air flow rate exceeds the intake flow rate. Commercial
buildings may be either positively or negatively pressurized depending on HVAC system design,
operation and environmental conditions. Diffusion through the building foundation will readily
occur through cracks and openings in the foundation. Diffusion rates through intact building
materials are relatively low, but will depend somewhat on material type (e.g., poured concrete
slab, concrete block wall). Plastic moisture vapour barriers placed during the construction of
slabs may reduce diffusion to some degree, but will have little effect on reducing advection, since
significant soil gas flows can occur through small openings.
Summary
Diffusion is the dominant process for soil vapour transport in many geologic settings, although
aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours can be an important mechanism for vapour
attenuation. Closer to a building, advective processes may be dominant. Soil vapour intrusion is
influenced by building characteristics, geologic setting and anthropogenic features. There can be
significant temporal variation in soil vapour intrusion due to environmental and building related

-AI-9-
conditions. Long-term transient effects may be important if there is depletion of the

contamination source through volatilization, leaching and/or biodegradation.
Resources, References and Links
The USEPA has developed a number of on-line assessment tools for groundwater and soil vapour
that include, for example, calculators for determining the groundwater hydraulic gradient,
retardation factors for solute transport, plume diving, diffusion coefficients, Johnson and Ettinger
alpha calculator and unit conversions. (http://www.epa.gov/athens/onsite/)
EXHIBIT 1: Conceptual Site Scenarios for Vapour Intrusion
Fresh-Water Lens
For chemicals present only in groundwater (i.e., dissolved phase sources), their distribution below
the water table will determine their potential to volatilize and migrate to indoor air. If volatile
chemicals are present near the surface of the water table, volatilization will readily occur. In
contrast, if there is a layer of “clean” groundwater above contaminated water, then the rate of
volatilization will decrease since mass transport is controlled by diffusion and dispersion in
groundwater. At some sites in wetter areas, the layer of clean water has been observed to
increase in thickness with increasing down-gradient distance from a contamination source (i.e.,
“fresh-water lens formation”) (Figure 2). Water table fluctuations and upward vertical gradients
may prevent the formation of a fresh water lens.
FIGURE 2. Fresh Water Lens
Precipitation
infiltration
Fresh-water lens (non-

contaminated groundwater)
NAPL Source

-AI-10-
Interface Plume Development
If vapours are diffusing from contamination in the unsaturated zone, they will partition into
groundwater (Figure 3). This process combined with water table fluctuations can result in an
interface zone groundwater plume, which is a shallow plume located within the capillary fringe
and groundwater just below the water table (Rivett, 1995). There is both lateral and vertical flow
and solute transport within the capillary fringe (Silliman et al., 2002), which contrasts with the
common conceptualization of primarily downward vertical fluid flow through the unsaturated
zone, with a transition to fully three-dimensional flow only below the water table. Volatilisation
from an interface plume may be significant.
Mass transfer between

groundwater and
vadose zone Fluctuating
Vapour Diffusion
water table
NAPL Source
FIGURE 3. Interface Plume Development
Falling Water Table
If there is a water table decline of sufficient extent, higher levels of dissolved contamination or
NAPL, if present, will become exposed to soil gas (Figure 4). This will result in increased
volatilization rates. In addition, the beneficial effect of a fresh water lens may be lost if there is a
significant drought and the water table drops by a distance larger than the thickness of the fresh-
water lens. Long-term water level data should be reviewed where available to assess the potential
significance of water table fluctuations on volatilization rates and when to sample soil gas.

-AI-11-
Falling water table
NAPL Source
FIGURE 4. Falling Water Table

-AI-12-
Lateral Soil Vapour Diffusion
Organic chemicals released near ground surface may result in a contamination source in the
unsaturated zone, which can potentially diffuse laterally toward adjacent buildings (Figure 5).
For unsaturated zone sources, vapour diffusion in all directions will occur, which tends to result
in a rapid decline in soil vapour concentrations with increasing lateral distance from the source,
particularly for smaller contamination sources. The presence of anthropogenic features such as
paved surfaces, concrete slabs and fine-grained fill materials can reduce soil vapour flux to the
atmosphere and may promote lateral diffusion of soil vapour. There will also tend to be greater
lateral than vertical diffusion due to depositional history and soil layering, although the effect for
most soils is relatively minor.
For the Health Canada vapour intrusion guidance, buildings more than 30 m from contamination
were excluded from the screening process partly based on modeling studies that included lateral
diffusion and which indicated a significant decline in predicted vapour concentrations over this
distance (Mendoza, 1995; Abreu, 2005; Lowell and Eklund, 2004). A semi-logarithmic chart of
concentration versus log of distance may help estimate the distance where soil vapour
concentrations fall below levels of potential concern.
Preferential Pathways
The presence of preferential pathways such as utility conduits with granular backfill, which
intersect a contamination source and connect to the building, may result in enhanced soil vapour
intrusion. Since most buildings have subsurface utility penetrations, their presence alone is not
typically of concern. Of relevance are pathways that facilitate enhanced movement of soil vapour
toward and into a building. VOCs will readily partition into air when contaminated groundwater
is in contact with sumps or drain tiles, which is a scenario of concern for indoor air quality.
NAPL Source Capillary Transition Zone
FIGURE 5. Lateral Diffusion and Preferential Pathways

-AI-13-
Transient Soil Vapour Migration
After a spill has occurred, sorption into native organic carbon will initially cause concentrations
to be transient as soil vapour migrates from the source. After a period of time, an approximate
steady state vapour profile will develop after sorption sites are filled (assuming no
biodegradation). There are also transient effects through partitioning into soil moisture, which
may be significant for soluble chemicals such as MTBE. The time for a steady state profile to
develop will depend on chemical and soil properties and the thickness of the uncontaminated soil
layer. The time for steady state conditions can be estimated through an analytical solution for
one-dimensional steady-state diffusion and sorption based on linear partitioning into native
organic carbon. For example, based on solutions to this equation provided by Johnson et al.
(1998), for trichloroethylene, the approximate time required for a steady state diffusion profile to
develop would be approximately 0.5 years, for a depth to contamination of 3 m, and 5.7 years, for
a depth to contamination of 10 m. 2 The time to steady state may have implications for design of
soil gas sampling programs (i.e., sampling location and when to sample).
Hydrocarbon Vapour Biodegradation
Many petroleum-based hydrocarbons are readily degraded to carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
presence of oxygen (O2) and ubiquitous soil microbes. Oxygen is supplied from the atmosphere
through diffusion, barometric and diurnal pumping, and infiltrating water containing dissolved
oxygen. Aerobic biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons is a rapid process and often occurs
over relatively thin layers within the subsurface (Figure 6). Aerobic biodegradation is typically
primarily controlled by oxygen levels; other potentially important factors include the presence of
requisite microbes, moisture content, availability of nutrients and pH. Since anaerobic
biodegradation of hydrocarbons may also occur in oxygen-depleted zones, methane (CH4) may be
generated. Methane will also undergo aerobic biodegradation, so its presence represents an
addition demand on oxygen within the subsurface environment. Significant bioattenuation of
hydrocarbon vapours will occur when the downward flux of oxygen is sufficient to satisfy the
requirements for aerobic biodegradation. Where the hydrocarbon flux exceeds the oxygen
supply, for example, below a building, an anaerobic zone (sometimes referred to as an “oxygen
shadow”) may develop.
The key factors affecting biodegradation are source concentrations (“strength”) and separation
distance between the source and building. The size and depth of the building may also be
important depending on whether oxygen can readily penetrate through the foundation or whether
most oxygen replenishment is from beside the building. Processes such as barometric pumping
may also serve to increase oxygen transfer to below the building. Sites with shallow and high
levels of contamination with larger buildings or paved surfaces beside buildings conceptually
present the greatest potential for an oxygen shadow to develop.
Chlorinated solvents also can be biodegraded, but the process tends to occur under anaerobic
conditions (except for vinyl chloride) and is much slower than the aerobic biodegradation of
BTEX.
2
The input parameters for this calculation are water-filled porosity equal to 0.1, total porosity of 0.3 and organic carbon
fraction of 0.006.

-AI-14-
FIGURE 6. Conceptual Model for Aerobic Biodegradation
Barometric Pumping
A potentially important mechanism for soil gas advection is “barometric pumping,” caused by
cyclic changes in atmospheric pressure. These changes create a “piston-like” force on soil gas,
causing compression of soil gas when the air pressure increases, and expansion when it decreases.
This may result in a cyclic up and down movement of contaminant vapours in the affected
interval. Typically, the maximum variation in barometric pressure is about three percent over a
24-hour period (Massman and Farrier, 1992).
Assuming gas compression according to the ideal gas law, atmospheric air will be pushed into
surface soil to a depth up to about three percent of the total depth of the unsaturated zone. For a
10 m thick homogeneous unsaturated soil column, this means that the top 0.3 m of soil would be
affected by the complete barometric flushing of soil gas.
The magnitude of the pumping effect decreases with increasing depth, and also is affected by
pressure dampening and time-lag in the pressure response, which can be significant for finer-
grained deposits. There are unpublished accounts of barometric pumping causing significant
movement of soil gas in deep (greater than 100 m), unsaturated, fractured bedrock deposits where
a “breathing” phenomena has been observed (i.e., air flowing in and out of wells). “Breathing
wells” have been linked to several deaths in Canada (see the Canadian Ground Water Agency
website for a link to an associated article on this phenomena:
http://www.cgwa.org/press/breathing_wells.htm ).
Close to a building, barometric pumping may result in the movement of atmospheric air in and
out of foundation subsoils. Barometric pressure fluctuations may also result in episodic soil gas
intrusion. If there is a low permeability surface seal adjacent to buildings, cross-foundation slab
pressure gradients may be generated when the barometric pressure decreases. One study reported

-AI-15-
measured transient cross-slab differential pressures of up to 500 Pascals (Adomait and Fugler,
1997).
Stack and Wind Effect
The heating of a building, either by furnace, radiator, or other sources (i.e., sunlight on the roof)
creates a “stack effect” as warm air rises in the building (Figure 7). This causes an outward air
pressure in upper storeys and inward air pressure near the base of the building. Warm air that
escapes is replaced by air infiltrating through doors and windows and soil gas migrating through
the foundation. The magnitude of the depressurization at the base of the building is proportional
to the height of the building, although tall buildings are designed with features to minimize cross-
floor leakage of air and excessive depressurization.
Elevator shafts may represent both a preferential pathway for soil gas intrusion at the base of the
building (a drain is often present in the elevator pit) and for upward movement of air within the
building. The force of wind on the side of a building will cause a positive pressure on the
windward side of the building and a negative pressure on the lee side thus potentially resulting in
a depressurised building.
FIGURE 7. Stack and Wind Effect on Depressurisation

(NPL = neutral pressure line)

-AI-16-
Foundation Construction
Conceptually, different foundation construction could lead to different processes for soil vapour
intrusion. For example, higher soil gas advection rates would be expected for houses with
basements, due to higher depressurization and larger subsurface foundation surface area for
intrusion. For houses with crawlspace foundations, the degree to which the crawlspace is
ventilated by outside air and the influence of cross-floor mixing and leakage between the
crawlspace and main floor could affect soil vapour intrusion rates. In cold climate areas,
crawlspaces are more likely to be well sealed to reduce the influx of cold air into the house.
Buildings with earthen floors are especially prone to vapour intrusion since there is a large
surface area for migration of soil vapour into the overlying structure; however, openings around
utilities and a perimeter crack, often observed at the interface between the foundation wall and
floor slab, also represent potentially significant entry routes for soil gas migration.
Although working hypotheses have been developed, the influence of foundation type on soil
vapour intrusion is still poorly understood. However, there is empirical data indicating that soil
vapour intrusion can be significant for several different types of building foundations including
basements, crawlspaces and slab-on-grade construction. The importance of the foundation for
vapour intrusion may depend on the distance from the contamination source to the building; for
larger distances the foundation may have little effect on vapour intrusion rate; for smaller
distances or where contamination is close to or in direct contact with the building (e.g., sumps,
wet basements), the foundation properties will tend to be significant.
Condominiums or commercial buildings may have one or more levels of below-grade parking.
Since ventilation rates are high for parking garages, there will tend to be greater dilution of
vapours that may migrate into the garage than for other building types.
Temporal and Seasonal Considerations
Potential temporal factors influencing soil vapour intrusion are complex. Higher building
depressurization and soil gas intrusion rates would be expected during the heating season. Winter
frost or higher soil moisture in near surface soils may limit the surface flux of volatiles to the
atmosphere. As a consequence, the migration of soil vapour toward drier soils below the building
may be enhanced. In some cases, intensive snowmelt or rain and wetting fronts can induce
advective movement of soil gas, which may, in turn, cause nonequilibrium mass transfer of the
contaminants between the water and the gas phases (Cho et al., 1993).
Surface soils with high moisture content may also reduce migration of atmospheric oxygen into
soil, which may reduce aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours. An off-setting factor is
that during summer, near surface ground temperatures may be higher leading to slightly higher
volatilization rates, since the Henry’s Law Constant is temperature dependent. The amplitude in
seasonal temperature variation decreases with increasing depth below ground surface, and at
many sites, temperature effects will be insignificant.
The influence of seasonal factors on building ventilation, which acts to dilute vapours, is difficult
to predict. While natural ventilation through open doors or windows may be reduced in winter,
there may be increased air exchange through building depressurization and operation of a furnace.
There can also be significant short-term variability unrelated to seasonal factors caused by diurnal
temperature fluctuations, occupant use (e.g., opening windows and doors), wind, and barometric

-AI-17-
pressure variations. On balance, the above factors suggest that in Canada, soil vapour intrusion
would tend to be greatest during winter months based on climatic conditions.
Buildings and Tanks as Soil Vapour Sources
While the usual paradigm for soil vapour transport is upward migration from a contamination
source located at or near the water table, if there is a surface contamination source, vapours will
migrate in all directions, including downwards. Indoor air that is affected by contamination
sources within a building may affect subsurface vapour concentrations if the building is positively
pressurized (McHugh et al., 2006). In this case, air will move downwards through the
foundation. Once below the building, vapours could diffuse away from the building, thus
creating a zone of impacted soil vapour. While it would be rare for buildings to have a significant
effect on subsurface soil vapour concentrations, a dry cleaner is one possible example of where
this could occur. Leaking underground storage tanks also represent potential soil vapour sources.

-AI-18-
Soil Vapour Intrusion Conceptual Site Model Checklist
Project: ___________________________________________________________________
Prepared by: ___________________________________________________________________
Date prepared: ___________________________________________________________________
INTENDED PURPOSE: This checklist is intended to address conceptual model development

for soil vapour intrusion studies, but does not include considerations relating to characterization
of indoor air quality. It is recognized that some of the information on buildings may not be
available in the absence of indoor air sampling.
Information Sources and Status
Summarize the information sources that have been used to develop the conceptual
site model
Summarize the status of investigations completed at the site
Summarize the status of remediation completed at the site including contamination
source zone, groundwater or vapour remediation
Contamination Source Characteristics
Describe the type, source and history of the contamination release
Describe the presence, distribution and composition of LNAPL and/or DNAPL, if
present at the site, describe whether LNAPL and/or DNAPL is potential mobile
Describe the distribution and extent of dissolved organic chemicals in groundwater
Describe whether there could be transformations to daughter products of potential
concern (e.g., chlorinated solvents)
Describe the migration characteristics of the dissolved plume, and whether the plume
is expanding, stable or shrinking,
Describe possible evidence for natural attenuation and bioattenuation in both
saturated and unsaturated zones
Geology/Hydrogeology
Describe the physical properties of soil in the unsaturated zone and shallow saturated
zone (grain size, moisture content, porosity, density, permeability)
Describe the natural organic carbon (or organic matter) content in soil
Describe the soil lithology (i.e., type of soil) with particular attenuation to soil
layering
Describe the bedrock with particular attenuation to fracture occurrence and
orientation, if bedrock is present

-AI-19-
Describe the depth to groundwater and fluctuations in the water table (e.g., seasonal,
tidal, long-term due to pumping)
Describe the hydrostratigraphic units and shallow groundwater flow system, and
perched water table, if present
Describe hydrogeological parameters ( e.g., groundwater flow direction, hydraulic
conductivity, vertical and horizontal hydraulic gradients)
Describe foundation subsoils
Utilities
Identify the location of subsurface utilities; indicate the type of utility, the plan
location, depth, and backfill properties, as available
Identify the location of any utilities that intersect the vapour contamination zone and
directly connect to buildings
Site Characteristics and Anthropogenic Features
Describe the surface cover in the area of the vapour contamination source(s) and
nearby buildings
Estimate the vertical and lateral distances from the vapour contamination source(s) to
nearby buildings. Estimate distances for soil, groundwater (dissolved) and NAPL
contamination sources.
Describe potential future changes to land use and implications for surface cover
Buildings
Identify location of existing buildings
Identify potential future buildings
Describe the occupancy and use of the buildings (residential, institutional,
recreational, commercial, industrial)
Approximate age of building
Describe characteristics of the building
Size of building
Number of storeys
Height of storeys
Foundation type (e.g,. basement, crawlspace, slab-at-grade); if combination of
foundations, indicate percentage for each type
Depth below grade to base of foundation
Foundation construction for both floor and subsurface walls (e.g., poured
concrete, concrete block, brick, wood)
General condition of foundation (cracks, openings)
Building construction (e.g., wood frame, concrete, brick)

-AI-20-
Elevator shafts
Moisture vapour barrier below building
Sumps or drains
Wells inside the building
Attached garage (i.e., single family residential)
Below building parking (i.e., apartment, commercial building)
Chemical use and storage.
Describe the HVAC system in the building including:
Type of heating system (natural gas, oil, radiant, steam, electrical)
Type of air conditioning system
Location of heating and air conditioning units
For commercial buildings, air intake and exhaust units
For residential buildings with forced air furnace systems, return air ducting, does
furnace have source of combustion air
Describe sub-slab ventilation systems or moisture barriers present on existing
buildings, or identify building- and fire-code requirements for sub-slab
ventilation systems (e.g., for methane) or moisture barriers below foundations.

-AI-21-
CHECK LIST FOR SOIL GAS

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAMS
1. Identification of contaminants of concern (COC), physical-chemical properties, and potential

for biodegradation or biotransformation.
2. Information on concentration, phase, distribution and extent of COCs.
3. Hydrogeological information.
4. Depth to contamination source zones.
5. Distance (vertical, lateral) from building to contamination source zones.
6. Vadose zone properties.
7. Size, location and type of buildings.
8. Location of subsurface utilities.
9. Potential for meteorological or seasonal factors to influence soil vapour concentrations.
SOIL GAS SAMPLING DESIGN (WHY, WHERE AND WHEN)
1. Identify objectives of the soil gas sampling.
2. Integrate CSM into soil gas sampling design.
3. Identify buildings of potential concern.
4. Identify soil gas probe locations; start with soil gas characterization near contamination
source zone. Beyond source soil gas characterization;
5. Are transects needed?
6. Are vertical profiles needed? Is biodegradation assessment needed?
7. Are subslab soil gas probes needed?
8. When determining when to sample, consider possible temporal variations. Is repeat soil gas
testing warranted? If so, what should monitoring frequency be?
9. Do not conduct sampling during and after heavy rain.

-AI-22-
SOIL GAS PROBE INSTALLATION (HOW)
1. Review utility locations.
2. For subslab soil gas probes, evaluate safety issues and whether integrity of building envelope
and structure will be affected.
3. Select probe type.
4. Select probe materials.
5. Test field blanks (ambient or zero air drawn through probe assembly) to evaluate whether
probe materials are clean, prior to installing probe as warranted.
6. Install probe.
7. Complete soil gas probe with valve or stopcock at surface to prevent atmospheric air from
entering probe.
8. Seal driven probes at ground surface.
SOIL GAS SAMPLING PROCEDURES
1. Allow soil gas probe to equilibrate.
2. Select sampling container or device (in conjunction with analytical procedures).
3. Ensure sampling container or device, and sample tubing is clean. For sampling container or
device supplied by laboratory, batch or individual certification of each container or device
may be warranted.
4. Test sampling train excluding probe for leaks and short circuiting prior to sampling as
warranted.
5. Purging and sampling of probe;
a. Calculate dead volume of probe.

b. Purge 2 to 3 purge volumes.
c. Use relatively low flow rate (i.e., 100 to 200 ml/min). Pumps should be accurately
calibrated prior to use.
d. Monitor the vacuum during purging. Reduce the flow rate if the vacuum exceeds 10
inches water.
e. When purging is complete, turn off pump and allow vacuum to dissipate.
f. Collect soil gas sample using relatively low flow rate (i.e., 100 to 200 ml/min).
g. Use consistent procedures between probes at a site and record procedures.

-AI-23-
6. During sampling test integrity of probe surface seal using tracer as warranted.
7. Place sampling container or device in non-chilled container.
8. Record weather conditions during sampling.
SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL METHODS
1. Determine data quality objectives. Establish required detection limits based on conservative
vapour intrusion dilution factors and other factors.
2. Select analytical method and sampling container and device.
3. Determine sampling duration and flow rate for sorbent tube sampling.
4. Establish program quality assurance and quality control protocols. Analyze field duplicate,
laboratory duplicate, blank and spiked samples as warranted.
DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS
1. Evaluate data quality.
2. Evaluate data quantity.
3. Evaluate whether results reasonably representative of site conditions.
4. Evaluate data completeness (were samples proposed actually collected and analyzed).
5. Evaluate data consistency with respect to data comparisons (i.e., self-consistent) and expected
results based on CSM.
6. Plot plan maps and cross sections of soil vapour (and other) data to improve data
interpretation.
7. Conduct any additional analysis needed based on program objectives.

-AII-1 -
APPENDIX II
IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR VAPOUR

INTRUSION
Several different screening approaches that have been proposed for identification of contaminants
of potential concern (COPCs) for vapour intrusion are summarized in this appendix.
USEPA (2002) Draft Vapour Intrusion Guidance
The approach described in draft USEPA (2002) Vapour Intrusion Guidance (also described in
draft vapour intrusion prepared for Health Canada by Golder (2007)) identifies COPCs assuming
that the receptor is subject to a lifetime of exposure to the near maximum theoretical vapour
concentration. A chemical is identified as being of potential concern if the soil vapour
concentration estimated from an equilibrium partitioning model multiplied by an attenuation
factor exceeds an acceptable health based target indoor air concentration (CairT), defined below.
The theoretical soil vapour concentration (Cv) is the greater of the concentration predicted for
partitioning from a NAPL and dissolved contamination source (Exhibit 1). While the USEPA
(2002) used a subslab to indoor air attenuation factor of 0.1, an attenuation factor of 0.02 is
considered to be a reasonably conservative value for screening purposes. This is based on recent
empirical attenuation factor data that indicates the 90th to 95th percentile subslab vapour
attenuation factor is equal to about 0.02 for data that is filtered to remove low “source strength”
data where subslab vapour concentrations are within 100 times literature background
concentrations in air, and thus indoor air impacts are not expected, or where there is non-
representative soil vapour measurements (USEPA, 2007; Golder, 2007).
For the calculation of target air concentration, it is recommended that the background
concentration be set equal to zero for all chemicals, the rationale being that background
concentrations for many chemicals are highly variable and not well established. The soil
allocation factor (SAF) should be set equal to the value assumed for the derivation of the generic
standards (MOEE, 1996a) to account for exposure via other pathways (e.g., food, soil, consumer
products). The toxicity reference values (TRVs) should be obtained from sources approved by
the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
MOEE (2009) should be consulted for physical-chemical data, for chemicals with data. If not
available, the recommended primary sources of physical-chemical parameters are those provided
by Mackay, Shiu and Ma (2006), Montgomery (2006) and Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC)
CHEMFATE database. Sources of compiled physical-chemical properties include: (1) US EPA

-AII-2-
Superfund Johnson and Ettinger Spreadsheet 1 , (2) US EPA Region 9 2 , (3) Risk Assessment
Information System (RAIS), a database of toxicity factor and physical-chemical parameters
maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Management,
Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) Office, (4) U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology
(U.S. Commerce Department) 3 , EPIWIN Suite–PcKoc developed by Syracuse Research
Corporation (SRC) for USEPA 4 , and (5) Montgomery (2006).
The screening process described above is relatively conservative in that a number of semi-volatile
or essentially non-volatile chemicals (e.g., three and four-ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAH) compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls) are identified as potential chemicals of
concern.
USEPA Region 9
The USEPA Region 9 identifies a volatile chemical for the vapour intrusion pathway as having a
Henry’s Law Constant greater than 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and molecular weight less than 200 g/mol.
A threshold equal to a Henry’s Law Constant of 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol results in chemicals such as
naphthalene (4.2x10-4) 5 and fluorene (7.8x10-4) as being identified as volatile, but not chemicals
such as pyrene (9.1x10-6) and benzo(a)anthracene (5.7x10-6). There is little apparent basis for the
200 g/mole threshold since some chemicals with molecular weights greater than 200 g/mole are
relatively volatile.
BC Environmental Laboratory Quality Assurance Advisory Committee
In Summer 2008, the BC Ministry of Environment (MoE) commissioned the BC Environmental

Laboratory Quality Assurance Advisory Committee (BCELQAAC) to define “volatile
substances” for purpose of planned soil vapour standards in British Columbia. This work is not
yet published, but a presentation by Mr. Mark Hugdahl (July 8, 2008) and subsequent discussions
with the committee indicate the following:
• The proposed criteria for definition of volatile substance is a chemical with both a Henry’s
Law constant greater than 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and vapour pressure greater than 0.05 Torr;
1
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/airmodel/johnson_ettinger.htm (V.3.1 (February 2004))
2
http://www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/files/04physchem.pdf
3
http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/
4
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuitedl.htm
5
All Henry’s Law constants from Health Canada Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA)
spreadsheet (June 2008)

-AII-3-
• A threshold based on Henry’s Law constant alone is considered impractical. For example
most n-alkanes have Henry’s Law constants that exceed 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol since they have
low to moderate vapour pressures, but very low solubilities. The vapour pressure is
considered to be a more effective measure of total volatility for screening purposes;
• Functionally, the above criteria results in naphthalene, 1-methylnaphthalene and 2-

methylnaphthane as being identified as volatile substances, but not PAHs with higher
molecular weights. With respect to n-alkane compounds, tridecane (n-C13) is identified as
the cut-off for volatile substances;
• A review of soil vapour data for semi-volatile analyses indicated at sites where PAHs heavier
than methyl-naphthalenes were identified (acenaphthylene, acenaphthene and fluorine), they
were usually found at concentrations that were below 2.5% of the naphthalene concentrations.
With respect to n-alkane fractions, concentrations in soil vapour drop off significantly for
alkanes heavier than n-C13. On average, the review of soil vapour data revealed that the n-
c13 to n-C16 fraction was 2-4% of the total volatile organic fraction, and never above 25%.
A brief review of Golder Associates project files suggests similar trends as those described
above. For example, soil gas monitoring conducted at a former manufactured gas plant (MGP)
site indicated detectable naphthalene concentrations that were as high as 200 ug/m3 (and BTEX
concentrations that were much higher), but non detect concentrations of heavier molecular
weight PAHs including 2-methylnaphthalene.
Mobility Considerations
The above approaches do not consider the potential mobility of chemicals in the subsurface.
Organic chemicals that are near neutral (i.e., relatively non-polar) such as PAH compounds
absorb into native organic carbon present in subsurface soils and thus, the rate of soil vapour
transport will be retarded through sorption until all the adsorptive sites are occupied. Although
eventually soil vapour profiles will theoretically reach a steady state profile as sorption sites are
filled, this process can be relatively slow. Equilibrium conditions may never be reached if there
is an insufficient mass of chemicals or biodegradation occurring. Since the regulatory
framework for this guidance assumes at least 1 m of unimpacted soil between the building and
contamination source, there is at least a 1 m buffer for sorption to occur.
The rate at which chemicals will move in subsurface will be dependent on the chemical, organic
carbon-chemical (Koc) partitioning coefficient, the organic carbon content in soil, soil moisture
and transport distance. For one-dimensional transient soil vapour transport by diffusion and
sorption, the approximate time to reach steady state conditions for vapour transport within a soil

-AII-4-
column, where the initial boundary condition is a step change increase in concentration at time
zero can be approximated using the equations below (Johnson et al., 1999).
τss = Rv θa L2 / Deff [1]
Rv = 1 + ρbKd/(θaH’) + θw/( θaH’) [2]
Kd = Koc * foc [3]
Deff = Da * θa 3.33. / θ 2 + Dw/H’ * θw 3.33. / θ 2 [4]
Where τss is the time to steady state (sec), L is the transport distance (cm), Rv is the retardation
coefficient (dimensionless), θa is the air-filled porosity (dimensionless), Deff is the effective
diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec), Da is the free air diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec), Dw is the water
diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec), θw is the water-filled porosity (dimensionless), θ is the total
porosity (dimensionless), Kd is the soil-water partitioning coefficient (cm3/g), Koc is the organic
carbon –water partitioning coefficient (cm3/g), H’ is the dimensionless form of the Henry’s Law
constant, ρb is the bulk dry density (g/cm3).
The time to reach steady state conditions was evaluated for transport distances of 1 m and 5 m,
and fraction organic carbons of 0.1% and 0.5% (Tables 1 to 3). A relatively dry sand soil was
assumed with a water-filled porosity equal to 0.055 (Health Canada default for SCS Sand). For
a transport distance of 1 m and relatively low fraction organic carbon of 0.1%, the time to reach
steady state conditions is a few days for chemicals such as vinyl chloride, decane and
tetrachloroethene, but is a few years for chemicals such as naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene
(Table 1). The model predictions in Tables 2 and 3 illustrate how much longer times are
predicted for larger transport distances and higher fraction organic carbon contents. The model
predictions suggest that the mobility of polycylic aromatic hydrocarbon vapours will be low.
Summary
A number of approaches have been developed to identify COPCs for the vapour intrusion
pathway. Although there is no simple threshold that can easily be applied, when volatility and
mobility considerations are applied, combined with observations from soil vapour data from
sites, a reasonable threshold may be a Henry’s Law constant of 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and vapour
pressure of 0.05 Torr. This functionally results in 1- and 2-methylnaphthalene being the volatile
cut-off for PAHs and tridecane for straight chain aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds.
It may be possible to further refine lists of COPCs through consideration of relative volatility and
toxicity for different contaminant types or mixtures. For example, for sites with coal-tar and

-AII-5-
creosote contamination, a list of COPCs that consists of BTEX, styrene, trimethylbenzenes,

naphthalene, 1- and 2-methylnaphthalene would likely capture most compounds of potential
concern for the vapour intrusion pathway. Compounds heavier than naphthalenes would likely
contribute very small additional risk relative to that represented by the lighter molecular weight
compounds.
Table 1. Estimated Time to Steady State - Transport Distance of 1 m, foc = 0.1%
Chemical Da Dw Deff Koc H' Rv Τss

2 2 2 3
(cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /g) (-) (-) (days)
Vinyl chloride 1.06E-01 1.23E-05 1.69E-02 16.5959 3.24 1.079459 2.4
Tridecane (n-C13) 5.00E-02 1.00E-05 7.97E-03 50118.7 98 3.63874 16.9
Decane (n-C10) 5.00E-02 1.00E-05 7.97E-03 50118.7 197 2.312673 10.7
Tetrachloroethene 7.20E-02 8.20E-06 1.15E-02 275.423 1.08 2.474096 8.0
Benzene 8.80E-02 9.80E-06 1.40E-02 79.4328 0.225 3.584224 9.5
Naphthalene 5.90E-02 7.50E-06 9.41E-03 1122.02 0.017 351.4284 1384
2-Methylnaphthalene 5.22E-02 7.75E-06 8.32E-03 5011.87 0.026 1001.552 4457
Notes: All physical-chemical parameters were from Health Canada PQRA spreadsheet, except for decane
where H' is from Dr. Peter Grathwohl (HGC II 2006 lecture notes), Da and Dw assumed to be equal
to CCME C10-12 aliphatic fraction properties, and Koc for decane from Montgomery (2006). Tridecane .Koc
assumed to be equal to decane. Soil properties assumed were based on SCS Sand, with total porosity = 0.375,
water-filled porosity = 0.055, air-filled porosity = 0.32 and soil bulk density = 1.65 g/cm3

2 2 2 3
Vinyl chloride 1.06E-01 1.23E-05 1.69E-02 16.5959 3.24 1.079459 59
Tridecane (n-C13) 5.00E-02 1.00E-05 7.97E-03 50118.7 98 3.63874 423
Decane (n-C10) 5.00E-02 1.00E-05 7.97E-03 50118.7 197 2.312673 269
Tetrachloroethene 7.20E-02 8.20E-06 1.15E-02 275.423 1.08 2.474096 200
Benzene 8.80E-02 9.80E-06 1.40E-02 79.4328 0.225 3.584224 237
Naphthalene 5.90E-02 7.50E-06 9.41E-03 1122.02 0.017 351.4284 34590

-AII-6-

2 2 2 3
Vinyl chloride 1.06E-01 1.23E-05 1.69E-02 16.5959 3.24 1.185104 65

Tridecane (n-C13) 5.00E-02 1.00E-05 7.97E-03 50118.7 98 14.18669 1648
Decane (n-C10) 5.00E-02 1.00E-05 7.97E-03 50118.7 197 7.559874 878
Tetrachloroethene 7.20E-02 8.20E-06 1.15E-02 275.423 1.08 7.733908 624
Benzene 8.80E-02 9.80E-06 1.40E-02 79.4328 0.225 10.86557 717
Naphthalene 5.90E-02 7.50E-06 9.41E-03 1122.02 0.017 1712.701 168575

-AII-7-
EXHIBIT 1.
SCREENING PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF CHEMICAL IS VOLATILE AND TOXIC
1. Estimate Maximum Vapour Concentration
NAPL Present: CvNAPL = UCF1 * MW*P/(R*T)

No NAPL Present: Cv NO NAPL = UCF2 * S * H’
Maximum Vapour Concentration: Cv = Max (CvNAPL, Cv NO NAPL)
Parameter Default
NAPL 3
Cv = Vapour concentration NAPL is present (mg/m ) Calculated
Cv NO NAPL = Vapour concentration NAPL not present (mg/m3) Calculated
MW = Molecular weight (g/mole) Chemical specific
P = Pure chemical vapour pressure (atm) Chemical specific
R = Gas constant (m3-atm/K-mole ) 8.21x10-5
T = Absolute temperature (K, 273oC + T(oC)) 288
H’ = Dimensionless Henry’s Law Constant Chemical specific
S = Pure chemical aqueous solubility (mg/L) Chemical specific
UCF1 = Unit Conversion Factor (mg/g) 1,000
UCF2 = Unit Conversion Factor (L/m3) 1,000
Ca = Concentration in air (mg/m3) Calculated
2. Calculate Maximum Indoor Air Concentration
Cair = Cv * α where α = 0.02
3. Calculate Target Air Concentration
Carcinogen
CaircT = ILCRT / (UR * ET)
*Note: If UR is not available then convert SF to UR: UR = SF (mg/kg)-1 * IR / BW, use IR

and BW for adult for COPC screening purposes.
Non-carcinogen (TCair = RfC)
CairncT = HQT * SAF * (TCair – Cb)/ ET
*Note: If TC not available then convert RfD to TC: TC = RfD(mg/kg-day) * BW / IR (use

BW and IR for toddler for chemical screening purposes)

-AII-8-
Parameter Default
CairT = Target concentration of contaminant in air (mg/m3) Calculated
3
Cb = background air concentration (mg/m ) Zero
DRIHV = Dose rate from inhalation of volatiles (mg/kg(BW)-day) Calculated
ILCRT = Target incremental lifetime cancer risk (dimensionless) 10-6
HQT = Target hazard quotient 1.0
SF = Slope factor (mg/kg-day)-1 Chemical Specific
IR = Receptor air intake rate (m3/day) (toddler non carcinogens) 9.3
IR = Receptor air intake rate (m3/day) (adult carcinogens) 15.8
BW Body weight (kg) (toddler non carcinogens) 16.5

BW = Body weight (kg) (adult carcinogens) 70.7
UR = Unit risk factor (mg/m3)-1 Chemical Specific
ET = Fraction of time exposed (dimensionless) 1.0

3
TCair = Tolerable concentration in air (mg/m ) Chemical specific
4. Determine if Chemical is Volatile and Sufficiently Toxic
If Cair >= CaircT or CairncT then chemical is considered volatile for purpose of selecting COPCs.
If Cair >= CaircT and CairncT then chemical is not considered volatile for purpose of selecting
COPCs.

-AIII-1-
APPENDIX III
SELECTED LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS
Method Type of Collection

Method Stability Detection Limit2 Reference
No. Compounds Device
Tenax® GC/MS
TO-1 3 VOC solid or 0.02 - 200 ug/m3 USEPA
(0.01-100 ppbv) 1999
sorbent GC/FID
Molecular
TO-2 3 VOC sieve GC/MS 0.2 - 400 ug/m3 USEPA
(0.1-200 ppbv) 1999
sorbent
Canister,
TO-3 VOC Tedlar Bag GC/FID 0.2 - 400 ug/m3 USEPA
(0.1-200 ppbv) 1999
(Cryotrap)
Polyurethan
TO-9A,
SVOC e foam GC/MS 1 - 20 ug/m5 USEPA
10A (0.4-2.5 ppbv) 1999
(PUF)
200 - 400,000
TO-12 NMOC
Canister or
FID ug/m3 USEPA
on-line (100-200,000 1999
ppbvC)
Polyurethan
TO-13A
PAH e foam GC/MS 0.5-500 ug/m3 USEPA
3 (0.6 - 600 ppbv) 1999
(PUF)
Specially-
TO-14A
VOC
treated GC/MS 0.4 - 20 ug/m3 USEPA
(nonpolar) (0.2-2.5 ppbv) 1999
canister
VOC Specially-
TO-15 (polar/nonpol treated GC/MS 30 days 0.4 - 20 ug/m3 USEPA
(0.2-2.5 ppbv) 1999
ar) canister
Specially-
TO-15A VOC treated
GC/MS/S
30 days 0.005 - 0.02 ug/m3 USEPA
IM (0.002-0.04 ppbv) 2000b
canister
Single/multi
TO-17 3 VOC -bed
GC/MS,
30 days 0.4 - 20 ug/m3 USEPA
FID (0.2-2.5 ppbv) 1999
adsorbent
sorbent,
Modified
VOC solvent
GC/MS,
14 days 1 - 20 ug/m3 5 OSHA
OSHA 7 FID (0.4-2.5 ppbv) (2000)
extraction
Modified sorbent,
Hydrocarbon NIOSH
NIOSH solvent GC/FID 30 days 4 100 - 400 ug/ m3 5
fractions (1994)
1550 extraction

-AIII-2-
Method Type of Collection

Method Stability Detection Limit2 Reference
No. Compounds Device
N2, O2, 20,000 - 150,000
Method USEPA
3C
CO2, and Canister GC/TCD ug/m3 2002a
CH4 (10,000 ppbv)
Tedlar Bag,
Method
H2S Canister, GC/FPD 100 - 700 ug/m3 USEPA
16 (50 ppbv) 2002a
Glass vials
8015B/80
Tedlar Bag, 300 - 3000 ug/m3 USEPA
TPH/VOC Canister, GC/FPD (100 - 10,000
51D 1998
Glass vials ppbv)
Tedlar Bag, 4.0 - 60 ug/m3 USEPA
8021B VOC Canister, GC/PID (0.3 ppbv to 30 1998
Glass vials ppbv)
Tedlar Bag, 10.0 - 50 ug/m3 USEPA
8260B VOC Canister, GC/MS (0.6 ppbv to 25 1998
Glass vials ppbv)
Tedlar Bag, 1,000 ug/m3 USEPA
8270C SVOC Canister, GC/MS (20,000 ppbv to 1998
Glass vials 100,000 ppbv)
Tedlar Bag, 800 - 29,000
D1945- natural gases ASTM
03 and mixtures
Canister, GC/TCD ug/m3 2003
Glass vials (10,000 ppbv)
H2, O2, 800 - 18,000
Tedlar Bag,
D1946- CO2, CO, ASTM
90(2000) CH4, C2H6,
Canister, GC/TCD ug/m3 1990
Glass vials (10,000 ppbv)
and C2H4
Notes:
Adapted from API (2005).
1
This is not an exhaustive list. Some methods may be more applicable in certain instances. Other
proprietary or unpublished methods may also apply.
2
Detection limits are compound specific and can depend upon the sample collection and the
nature of the sample. Detection limits shown are for the range of compounds reported by the
analytical methods.
3
To achieve high sensitivity, the indicated methods utilize a trapping-type sampling method and
relation of results to air-borne concentrations may not be possible.
4
Taken from NIOSH 1500 “Hydrocarbons, BP 36°-216 °C” and NIOSH 1501 “Hydrocarbons,
Aromatic”.
5
Based on a sample volume of 50L. Larger volumes can be collected to improve sensitivity.
GC/MS = Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

GC/FID = Gas chromatography/flame ionization detector
GC/FPD = Gas chromatography/flame photometric detector
GC/TCD = Gas chromatography/thermal conductivity detector
VOC = Volatile organic compounds

-AIII-3-
PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

NMOC = Non-methane organic compounds
SVOC = Semi-volatile organic compounds
Hydrocarbon Fractions include TVOC C6-10, TVOC C10-19, CCME CWS-PHC fractions for F1
and F2.
METHODS FOR HYDROCARBON FRACTIONS
The collection of soil vapour and/or air samples for analysis of hydrocarbon fractions is often
required for risk assessments performed in Canada. The hydrocarbon fractions are described in
the Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds (CCME, 2001) and consist
of the F1 (C6-C10) and F2 (C10-C16) fractions, and aliphatic and aromatic subfractions. The
aliphatic fractions of interest are C6-C8, C>8-C10, C>10-C12 and C>12-C16 1 . The aromatic
fractions of interest are C>7-C8 2 , C>8-C10, C>10-C12 and C>12-C16.
Canisters and Sorbent Tubes (Thermal Desorption Method)
When canisters (USEPA TO-15) or thermal tubes (USEPA TO-17) are used, GC/MS analysis
must be performed to obtain the aromatic and aliphatic subfractions. When GC/MS is used for
analysis of hydrocarbon fractions, differences in MS operation (i.e., full scan versus selective ion
mode (SIM)) and the number of and specific ions selected for quantification and calibration will
influence the analytical results, which may vary significantly between analytical laboratories
depending on the method used. Although quantitative studies have been limited, it appears that a
full scan approach where data is obtained on all or most peaks is a more accurate method of
quantification compared to SIM mode. Unfortunately, CCME (2001) does not prescribe methods
for how GC/MS analysis should be performed since it is a soil method involving fractionation and
GC/FID analysis.
CCME (2001) defines F1 as the total area summation between the apex of the hexane and decane
peaks, and F2 as between the apex of the decane and hexadecane peaks. The BTEX and
naphthalene peak areas are removed from the total area summations for each fraction. The F1 is
calibrated against toluene response generally obtained as a full scan GC/MS peak. The F2 is
typically calculated against decane response as a full scan GC/MS peak. This is a slight deviation
from CCME (2001), which indicates the average of the decane and hexadecane response should
be used; however, laboratories find it is difficult to generate and maintain a known vapour
concentration of hexadecane. Therefore the response of decane only is often used to calibrate for
the F2 fraction. For the aliphatic/aromatic subfractions, one option is identify the peaks as being
1
In some cases C>16-C21 is also quantified, although the vapour-phase concentrations within this carbon
range tend to be negligible.
2
This fraction is comprised mostly of toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (TEX) and therefore is sometimes
not quantified

-AIII-4-
aromatic or aliphatic and then add full scan peak areas (not area summation) of the aliphatic and
aromatic peaks within their respective carbon number ranges. Aliphatic subfractions are
quantified against the full mass spectra response of n-hexane; aromatics against toluene.
While CCME (2001) clearly defines the F1 and F2 fractions, no such guidelines exist for
subfractions. This has lead to variable and uncertain definitions, for example, the C6-C8 aliphatic
fraction is referenced as either C6-C8 or >C6-C8. The first implies including the n-hexane peak
in the area summation. The second implies excluding n-hexane. The n-hexane peak should be
included in the analysis considering it has a relatively high toxicity.
Sorbent Tubes that are Solvent Extracted
Sorbent tubes that are extracted with a solvent such as carbon disulphide (i.e., modified industrial
hygiene methods) allow fractionation using silica gel columns and analysis using GC/FID
methods. One method commonly used by laboratories in Canada involves fractionation of the
carbon disulphide extract (i.e., sample) using a micro-silica gel column. After adding the carbon
disulphide to the column, the column is successively eluted with pentane and a
pentane/dichloromethane (60:40) mixture to collect the aliphatic and aromatic fractions,
respectively. Each fraction is analyzed by GC/FID method for quantification. This method does
not have the sensitivity that the USEPA TO-15 and TO-17 methods have because only a small
fraction of the solvent extract is analyzed.
References
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2001. Reference Method for Canada-Wide
Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PHC) in Soil – Tier 1 Method. Publication No. 1310,
2001, Winnipeg.

AIV-1
APPENDIX IV
RECOMMENDED HEALTH-BASED INDOOR AIR TARGET LEVELS FOR

SELECTED VOC
The following indoor air criteria were calculated as per the approach outlined in the
Rationale for Development of Generic Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at
Contaminated Sites in Ontario (MOE 2009), Section 2.7.3. This approach was developed
to calculate the generic soil and ground water standards according to the specific
objectives and assumptions of O. Reg. 153/04 as amended.
The health-based indoor air criteria below are presented to assist the evaluation of indoor
air contamination resulting from subsurface vapour intrusion in Brownfields. The
objectives and assumptions incorporated in the development of these indoor air target
levels are specific to O. Reg. 153/04. As such, the indoor air levels provided below may
not be appropriate to apply in situations where the objectives or assumptions of the health
risk assessment diverge from those used in the derivation of the indoor air target levels
below. In such situations, the risk assessor may consult the MOE for advice on
appropriate screening levels for the specific case.
Brownfields Regulation
Health-Based Indoor Air
Henry's Criteria
Vapour
(atm-m3/mol)
CHEMICAL NAME Pressure
Industrial -
(mm Hg)
at 15oC Residential Commercial-
µg/m3 Community
µg/m3
Acetone 3.96E-05 2.31E+02 2.50E+03 8.58E+03

Benzene 5.55E-03 9.48E+01 5.06E-01 1.63E+00
Bromoform 5.36E-04 5.40E+00 1.01E+00 3.25E+00
Bromomethane 6.24E-03 1.62E+03 1.00E+00 1.00E+00
Carbon Tetrachloride 2.77E-02 1.15E+02 4.17E-01 1.43E+00
Chlorobenzene 3.11E-03 1.20E+01 2.09E+02 7.15E+02
Chloroform 3.67E-03 1.97E+02 2.10E-01 6.75E-01
Cyanide (CN-) 1.33E-04 7.42E+02 1.67E+00 5.72E+00
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- 1.92E-03 1.47E+00 1.25E+02 4.29E+02
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- 2.41E-03 1.74E+00 2.78E-01 8.94E-01
Dichloroethane, 1,1- 5.63E-03 2.27E+02 3.44E+01 1.18E+02
Dichloroethane, 1,2- 1.18E-03 7.89E+01 4.28E-02 1.38E-01
Dichloroethylene, 1,2-trans- 9.37E-03 2.01E+02 1.25E+01 4.29E+01
Dichloroethylene, 1,1- 2.62E-02 6.34E+02 1.46E+01 5.01E+01
Dichloroethylene, 1,2-cis- 4.09E-03 2.01E+02 3.13E+01 1.07E+02
Dichloropropane, 1,2- 2.81E-03 5.33E+01 8.34E-01 2.86E+00

AIV-2
Brownfields Regulation
Health-Based Indoor Air
Henry's Criteria
Vapour
(atm-m3/mol)
CHEMICAL NAME Pressure
Industrial -
(mm Hg)
at 15oC Residential Commercial-
µg/m3 Community
µg/m3
Dichloropropene, 1,3- 3.55E-03 3.40E+01 2.78E-01 8.94E-01

Ethylbenzene 7.88E-03 9.60E+00 2.01E+02 2.01E+02
Ethylene dibromide 6.68E-04 1.12E+01 1.85E-03 5.96E-03
Hexachlorobutadiene 1.03E-02 2.20E-01 5.06E-02 1.63E-01
Hexachloroethane 3.89E-03 2.10E-01 2.78E-01 8.94E-01
Hexane (n) 1.80E+00 1.51E+02 5.21E+02 1.79E+03
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 5.70E-05 9.06E+01 1.00E+03 1.00E+03
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone 1.38E-04 1.99E+01 6.02E+02 6.02E+02
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) 5.87E-04 2.50E+02 4.28E+00 1.38E+01
Methylene Chloride 3.25E-03 4.35E+02 4.84E+01 1.55E+02
Naphthalene 4.40E-04 8.50E-02 7.72E-01 2.65E+00
Petroleum Hydrocarbons F1 6.21E+02 2.13E+03
Aliphatic C6-C8 1.22E+00 4.80E+01 9.59E+03 3.29E+04
C>8-C10 1.96E+00 4.80E+00 5.21E+02 1.79E+03
Aromatic C>8-C10 1.17E-02 4.80E+00 1.04E+02 3.58E+02
Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 1.07E+02 3.65E+02
Aliphatic C>10-C12 2.94E+00 4.80E-01 5.21E+02 1.79E+03
Aromatic C>10-C12 3.43E-03 4.80E-01 1.04E+02 3.58E+02
Styrene 2.74E-03 6.40E+00 5.42E+01 1.86E+02
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2- 2.42E-03 1.20E+01 1.50E-01 4.83E-01
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2- 3.67E-04 1.33E+01 1.92E-02 6.16E-02
Tetrachloroethylene 1.77E-02 1.85E+01 5.21E+01 1.79E+02
Toluene 6.63E-03 2.84E+01 1.04E+03 3.58E+03
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4- 1.42E-03 4.60E-01 1.67E+00 5.72E+00
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- 1.72E-02 1.24E+02 2.09E+02 7.15E+02
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2- 8.25E-04 2.30E+01 6.95E-02 2.23E-01
Trichloroethylene 9.86E-03 6.90E+01 5.56E-01 1.79E+00
Vinyl Chloride 2.79E-02 2.98E+03 1.26E-01 4.06E-01
Xylene Mixture 6.63E-03 7.99E+00 1.46E+02 5.01E+02

Ontario Soil Vapour Guidance - Final Draft - Jan - 12 - 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ontario Soil Vapour Guidance - Final Draft - Jan - 12 - 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISBN ###-#-####-####-#

Draft Technical Guidance:

Ministry of the Environment

CHAPTER 2. OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 3. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL

CHAPTER 4. SITE SCREENING PROCESS

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

4.3 Screening Level Assessment......................................................................................4-8

CHAPTER 5. SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

5.6.3 Field Laboratory Analysis..........................................................................................5-31

CHAPTER 6. INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL

CHAPTER 7. METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

7.7 Comparison of Measured to Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations ...........................7-4

CHAPTER 8. REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION

CHAPTER 10. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYM

APPENDIX I. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION AND

APPENDIX II. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL

APPENDIX II. SELECTED LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS .......... AIII-1

APPENDIX VI. RECOMMENDED HEALTH-BASED INDOOR AIR

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

FIGURE 1 - Flow Chart for Vapour Intrusion Guidance

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1-2

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

The Standards Development Branch (SDB) of the Ontario Ministry of Environment

This Guidance Document is intended to provide the user with a basic

• Promote the understanding of behaviour and migration of soil vapours

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

1.3 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

This guidance reflects the current state of knowledge on vapour intrusion.

1.3.1 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance

In 2000, the CCME developed Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum

The Atlantic Partnership in RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action)

The United States Environmental Protection released draft guidance in 2002

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) released guidance

The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) released guidance

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s “Vapour Intrusion

The American Petroleum Institute (API) developed a guidance document in

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

The Western Australian Department of Environment (2004) released a

This guidance was developed to promote the understanding of behaviour and

This Guidance Document can also assist qualified professionals conducting

1.4 GUIDANCE STRUCTURE

• Chapter 2 provides an overview of the site characterization and vapour

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

2.1 SCREENING PROCESS

2.1.1 Development of Conceptual Site Model

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

Site of potential concern

Comparison to MOE SCS

- Identification of precluding conditions

Exposure Controls (e.g. institutional controls, barriers, venting systems)

Obtain attenuation factor