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

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

CHAPTER 3. CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 What is a Conceptual Site Model?.............................................................................3-2 Information Needed to Build the Conceptual Site Model .........................................3-2 Fate and Transport Processes for Vapour Intrusion...................................................3-3 Generation of Vapours and Gases..............................................................................3-4 Fate and Transport in the Vadose Zone .....................................................................3-5 Soil Vapour Intrusion through the Building Envelope ..............................................3-5 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 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.4 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.5 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 5.5.5 5.5.6 5.6 5.6.1 5.6.2 Context, Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................5-2 Study Objectives ........................................................................................................5-3 Soil Vapour Sampling Approach and Design............................................................5-3 Overview of Sampling Strategy.................................................................................5-3 Considerations for Sampling Locations.....................................................................5-4 When to Sample and Sampling Frequency................................................................5-12 Biodegradation Assessment .......................................................................................5-13 Soil Gas Probe Construction and Installation ............................................................5-15 Probes Installed in Boreholes.....................................................................................5-16 Direct Push Technology.............................................................................................5-17 Use of Water Table Monitoring Wells as Soil Gas Probes........................................5-18 Subslab Soil Gas Probes ............................................................................................5-18 Probe Materials ..........................................................................................................5-20 Short-Circuiting Considerations and Shallow Probes................................................5-21 Soil Gas Sampling Procedures...................................................................................5-21 Probe Development and Soil Gas Equilibration ........................................................5-21 Flow and Vacuum (Probe Performance) Check ........................................................5-22 Sampling Container or Device...................................................................................5-22 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment.................................................................5-24 Testing of Equipment for Leaks and Short Circuiting...............................................5-25 Sample Probe Purging and Sampling ........................................................................5-26 Soil Gas Analysis.......................................................................................................5-28 Selection of Method...................................................................................................5-28 Field Detectors ...........................................................................................................5-29 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010

.6-24 Data Quality Evaluation.................7-3 Comparison of Indoor Air Data to Literature Background Concentrations ............................................. Purpose and Scope .................................................................3 6...6-11 Vapour Depletion Mechanisms..............................................1 6.................................5-43 Further Evaluation ................2..............................1 6.6-11 Mixing of Vapours Inside Building .................................................................................3...........2 6............................1 5................5 6...................8............................3 5............. METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF BACKGROUND FROM INDOOR SOURCES 7...............6-12 Define Study Objectives .6 6......7-2 Spatial Trends ........6-2 Conceptual Site Model for Indoor Air ...................................6-4 Background Indoor Air Concentrations.2...............................................................................................................................7 5...................................4 6.......................................................5-42 Data Consistency Analysis ...............3................10 6.......................................................3 5..........8...................................................7 6.........3....................................................6-24 Data Organization and Reporting .........6-14 Define Number and Locations of Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples ...............6-14 Conduct Preliminary Screening .....2 6............5 6..............8.....1 6.......................7-2 Marker Chemicals..................3 6.......................................3 7....4............................................................2 Context...2 6...........6-15 Define Sampling Duration ....................6-12 Development of Indoor Air Quality Study Approach and Design ............................................4 6.................5-39 Data Interpretation and Analysis ...........................1 7............................................................................2................................6..................3..................................2 7.3...................................3.................................................6 6..8 5...4......................................1 6.....................6....2...............................................................................5......................................9 6.....................5-32 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Considerations..........5 7......................6-24 CHAPTER 7.............................6-15 Define Sampling Frequency ..............................................................8 6............6 Constituent Ratios...........6-9 Building Ventilation................................................................................................6-9 Building Depressurization and Weather Conditions.......................5-42 Data Organization and Reporting ....................................................6-16 Preparing the Building for Sampling and Conditions during Sampling .............................................3................................................3.........2..4 6...........................................................................5 5.....6-18 Air Analysis Using USEPA Method TO-15...............................6........5....................................5-37 Ancillary Data....................................6-18 Air Analysis using Quantitative Passive Diffusive Samplers..................................... INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION 6.......................................................................5 6...............6-12 Identify Target Compounds ...............6-19 Data Interpretation and Analysis ........4 7........................................................................................................6-4 Building Foundation Construction...........7-3 Modification of Building Pressurization...............1 6...........................................................5-42 Data Quality Analysis ..............6-14 Identify Immediate Health or Safety Concerns .5-44 CHAPTER 6.5-31 Fixed Laboratory Analysis...............7-3 Emerging Methods................................6-13 Develop Communications Program.............................................................................2 6.......................................................4 Field Laboratory Analysis.................6-13 Conduct Pre-Sampling Building Survey...............................2 5..................2.3 6.....7-4 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 ..........................................................8..........3............6-17 Indoor Air Analytical Methods......................3.............................................4 5....Table of Contents v 5....

.....Selection of Soil Texture Class TABLE 4 ..7 Comparison of Measured to Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations ..... IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION.. RECOMMENDED HEALTH-BASED INDOOR AIR TARGET LEVELS FOR SELECTED VOC... LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYM LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX I..........Decision Matrix for Recommended Actions TABLE 5 ....Table of Contents vi 7.............. SELECTED LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS ..............Evaluation of Factors Affecting Below Building Hydrocarbon Vapour Bioattenuation and Soil Vapour Data Representativeness TABLE 7 ....................... AI-1 APPENDIX II.......7-4 CHAPTER 8.................Summary of Common Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis Methods TABLE 9 ...Compilation of Indoor Air Quality Data from Canadian Studies MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 ..Dominant Sources of VOCs in Residential Indoor Air TABLE 10 ..... RFERENCES CHAPTER 10.....AII-1 APPENDIX II...Comparison of Soil Vapour Measurement Locations TABLE 6 ..... AIII-1 APPENDIX VI.. AIV-1 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 .......Model Input Parameters for Screening Level Risk Assessment TABLE 3 .......Comparison of Different Media for Vapour Intrusion Investigations TABLE 2 ................... REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION CHAPTER 9............Soil Gas Sample Collection Containers and Devices TABLE 8 ........ CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL FOR VAPOUR INTRUSION AND CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL CHECKLIST ...........

Preparation of Building for IAQ Sampling MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .Flow Chart for Vapour Intrusion Guidance FIGURE 2 .Conceptual Model for Use of Soil Vapour Data FIGURE 4 .Soil Vapour Sampling Locations and Vertical Profile Concept FIGURE 10 .Lateral Transect Concept FIGURE 11 .Considerations for Cold Weather Sampling EXHIBIT 4 . 2005) FIGURE 9 .Framework for IAQ Sampling and Analysis Program LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 .Commercial Groundwater to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors FIGURE 7 .Residential Groundwater to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors FIGURE 5 .Residential Soil Vapour to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors FIGURE 6 .Commercial Soil Vapour to Indoor Air Attenuation Factors FIGURE 8 .Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion Pathway FIGURE 3 .Table of Contents vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 . FIGURE 12 .Definition of Vapour Attenuation Factors EXHIBIT 2 .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.Comparison of Generic Vapour Attenuation Factors EXHIBIT 3 .USEPA (2004) Recommended Design for Subslab Soil Gas Probes.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .Table of Contents THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

...............................................2 1............................2 1........................................... 1-2 Relationship to Other Guidance Documents and Ontario regulations............................................................................... 1-6 Guidance Structure. .....................................................3.............1 1...................................................... 1-6 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .. 1-4 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record of Site Conditions (RSC)...................1 1...3........ 1-2 1.............. 1-2 Objectives .................................................................. 1-3 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance .... Ontario Regulation 153/04........................................CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION....................3 1......4 Background ..................................

Therefore. volatilization of chemicals from the dissolved or non-aqueous phases in the subsurface can result in the intrusion of vapourphase contaminants into indoor air. and challenges resolving contributions of vapours from the subsurface compared to background concentrations and analytical reporting limits for some compounds. EPRI. 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. This Guidance Document considers soil vapour behaviour. Assist in identifying sites where vapour intrusion may be viable. 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. It should be noted however. 1. 1. in some cases.1 BACKGROUND Soil vapour intrusion is the migration of volatile or semi-volatile chemicals from contaminated groundwater and soil into overlying buildings. ITRC. as opposed to potential safety or acute risks which. Guidance Documents and Procedural Standards for contaminated sites. review and evaluate sites for vapour intrusion. This Guidance Document is intended to provide the user with a basic understanding of soil vapour intrusion and the tools required to identify. 2005). may arise from accumulation of vapours in buildings or confined spaces. that the current standard methods of assessing vapour intrusion are subject to considerable spatial and temporal variability. assessment and monitoring. 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.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. there may be the potential for unacceptable health risks to occupants of buildings as a result of inhalation of these vapours. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 2008. This document is based on current standards of practice and is generally consistent with recent guidance from other sources (Health Canada. as well as contaminants that may present a concern and when and where vapour monitoring should be conducted. If the vapour intrusion pathway is viable or complete. 2007. When releases occur near buildings.

2008) and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2005). regulatory guidance of note for vapour intrusion includes those developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA. California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control (2005). there has been an increased recognition that soil vapour intrusion is an important potential exposure pathway. Interstate Technical and Regulatory Council (ITRC) (2007). In the United States.e. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . and guidance on when further detailed assessment may be warranted. 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. conducting and assessing site conditions (i. Provide a screening level assessment methodology for prediction of potential risks through inhalation of vapours migrating into indoor air. Assist MOE staff in identifying sites where soil vapours. 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. Assist MOE staff in the review of site characterization and monitoring for sites with volatile compounds present. subslab vapours and/or indoor air should be monitored and formulating assessment requests and/or Environmental Protection Act (EPA) orders. There have been significant advances in understanding of vapour intrusion and in Canada. regulatory guidance has been developed for Health Canada (HC. 2002). American Petroleum Agency (2005). 2006). with focus on the use of soil vapour data. Tri-Services Environmental Risk Assessment Working Group (TSERAWG.. 2009). Electric Power Research Institute (2005). and by several provinces including British Columbia (BC Ministry of Environment. • • • • • • 1. soil vapour and subslab vapour quality) that would enable accurate assessments of potential impacts to indoor air quality.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. and the Atlantic provinces (PIRI. Introduction 1-3 • Specify the requirements and best practices for designing.3 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND ONTARIO REGULATIONS Over the past several years. Provide guidance on the modeling of vapour transport from the subsurface to indoor air. 2008) and by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (Golder 2008 and Geosyntec 2008).

in particular.0 for Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada User Guidance (Appendix 9). In 2000. where warranted. the reader should check for updates of older guidance as well as guidance from other agencies. The CWS-PHC was updated in 2008. model and supporting methods for this guidance. 1.1 of the EPA. The CCME soil standards for petroleum hydrocarbons developed in 2000 were adopted by the Province of Ontario and are contained in Part X. Atlantic PIRI published “Guidance for Soil Vapour and Indoor Air Monitoring Assessments” under Atlantic RBCA Version 2. 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. the US and Australia have recently published guidance on evaluating soil vapour intrusion at sites contaminated with volatile compounds. It is based on the ASTM Standard E2081-00. as required and appropriate. However. This guidance reflects the current state of knowledge on vapour intrusion.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. However. CERCLA (National Priorities List and Superfund Alternative Sites) and Brownfields sites.3. 2009.V. given the significant effort that was undertaken to develop the approach. Further details on the modeling approach can be found in the CCME (2008) technical supporting document. The United States Environmental Protection released draft guidance in 2002 for evaluating vapour intrusion (US EPA. Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action.1 Existing Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance A number of agencies in Canada. but not at Underground MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . incorporates relevant components of guidance developed for Health Canada. modifications have been made to reflect the policy of the Ontario MOE and the conditions in Ontario. 2002). The modeling approach used to estimate standards for petroleum hydrocarbon fractions is based on the methodology developed by Johnson and Ettinger (1991). the CCME developed Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds (CWS-PHC) that take into consideration the vapour intrusion pathway. 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. 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. since it is a developing field. The guidance is intended for use at RCRA Corrective Action. Introduction 1-4 This document builds upon the above guidance and. The following section provides a brief overview of key guidance. In July 2006.

htm The American Petroleum Institute (API) developed a guidance document in 1998 on assessing the significance of subsurface vapour migration to enclosed spaces (API. API released “A Practical Strategy for Assessing the Subsurface Vapor-to-Indoor Air Migration Pathway at Petroleum Hydrocarbon 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. The supplement describes applicable approaches for evaluating the vapour intrusion pathway in six typical scenarios. This Guide provides a generalized framework for evaluating the vapour intrusion pathway and describes the various tools available for investigation. outlines data requirements for evaluating indoor air exposures.nj.itrcweb.ca.pdf The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s “Vapour Intrusion Guidance (October. They subsequently released bulletins including guidance and modifications to the J&E model (API Bulletins 15 (2001). 2004). http://www. 16 (2002). including soil gas sampling and analysis. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .dtsc.state.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. The US EPA has publicly available versions of the J&E model in spreadsheet format that are recommended for screening level assessments.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1.org/Documents/VI-1A.org/Documents/VI-1. and mitigation. Introduction 1-5 Storage Tank (UST) sites. and 17 (2002)).us/dep/srp/guidance/vaporintrusion/vig. 2005)” provides comprehensive guidance on site characterization methods. data evaluation.pdf http://www. 1998).gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HERD_POL_Eval_Subsurface_ Vapor_Intrusion_interim_final. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) released guidance in January 2007 titled “The Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guide (VI1)”. The Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Investigative Approaches for Typical Scenarios (VI-2) (January 2007) is a supplement to Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guide. methods and analysis. A detailed guidance document on use of the models is also available from the US EPA website (US EPA. 2005). which includes guidance on soil gas sampling approach. It follows a tiered approach to assessment with each tier having increasing level of detail and complexity. In November 2005. It is a comprehensive document that includes guidance on identifying candidate sites for vapour intrusion. http://www. describes sampling methods and provides an overview on approaches for evaluating human health risks as well as mitigative measures and monitoring requirements.itrcweb. http://www.

2 Relation of this Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance Document and the Record of Site Conditions (RSC). and to assist MOE staff in the review of site characterization and monitoring for sites with volatile compounds present in the subsurface.api. The document provides an overview of vapour fate and transport. Ontario Regulation 153/04.4 GUIDANCE STRUCTURE The guidance is presented within the following structure: • • Chapter 2 provides an overview of the site characterization and vapour intrusion assessment process. This Guidance Document can also assist qualified professionals conducting RA under Ontario Regulation 153/04 to identify sites. Chapter 3 describes the conceptual site model for vapour intrusion and provides an understanding of the processes governing soil vapour fate and transport. sampling techniques.cfm The Western Australian Department of Environment (2004) released a guidance document on quantifying behaviour. 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. In 1992. This guidance was developed to promote the understanding of behaviour and migration of soil vapours in the subsurface under various site conditions. or contaminant levels. and data gaps. 2004). MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Note that any submission of RA and RSC under the Ontario Regulation 153/04 must meet all the mandatory requirements specified in the regulation. assessment and exposure of petroleum and solvent vapours (WADE. the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) published standards for soil gas monitoring in the vadose zone. 1. Introduction 1-6 http://www. modeling approaches and uncertainties.3. In March 2008.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. 1. The standards were subsequently re-approved in 2001.org/ehs/groundwater/lnapl/soilgas. ASTM published their standard E2600-08 “Standard Practice for Assessment of Vapor Intrusion into Structures on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions”. for which contaminant exposures through a vapor inhalation pathway may cause adverse health effects.

Chapter 6 provides detailed guidance on indoor air quality (IAQ) monitoring. with particular emphasis on soil vapour sampling and monitoring. Chapter 5 provides detailed guidance on characterizing sites. Introduction 1-7 • 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 1. 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. • • • • MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

..................................... 2-4 2..........3 Vapour Intrusion Mitigation ...............2 Preliminary Screening........................................................................................1 Development of Conceptual Site Model............................1................ 2-4 2...............1 Screening process...............................1 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards ...... 2-2 2............................ 2-7 2....................1...........4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment..................................1....................................................................................... 2-5 2............................................................................................................ 2-5 2..................................................................................1........CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT PROCESS .......... 2-2 2.................................3 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment ..................2...................4 Community Outreach.. 2-2 2.1.......................................2 Guidance Application and Implementation Process ... 2-4 2............................. 2-7 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 ........

The following sections provide a brief overview of the soil vapour intrusion assessment process. and interact with the various stakeholders. 2. screening level vapour intrusion assessment and detailed vapour intrusion assessment (Figure 1). Depending on the results of an individual stage. which often includes both a descriptive and diagrammatic presentation of contaminant sources. soil vapour fate and transport. 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. The CSM integrates available information relevant to the contaminant source and distribution. a tiered approach is recommended with increasing levels of complexity and information and data requirements. exposure pathways and receptors.1 SCREENING PROCESS For sites impacted by volatile compounds. mechanisms for volatilization. release and transport mechanisms. exposure media. building characteristics and external forces such as weather conditions. 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.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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 2. soil vapour intrusion into and movement within buildings. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . additional assessment may or may not be warranted. The tiered approach consists of preliminary and generic screening. and as such involves consideration of subsurface processes. as required. Additional technical details and guidance for the completion of the various tiers are provided in Chapter 4. Additional details on CSM development along with a description of processes governing the fate and transport of volatile compounds are provided in Chapter 3. The CSM should also reflect the risk paradigm for assessment of contaminated sites.

For future scenario. Immediate action warranted Site of potential concern Comparison to MOE SCS Collect Additional Data (e. Building air exchange rate 3. Preliminary Screening Site not of concren Determine if volatile/toxic chemicals are in proximity of buildings.g. Additional assessment may be warranted when within 10X of standards or screening levels. Building mixing height 2. barriers.g. institutional controls. geological conditions. indoor air. venting systems) No Are data adequate to screen out site? See Note Yes 2010 .Identification of precluding conditions (earthen basements. Detailed Assessment Typically includes modelling and sub-slab and indoor air sampling No Are data adequate to screen out site? See Note Yes No Note: It is of critical importance that data adequacy. biological factors) be carefully considered. soil. groundwater and soil vapour sampling and testing Obtain attenuation factor Based on soil type and depth to contamination Yes Adjust attenuation factor 1. outdoor air. consistency with CSM and all lines of evidence (contaminant concentrations. sub-slab vapour. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment Exposure Controls (e.Additional considerations (shallow water table. exposure controls implemented as part of construction may be required. groundwater. determine whether there is acute or safety risk. gas under pressure. high permeability media) Consider if No and well above SCS NO 2. Biodegradation Vapour pathway does not pose an unacceptable risk Yes Calculate Site Specific Screening Levels No Are data adequate to screen out site? See Note Yes Are groundwater and/or soil vapour concentrations below screening levels? Consider if No and well above SCS No Vapour pathway does not pose an unacceptable risk Yes Are indoor air concentrations acceptable ? 3. preferential pathways) . Overview of the Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment Process 2-3 Figure 1: Flowchart for Vapour Intrusion Assessment No Site Characterization Are there sufficient data to develop CSM ? Incomplete Exposure Pathway 1. soil vapour.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 2. Screening level Assessment Soil. building data) Vapour pathway does not pose an unacceptable risk Yes Are site concentrations below generic S-IA and/or GW2? .

For instance. Key considerations include the type and location of contamination. 2009a). 2. 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.e. This guidance provides an approach and recommended default input parameters for screening level assessments using the J&E model. with minor modifications made where appropriate. Overview of the Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment Process 2-4 2. groundwater. and based on the results.1.2.GW2) (MOE. the assumptions employed are similar to those employed in the derivation of soil and groundwater standards. 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.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 .1. relatively simple predictive models or empirical factors. the model developed by Johnson and Ettinger (1991) (“J&E model”) is often used for screening level assessments.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. presence of non-aqueous-phase liquid (NAPL).3 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment For sites identified as candidate sites for vapour intrusion assessment based on the preliminary and generic screening steps. If there are no precluding conditions. the need for further assessment should be evaluated. In many cases. and/or soil vapour to the derived objectives or screening levels. and conservative assumptions.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 2. Screening level assessments typically rely on limited site-specific data. Additional details on this step are provided in Chapter 4. 2.1.. measured concentrations can be compared to the MOE S-IA and/or GW2 (MOE. presence of odours linked to subsurface contamination and presence of hazardous vapour concentrations in soil gas or indoor air. Since available data are often limited at the screening level stage and to facilitate appropriate model predictions. chronic) health concerns. 2009a). the use of the J&E model is constrained in that MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . a screening level vapour intrusion assessment should be considered. building construction. Site screening is performed by comparing measured chemical concentrations in soil.

Overview of the Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment Process 2-5 only certain input parameters may be varied within specified ranges. The detailed assessment may also include the derivation of toxicity reference values for compounds lacking published values. measurements of soil gas and/or indoor air quality are generally incorporated into the assessment. 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. additional monitoring of site conditions may be warranted to assess whether conditions assumed continue to apply. Similar to the screening level assessment. A detailed assessment should also be considered in situations where technical or financial constraints severely limit the options available for remediating a site. 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.1. 2. A detailed vapour intrusion assessment includes all the key components of the screening level assessment. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .5. a detailed vapour intrusion assessment would typically not be required for the existing or prescribed land use and building configuration. or where new toxicity data are available. then. or if verification of risk estimates based on indoor air concentrations are required. Contaminant fate and transport modelling may remain an important component of a detailed assessment. prior to conducting the screening process. but generally incorporates more detailed sitespecific data. In the case of sites where vapour intrusion is a concern.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. which is often needed when more complex models are used. additional monitoring of site conditions may be warranted to assess whether conditions assumed for the screening level assessment continue to apply.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. In addition.2. However. potential precluding conditions should be evaluated as described in Section 4. or if verification of estimates based on indoor air concentrations are required. 2. 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 2.

particularly when measured concentrations are close to the standards. hydrogeological and soil properties) needed to understand contaminant migration within both the unsaturated and saturated soil zones.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 2. continue closer toward the building. if indicated by the results of previous steps. The lines-ofevidence 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. 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. which may be desirable and appropriate in some cases. although data adequacy and uncertainty should be considered. layered deposits). Although this guidance is structured to reflect a phased approach starting with screening of sites through the use of subsurface data. 2005. ITRC. The soil vapour assessment should begin with a characterization of soil vapour concentrations near to the contamination source and where warranted.g. Given the limitations associated with the use of soil data for evaluating the vapour intrusion pathway (see Section 4.. aerobic biodegradation (for petroleum hydrocarbons) and environmental factors (e. Overview of the Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment Process 2-6 The guidance is intended for application where there are currently occupied buildings at existing residential and commercial sites. 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. Where concentrations in soil and groundwater are below the applicable MOE soil condition standards (MOE 2009a). and finally. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 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. When indoor air quality results are borderline or inconclusive..g. weather conditions).. it is recommended that soil vapour characterization should generally be conducted whenever there is contamination within the unsaturated soil zone.g.1). 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. it may be appropriate to rely on a combination of measurements from different media to decide on appropriate responses to safeguard human health (EPRI. 2007). characterization of indoor air quality. no further assessment of soil vapour intrusion may be necessary.4. or where there is the potential for the presence of occupied buildings in a future land use scenario. 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.

g. In these cases. Where community outreach is warranted. Although each site will tend to have its own unique set of circumstances. provincial and local regulatory agencies will. it alone does not provide all the information and evaluation required under the RSC regulation. 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. Vapour intrusion mitigation generally refers to measures taken to prevent or control exposures. at sites where there is contamination below existing occupied buildings and where exposures are potentially current and on-going. potential future exposures are predicted based on subsurface concentrations measured near to contamination sources. 2. As such. to varying degrees be involved in the process. This guidance applies to both scenarios. these measures are typically implemented near to the building (e.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 2. 2. mitigative measures should be implemented. there will often be a focus on near building soil vapour and indoor air characterization. Overview of the Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment Process 2-7 It is also important to recognize that the approach to assessment of vapour intrusion may depend on the site scenario. 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.Reg. 153/04. A more comprehensive communications strategy should be implemented as part of an indoor air quality testing program. For example.Reg. Additional information on mitigation systems is provided in ITRC (2007). the qualified person (QP) must follow the procedures and requirements outlined in the O. Institutional controls or measures designed to control use of buildings by receptors are a possible solution in the short term. although different approaches may be warranted. However. At brownfield sites. where there are no buildings. 153/04 as amended and its related documents.. community outreach may be an important component of a soil vapour assessment program.4 COMMUNITY OUTREACH Depending on the circumstances. 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. A longer term approach may be measures to remediate the contamination that is the source of the vapours. such as indoor air quality data. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .3 VAPOUR INTRUSION MITIGATION Where site characterization information. indicate that actions should be taken in response to levels of contaminants entering buildings through vapour intrusion. subslab depressurization or venting systems) or within the building itself.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . A strong communications program is essential to educate and reassure the local community in a meaningful and sensitive manner. Overview of the Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment Process 2-8 Several successful community outreach programs have involved contacting residents door-to-door to discuss the program directly when requesting access and providing information packets. articles published in community newsletters.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 2. such as those commonly associated with background sources in indoor air. Other communication tools include community meetings. mailing of project newsletters and development of a project website posting fact sheets and other relevant information. It is often helpful to communicate the potential risks from vapour intrusion in the context of risks from other chemicals.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

...........CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL.....2 3............ 3-2 3............1 3....................3..................3............................3........................................... 3-2 Fate and Transport Processes for Vapour Intrusion......................................................3 3..............................................3.............. 3-5 Mixing of Vapours inside the Building ............................1 3.................................................4 What is a Conceptual Site Model?...................................3 3. 3-6 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 ........ 3-5 Soil Vapour Intrusion through the Building Envelope ...................... 3-3 Generation of Vapours and Gases.. 3-2 Information Needed to Build the Conceptual Site Model .........................2 3........................ 3-4 Fate and Transport in the Vadose Zone .....................

and whom it may affect. To the extent possible. and. and potential future conditions). at a contaminated site. and biological processes occurring. chemical.1 WHAT IS A CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL? A conceptual site model (CSM) is a visual representation and narrative description of the physical. how the contamination was and is transported. potential sources and types of volatile or semi-volatile contamination. Further guidance on conceptual site models and fate and transport processes is provided in Appendix I. followed by an overview of processes and factors influencing vapour intrusion into buildings.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. 3. cross-sections and site diagrams. A well developed CSM provides decision makers with an effective tool that helps to organize. Conceptual Site Model 3-2 CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL This section begins by describing the elements of a conceptual site model (CSM) and information requirements for building the CSM. 2002). The CSM should include all relevant data from the site including: • MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2009 . as supported by maps. where the contamination will ultimately end up. or that have occurred. The CSM should be able to communicate how the site became contaminated. The receptors that could be exposed to the contamination (under both present and future land use scenarios). The CSM should be considered dynamic in nature and should be continuously updated as each stage of the investigation program is completed (USEPA. 3. the CSM should provide information on the three-dimensional nature of contamination and physical characteristics of the site. Information on historical and current land uses. 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). present conditions. communicate and interpret existing data. and known and suspected releases or spills that may have occurred at the site.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3. while also identifying areas where additional data are required.

industrial). Information on buildings (present and future) including location. fraction of organic carbon. lateral and vertical hydraulic gradients. Location and characteristics of subsurface utilities. walls and nearby utility corridors) and the building. sumps) and heating. bulk density and soil-air permeability. the vadose zone.. construction. outdoor source.. Form of contamination present (dissolved chemicals in groundwater. which consists of source partitioning or generation of soil vapours and gases. soil vapour and indoor air). Conceptual Site Model 3-3 • • • • Concentrations. • • • • • It is recognised that not all of the above information may be collected or is needed. porosity. Vadose zone soil properties including water content. crawlspace. Information on background sources of volatile chemicals in indoor air including indoor sources. hydraulic conductivity. An example of a CSM that addresses the above processes is shown on Figure 2. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2009 . commercial. Approximate distance from the soil vapour sources to buildings (vertical and lateral). slab-atgrade) and foundation characteristics (e. Hydrogeological information including depth to groundwater. soil contamination and non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)). basement.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3.g. institutional. utility penetrations. Geological information including soil units present at the site and type or textural classification for each soil unit. building size and height. the subsurface building envelope (foundation. distribution and extent of the chemicals of concern in different media (soil. 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”. the groundwater flow direction.g. foundation type (e. groundwater. type of building (residential. to complete an assessment under this guidance. and. building materials and consumer products. ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system.

The NAPL is referred to as a primary source of vapours while a dissolved phase plume is referred to as a secondary source.1 Generation of Vapours and Gases There are two sources of subsurface vapours or gases encountered at contaminated sites. In contrast. For a secondary source where chemicals are present only as a dissolved phase in groundwater. volatilization will readily occur. if there is a layer of “clean” groundwater above MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2009 . hydrogen sulphide and hydrogen under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions. The second source of soil gases is biologically-mediated generation of gases such as carbon dioxide. Conceptual Site Model 3-4 Indoor Air Soil Contamination (residual or mobile NAPL) Chemical Vapour Transport Groundwater Contamination FIGURE 2: Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion – Residential Scenario 3. 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”). If volatile chemicals are present near the surface of the water table. methane. their distribution below the water table will determine their potential to volatilize and eventually migrate to indoor air.3.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3.

soil gas advection due to building underpressurization is often significant. diffusive flux tends to be much higher through the air-filled than water-filled soil pores. temperature. Diffusion coefficients in air are about four orders-ofmagnitude higher than in water. source depletion). and partitioning between the sorbed. The rate of diffusive transport is a function of the concentration gradient and the temperature of the medium through which diffusion is occurring. utility service penetrations. volatilization (i.e. Conceptual Site Model 3-5 contaminated water. gas-phase and water-phase advection. poured concrete or concrete block). The primary mechanisms for building depressurization are (1) temperature differences MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2009 . Driving forces for gas-phase advection are pressure gradients due to barometric pressure variation. Unless there is a constant replenishment of the chemical source. diffusion tends to be a more important process for transport than advection. barometric pressure..DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3. 3. water table levels. although in the shallow vadose zone close to a building. as discussed below.2 Fate and Transport in the Vadose Zone The transport of chemicals in the vadose zone is controlled by chemical diffusion. Environmental and seasonal factors that affect vadose zone transport processes include precipitation.. and dissolution through infiltration of surface water. biological and chemical transformation.3 Soil Vapour Intrusion through the Building Envelope When buildings are depressurized relative to subsurface soil. if present. soil gas. The main driving forces for soil gas advection tend to be building depressurization and barometric pressure fluctuations.3. Diffusion may also occur through openings and cracks in the building envelope and may be influenced by the properties of dust-filled cracks. At most sites. the processes are dynamic and transient since the chemical will be depleted through biodegradation. therefore. and density gradients due to compositional and temperature variation. wind. water movement.e. perimeter cracks at the building wall and floor slab interface. which may include untrapped drains. the primary process for soil vapour intrusion tends to be soil gas advection through openings in the building envelope. Diffusion occurs as a result of the movement of molecules as influenced by their kinetic energy. expansion joints.3. and subsurface moisture vapour barrier. the type of concrete construction (i. snow and frost cover. soil water and NAPL phases (when present). then. the rate of volatilization will decrease since mass transport is controlled by diffusion and dispersion in groundwater. and shrinkage cracks. 3.

and building foundation construction. doors and other openings. The rate of soil gas flow will be highly dependent on site specific conditions such as soil permeability. Mixing between building floors will depend on the HVAC system and possible unintentional air leakage between floors.g. The influence of the stack effect and wind generally increases with the height of the building (i. (2) the force of wind on buildings. Most models used for screening level assessment assume uniform and instantaneous mixing of vapour within the enclosed space.3. potential preferential pathways such as utility corridors. 3. In addition to migration through subsurface components of the building envelope. for “tall” buildings). although the effect for multi-storey buildings will depend on construction and air leakage between floors.. volatile chemicals that have migrated from the subsurface to ambient air could enter a building through windows. Soil vapour intrusion into a building with a crawlspace is largely affected by the degree to which the crawlspace is ventilated by outside air.. For buildings where the stack effect is the most significant mechanism for building depressurization. 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. higher soil vapour intrusion rates would be expected during winter months for Ontario climatic conditions. warm air moves upward within the building drawing soil gas and outside air from lower parts of the building). fans). and whether the crawlspace is connected to the airspace in the rest of the building (e..e. through the heating system). and (3) mechanical equipment that moves air into and out of the building (e. furnaces..DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 3. Conceptual Site Model 3-6 between indoor and outdoor air.4 Mixing of Vapours inside the Building Vapours inside enclosed spaces will diffuse as a result of chemical gradients and disperse through air movement. which create a stack effect within the building (i. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2009 .g.e. foundation backfill properties. The zone of influence for soil gas flow from building pressure differences is usually less than a few metres.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

............. 4-32 4.............8 Back-calculate site specific screening levels for soil vapour and groundwater ............................4..1 Precluding Conditions................2 Background Issues ..................................4 Are Buildings Located in Sufficiently Close Proximity to Contamination? ...1 IAQ Study Design...............................3.9 Data Evaluation and Next Steps ............. 4-4 4........ 4-15 4.. 4-26 4...4......................3 Does the Site Represent a Safety or Acute Health Risk Concern? ................3.................................. 4-27 4. 4-31 4................2..3 Screening Level Assessment...........2 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment ..................................... 4-33 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 ......2 Select Land Use .........................................................................3.........5..........2............3.................. 4-2 4.........................3...........................................2.2....3.........................2.............................................................................................7 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Biodegradation. 4-5 4.............. 4-7 4.... 4-24 4............. 4-33 4................................................. 4-2 4.......2........................ 4-24 4....2................................................. 4-16 4... 4-31 4........5 Comparison to the Generic Site Condition Standards (SCS)......2........................................2...............2 Additional Considerations ...................................................................... 4-17 4..1 Estimation of Input Parameters..............2................... 4-6 4...............................2..........3 Data Evaluation and Next Steps .......................................2..........4 Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factor .......3 Estimate Distance to Vapour Contamination Source.........................CHAPTER 4 SITE SCREENING PROCESS CHAPTER 4 SITE SCREENING PROCESS.........1 Site Characterization.......................1 Determine Soil Textural Type ........................... 4-17 4............................................ 4-21 4................................................ 4-4 4................2 Are There Chemicals of Potential Concern for Vapour Intrusion? ..............4 Exposure Controls......4... 4-21 4................................. 4-8 4.........2..............................4...4 Detailed Vapour Intrusion Assessment..................4............. 4-6 4.......................2..3...2.........1 Site Characterization....3 Soil Vapour Screening Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment Model ............................................................... 4-16 4........................5..............................................3..........3..............6 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Air Exchange Rate.................................2 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing....................2.................... 4-21 4.........................................................................................................2..........................................3..................1 Introduction..........................3.............................................4.2 Preliminary Screening.................. 4-8 4........................3.....2.. 4-3 4.5 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Mixing Height.... 4-3 4.................................... 4-26 4........

Screening Level Assessment.2..1 INTRODUCTION The tiered framework for vapour intrusion assessment consists of the following components: • • • Preliminary Screening. which are discussed in Section 4.3. should be consistent with the relative urgency of obtaining the results. 2005. the guidance does not preclude concurrent implementation of the tiers below. The above tiered process is consistent with recent developments in science and regulatory policy for soil vapour intrusion assessment (e. independent steps. including comparison to applicable site condition standard (SCS). Cal EPA. 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. 4. while details are provided in Chapter 5. for example when to sample indoor air in addition to the subsurface media.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. it is essential that the CSM be updated as new information is obtained. The site screening process should begin with the development of a conceptual site model (CSM) and site characterization. This chapter provides a summary of the site characterization process. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . therefore. and Detailed Assessment. ITRC. 2007. The timelines of the decision points. 2007. Golder. Key inputs to the screening level and detailed vapour intrusion assessment process are vapour intrusion attenuation factors. 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. which may be an appropriate approach for some sites. 2002). The site characterization process for evaluation of soil vapour intrusion will often be completed in phases and. It is also important to note that vapour intrusion investigations may follow an iterative approach rather than simply proceeding through sequential. The screening process is summarized in the flow chart shown in Figure 1. While the screening process is described below as a progression of steps starting with obtaining subsurface data. USEPA.g.

(b) evaluation of whether the site represents a safety or acute health risk concern.1 Site Characterization Preliminary screening and comparison to generic standards requires certain site characterization data. 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 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 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. the maximum site-wide media (e. hydrogeological conditions..2. they should be conducted concurrently in an integrated manner.g. Although the steps are presented below as a progression. 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. 4. 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. (c) evaluation of whether buildings are located in sufficiently close proximity to the contamination to be of concern. and relevant aspects of the assessment should be updated when new information is obtained. site reconnaissance and other data collection activities. which should identify the areas of potential environmental concern (APECs) and COPCs based on a historical review. and (d) whether the identified soil and/or groundwater concentrations are above the generic MOE SCS.e. therefore. it is important that the contamination source concentrations be properly delineated.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. Under the preliminary screening. there should typically be information on the presence and extent of COPCs in soil and groundwater. Phase II and III ESA). Following site characterization. From subsequent investigation phases (i. Site Screening Process 4-3 4.2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING The preliminary screening step involves qualitative screening of sites to evaluate the potential for vapour intrusion. 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. soil and/or groundwater) concentrations should generally be used for screening purposes to determine whether a higher tier assessment is required. soil properties and possible preferential pathways. The contamination migration. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should have been completed at the site.

drain or other utility that exceed or are close to the explosive limit represent a significant safety hazard through explosion or fire. while the limit for gasoline vapours is approximately 1.4% (14. sump. The following factors should be evaluated: Potentially Explosive Conditions: Gas concentrations within a building. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .2. If there are volatile or semivolatile organic chemicals present at a site that do not have generic standards.2. The accumulation of gases may also represent an asphyxiation hazard in rare circumstances.3).000 ppm) in air. The lower explosive limit for methane is 5% (50.g. the investigator moves to the next step in the preliminary screening phase. If there are no COPCs for the inhalation pathway. Screening approaches for evaluation of chemical volatility and toxicity are further described in Appendix II. there may be gases such as methane and hydrogen sulphide that can represent a subsurface vapour threat and should be investigated.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. 4. a risk assessment should be conducted to further evaluate the significance of these chemicals. 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.4. Screening approaches for evaluation of COPCs should consider volatility. toxicity and mobility. 4..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. photoionization detector or combustible gas detector) at existing wells screened above the water table.000 ppm). Early intrusive phases of the investigation will often include soil vapour data obtained using field screening methods (e.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. In addition. Site Screening Process 4-4 equal to or greater than the applicable SCS to the next sampling location at which the concentrations are below the applicable SCS. which can be useful for qualitative evaluation of potential vapour sources (soil vapour testing using existing wells is further described in Section 5. further consideration of this pathway is not warranted. Otherwise. 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.

Site information indicating a safety or acute health risk may come to light in various ways including reports from building occupants or owners. immediate action should be taken to investigate possible safety and acute health risks and where necessary implement mitigation measures. but should be investigated. exposure controls. a more pro-active approach such as a door-todoor survey involving the use of questionnaires designed specifically to evaluate potential vapour-related concerns (such as those described above).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. and/or relocation of receptors may be warranted. 2004. and MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 2006. and possible biological or chemical transformations within the subsurface environment.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. Depending on site conditions. Site Screening Process 4-5 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. may be warranted. This is particularly the case when there is non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) on the water table. The decrease in vapour concentrations is a function of contamination source size and geometry. the odour thresholds of many chemicals exceed toxicologically-based air concentrations based on chronic risk. 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. Model predictions (Abreu and Johnson. For reports of odours and physiological effects. soil properties. Based on the investigation. 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. If any of the above conditions are present. The physiological effects may or may not be attributable to vapour intrusion. Vapour concentrations decrease with increasing lateral distance from a subsurface vapour source. the outcome may depend on whether these effects could reasonably be expected to be associated with subsurface contamination.2. The sensitivity of individuals to these effects varies widely. 4. the testing of indoor air quality. Although odours may not necessary indicate that there is a safety or acute health risk. Physiological Effects: Exposure to higher levels of vapours could result in physiological effects such as headaches. Lowell and Eklund. and eventually dissipate to non detectable levels. Mendoza. eye and respiratory irritation. nausea. physicalchemical properties.

the need for further assessment should be evaluated. developed considering the CSM described by the J&E model. 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. please refer to the “Rationale for the Development of Soil and Ground Water Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario” (MOE. 4..g. and where the site is covered with buildings or paved surfaces. and potential disadvantages with use of soil data. If there are no precluding conditions.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. 4. 2009).g.. 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. and/or (iv) a continuous low permeability cover between the contamination source and building (e. as discussed in subsequent sections of this Guidance Document. 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. in part. For the above precluding conditions. (iii) an expanding contamination zone that is migrating toward the building.2. Site Screening Process 4-6 • Fifteen (15) metres for chemicals that readily biodegrade under aerobic conditions (“biodegradable chemicals”).2. when the chemical vapours are unlikely to degrade. which prevents the normal dissipation of vapours and that leads to enhanced lateral migration. (ii) a subsurface utility conduit connecting the contamination source and the building. measured concentrations should be compared to the applicable component values S-IA and/or GW2 (MOE 2009a).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. good quality concrete or asphaltic pavement).e. 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. While Ontario MOE regulations allow sites to be assessed using soil and groundwater data.5.1 Precluding Conditions The precluding factors described below were. 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. and based on the results. there are potential advantages associated with the use of soil vapour data. which was used in the development of MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . roughly 30 m) away from the interpolated edge of the groundwater plume. NAPL)..

• • • 4. Therefore. Gas under pressure: Sites where soil gas is under pressure should be precluded from the screening process. 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. and instead the assessment should proceed to the screening level assessment or detailed vapour intrusion assessment. Site Screening Process 4-7 the Ontario SCS. A reasonable value for this depth is 5 m. 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. described in the “Rationale for Development of Generic Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario” (MOE 2009).2. buildings with earthen basements where contamination is less than 5 m from the building should be precluded. When conducting a generic screening process. unless they connect indoor air of the building to the location of the contamination source. the following site conditions should be considered: • Earthen basements: Buildings with earthen basements should be precluded from the vapour screening process. 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. the following site conditions should be considered: MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .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. 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. when other precluding factors are taken into consideration. however.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. 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. When site-specific conditions are not consistent with the CSM used by the MOE. which is often the case at landfills where methane is produced and where trace VOCs may move with the landfill gas.5. the generic screening process should not be followed. 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.

Site Screening Process 4-8 • 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. These SCS were developed using a reasonable conservative vapour attenuation factor (0. regardless of the depth to contamination. while the screening level assessment approach may include soil vapour and possibly indoor air as assessment media. a description of the multiple lines-of-evidence approach.3. followed by a discussion of specific considerations for soil. 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 prescreening purposes is desirable. identification of precluding conditions and comparison of media concentrations to developed site specific screening levels. selection of chemicals of potential concern. Very High Gas Permeability Media: buildings constructed on vertically or near vertically fractured bedrock.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4.e. The Ontario generic standards are values limited to soil and groundwater. • 4. The main disadvantages are that soil and groundwater data may not be representative of potential contaminants that MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 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).1 Site Characterization A screening level assessment of sites for evaluation of vapour intrusion will typically require additional site characterization data relative to the prescreening evaluation. This is because soil gas advection within the unsaturated zone (i. can be important in these scenarios. 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.02) based on empirical information and assuming that biodegradation between the groundwater and the basement is not occurring.3 SCREENING LEVEL ASSESSMENT The screening level assessment process consists of site characterization. groundwater and soil vapour testing. The discussion below begins with an overview of advantages and disadvantages associated with characterization of different media (summarized in Table 1). caused by barometric pumping or other environmental factors. karst. 4.. Site remediation confirmation testing also often involves testing of soil samples. beyond the soil zone near to the building).

but not relied upon to screen out. coarse-grained deposits and non-degrading chemicals. there will tend to be less potential for vapour intrusion when there is a relatively deep contamination. detection limits often too high to meet screening levels. TABLE 1: Comparison of Different Media for Vapour Intrusion Investigations Media Investigated Soil Indoor Air Evaluation Method Partitioning model combined with soil vapour-to-indoor fate and transport model Principal Issues Partitioning model highly uncertain.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. Partitioning model uncertain. For example. chemical and biological factors that may influence soil vapour intrusion. are tested. commonly significant negative bias due to losses during sampling – can be used to identify a potential concern. However. 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. it is not recommended for a screening level assessment. moderate to high spatial variability. and/or biodegradable chemicals such as petroleum hydrocarbons. 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. particularly for soil to soil vapour transfer. imprecision of soil vapour transport model requires conservative attenuation factors. soil vapour and. shallow soil vapour may be non representative. moderate to high temporal variability More direct indication of potential exposure but intrusive. moderate to high temporal variability More direct indication of potential exposure. the multiple lines-of-evidence approach should go beyond chemical analysis results and also include consideration of geological. fine-grained soil. indoor air. but high spatial variability (generally more so than groundwater). groundwater. This can strengthen the conclusions of the study. in some cases. moderate to low temporal variability More direct indication of potential exposure. Site Screening Process 4-9 could intrude into buildings and the theoretical partitioning relationships used to estimate vapour concentrations are uncertain. In general. Groundwater Partitioning model combined with soil vapour-to-indoor fate and transport model Soil vapour Soil vapour-to-indoor air fate and (beside building) transport model Soil vapour (at Soil vapour-to-indoor air fate and least 1 m below transport model building) Soil vapour Soil vapour-to-indoor air fate and MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Conversely. there will tend to be greater potential for vapour intrusion at sites with shallow contamination. often the best strategy is one based on a multiple lines-of-evidence approach where soil. This allows the identification of data relationships and comparison of analytical results to generic standards and/or site-specific screening levels for each medium. lateral spatial variability mitigated somewhat by sampling below building. significant spatial variability.

carbon dioxide and methane) concentrations is particularly helpful for assessing biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons. this typically requires a minimum of two sampling events in a selected number of locations to characterize seasonal variability. temporal variability likely high Air within a crawlspace can be sampled as a substitute for subslab vapour. 5. The site characterization process for all media should begin with an evaluation of contamination source areas to characterize maximum concentrations. 4. Sufficient data should be obtained to characterize the temporal variability in groundwater and soil vapour concentrations. If individual buildings are screened at a site.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. particularly when sites are “screened out” of the site assessment process. high spatial and moderate empirical attenuation factor to high temporal variability. but intrusive. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Subslab vapour-to-indoor air model Closest representation of potential vapours migrating (primarily dilution in indoor air) or into building. 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). Data adequacy is a critical consideration when planning site characterization programs and interpreting the results. 2.e. sample density) needed to delineate plumes will tend to increase as the geological variability or complexity increases..e. Depending on crawlspace ventilation and connection to house. there may be very little attenuation between the crawlspace and house (i. Sufficient data should be obtained to characterize the spatial variability in soil. The decision also depends on the variability and amount of data available. There are several key points that should be considered as part of the site characterization and screening process: 1. The vertical profile of hydrocarbon and fixed gas (oxygen. Site Screening Process Media Investigated (near source) Subslab vapour1 4-10 Principal Issues Indoor Air Evaluation Method transport model Indoor air 1 moderate to low spatial and temporal variability. sufficient characterization must be completed to characterize variability surrounding the building. 6. The number of samples (i.. background measured sources may confound data interpretation. Data should be collected to assess vertical trends in concentrations in addition to horizontal distribution. Limitations with each type of data are minimized if decisions are supported by more than one type of data. groundwater and soil vapour concentrations such that a reasonably detailed CSM describing the distribution and extent of contamination can be developed. attenuation factor of one). exfiltrating air may approach confound results if building is positively pressurized. but intrusive. Indoor air concentrations directly Direct measurement. 3. Recommended for screening level assessment.

a. Soil Data While soil data will often be obtained as part of site characterization programs. Depending on the contaminant type and geologic conditions (texture. As a starting point. Site Screening Process 4-11 This will vary from site to site and should be decided in the context of the site conceptual model. there are significant uncertainties associated with use of the soil data that should be recognized: • Soil sampling. The basis for selection of COPCs should include toxicity and volatility. the screening process described in Appendix II may be followed to evaluate COPCs. however. this also tends to cause higher laboratory reporting limits. which may be above the levels protective of the vapour intrusion pathway. USEPA SW-846 Method 3035). 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). which are seldom evaluated in most sampling programs. potential biotransformation reactions and expected breakdown products (a. There are uncertainties associated with soil partitioning calculations and predicted vapour concentrations are sensitive to the partitioning coefficient between water and organic carbon. • • • MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . moisture and fraction of organic carbon). and the fraction organic content in soil.. daughter products). there may be significant spatial variation in soil concentrations. a parameter that can be difficult to accurately determine. the chemicals with generic inhalation standards (S-IA and/or GW2 component values) represent most chemicals of potential concern for vapour intrusion.k. 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. handling and preparation can result in significant (up to several orders-of-magnitude) losses of chemicals through volatilization and biodegradation. Determining Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPCs) The site characterization should identify COPCs for the study.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4.g. Such losses may be reduced through field preservation using solvents (e. If the site assessment indicates the presence or potential presence of volatile or semi-volatile organic chemicals without generic inhalation standards.

there is increased blending of groundwater across the screened interval. When MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . moisture. which is facilitated by water table fluctuations (Rivett. The use of relatively short well screens situated across the water table is recommended when evaluating the soil vapour intrusion pathway. longer well screens may over predict concentrations near the top of the aquifer. and the assessment should include water level monitoring to assess seasonal water table elevation fluctuations.g. 1995). This is because VOC mass transfer from groundwater to soil vapour occurs when chemicals in pore-water volatilize into soil gas. where feasible. other lines-ofevidence should be considered before concluding that there is no vapour intrusion risk. because of the uncertainties described above. However. Groundwater Data Groundwater samples for evaluation of vapour intrusion should be collected as near as practicable to the water table. Where there is a fresh-water lens or contamination source below the water table (e. This may result in either over-estimation or under-estimation of concentrations at the top of the aquifer. and density) can provide valuable information for development of the conceptual site model. depending on the contamination scenario. Nevertheless.DNAPL). longer well screens may under predict concentrations near the top of the aquifer. dense non-aqueous phase liquid . 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. Site Screening Process 4-12 Since the use of soil chemistry information may result in large uncertainties in the predicted indoor air concentrations. Since hydrogeologic systems can undergo changes. and soil physical property data (especially texture. contaminants at depth within groundwater systems could also pose future vapour intrusion potential.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. As well screen lengths increase. 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 depthdiscrete groundwater sampling technique. its use in the screening level assessment process is not recommended. 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. due to natural processes and/or through human activities. Continuous soil cores. Consequently.. Concentration gradients and water table fluctuations should be taken into consideration when evaluating the potential for soil vapour intrusion.

particular care must be taken in selecting the concentration for screening purposes. so special care is required during sample collection (design and execution). MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . When there is undeveloped land and a future building scenario is considered. 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. Site Screening Process 4-13 there are relatively steep vertical concentration gradients and increasing concentrations with depth in shallow groundwater.e. The recommended minimum depth for soil vapour probes is 1. 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). Soil Vapour Data Soil vapour sampling and analysis avoids uncertainties related to mass transfer and phase partitioning. Soil vapour probes aligned along transects or in a grid pattern may also provide useful data. For example. the soil moisture content and oxygen recharge may decrease as a result of a capping effect once the building is constructed. there are additional challenges introduced by potential changes caused by the site development. However. empirical data collected to date indicates a higher degree of variability in soil vapour concentrations. Hydropunch. the maximum groundwater concentration measured within a few metres of the water table may be appropriate for soil vapour intrusion assessment purposes. There may be less bioattenuation when the oxygen recharge is reduced. 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. Consideration should be given to installation of clusters of probes at multiple depths to evaluate vertical concentration profiles.. When small-scale discrete samples are analyzed (i. and therefore is valuable data for assessing potential vapour intrusion and indoor air concentrations. 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 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.5 m below ground surface (for slab-on-grade buildings) or 1 m below the foundation for buildings with basements. Depending on these factors. For the above reasons. When individual buildings are screened.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. Geoprobe method. Waterloo profiler or similar).

Research is needed to improved methods to reduce the variability in subslab vapour data. since there will be attenuation of chemicals through the capillary transition zone.g. When soil vapour samples contain high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. 2002. Site Screening Process 4-14 SubSlab Soil Vapour Data Subslab vapour sampling and analysis is recommended in many regulatory guidance documents (OSWER. 2006). 2006).. Vertical soil vapour concentration profiles should show decreasing concentrations from a source zone. due to irrigation). therefore. 2008). should consider possible temporal changes in vapour concentrations due to transient vapour migration or changing source concentrations. Multiple Lines-of-Evidence Each type of data is subject to some potential uncertainties.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. Nomographs that enable estimation of the approximate time for vapour concentrations to reach steady state conditions are provided in Johnson et al. Sorption and biodegradation can delay the development of steady-state vapour concentration profiles. multiple lines-of-evidence should be used as a cross check to assess the quality of soil vapour measurements. NYSDOH. 2006 and EPA. particularly at sites with deep vadose zones and multiple depth samples. 2005. When there is a localized contamination source above the water table. Obtaining multiple samples below the building or larger-volume samples may improve the representativeness of the data. vapour distribution associated with large source may not be radial. (1998) and API (2005). the soil vapour concentration distribution should be consistent with radial diffusion from the source. but experience to date has also shown high levels of spatial and temporal variability (Luo et al. 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. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . and in areas of elevated recharge (e. Somewhat deeper samples obtained below building may avoid some of the variability in subslab soil vapour from immediately below the building foundation. The magnitude of the difference should increase as soil becomes finergrained. and there are concerns about the representativeness of these data (Johnson. NJDEP. oxygen concentrations generally should be low. measured soil vapour concentrations should be less than groundwater concentrations multiplied by the dimensionless Henry’s Law constant. • • • The design of soil vapour characterization programs.. These can include the following: • When there is a dissolved groundwater source.

readily measurable. Determine land use. Determine soil textural type.2 Screening Level Vapour Intrusion Assessment Under a screening level assessment process. The exposure assumptions for receptors are identical to those for the generic MOE standards. The site specific screening levels are back-calculated from risk-based indoor air concentrations using vapour attenuation factors calculated using the J&E model.02) Collect external soil vapour from close to source. the process is constrained in that only selected. site specific screening levels may be developed for groundwater and soil vapour. 2. it is recommended that site-specific screening levels be developed for all media tested. The process followed to derive site-specific screening levels is to: 1. Site Screening Process 4-15 EXISTING BUILDING FUTURE BUILDING dmin d Collect subslab vapour (alpha = 0. Direct comparisons of indoor air concentrations to risk based health values may also be considered in the screening level vapour intrusion assessment. input parameters (soil texture and depth to contamination) can be varied from the default model inputs within specified ranges.3. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . However. recommend dmin = ½*d (alpha variable) Collect external soil vapour from close to source Vapour Contamination Source FIGURE 3: Conceptual Model for Use of Soil Vapour Data 4.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. Since evaluation of multiple media can improve the confidence in the assessment.

4. In general. Adjust attenuation factor for building height. please refer to Table 4 (phase II ESA requirement for MGRA) of the regulation.3. the coarsest soil type from among the samples should be used for calculation of the site attenuation factor.2. 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.2 Select Land Use The two choices for land use for screening level assessment. 8. are a residential scenario and a commercial scenario. The US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification system (USDA soil textural triangle) should be used to determine the soil texture. 4. where appropriate. which are also the basis for selection of input parameters for the J&E model. Reg. at elevated concentrations. The recommended health-based indoor air concentrations are presented in Appendix VI.2. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 9. 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. 6.3.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4.. Adjust attenuation factor for building air exchange rate. adequacy and uncertainty and determine next steps. where appropriate for applicable chemicals. where appropriate. 7. A residential scenario would also apply to institutional land use (e. Calculate attenuation factor. 153/04 as amended.g. Adjust attenuation factor for aerobic biodegradation.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. Evaluate data consistency. For determining the soil textural type when using the modified generic risk assessment (MGRA) model under the O. Estimate vertical distance from lowest point of building to vapour contamination source. daycare) or operations where food is grown. 5. school. groundwater and/or soil vapour using the health based indoor air concentrations and attenuation factor. 4. Site Screening Process 4-16 3. Back-calculate site-specific screening levels for soil.

then the soil vapour-toindoor air alpha is the appropriate factor to apply for estimation of the indoor air concentration. which is used by CCME to describe vapour intrusion (CCME. 2008).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. When soil or soil vapour measurements are made. Site Screening Process 4-17 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.2. 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. 4. If the soil vapour concentration is estimated from a soil concentration for a source above the water table. if present) and vapour contamination source.2. The vapour contamination source is the water table when contamination is limited to dissolved constituents in groundwater. 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. When estimating this distance. The vapour attenuation factor is the inverse of the dilution factor.3. the distance is between the building and measurement point.4 Derivation of Vapour Attenuation Factor Overview of Vapour Attenuation Factors The vapour attenuation factor (“alpha” . 4.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. which should be located above the top of the contamination source.α) is the ratio of the indoor air concentration divided by the measured or estimated soil vapour concentration at the point of interest (i. The partitioning model used for groundwater to vapour assumes equilibrium partitioning based on the Henry’s Law constant. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .3. “ppbV/ppbV” or dimensionless ratio). allowance for water table fluctuations should be made by selecting the annual minimum water level depth below the slab. Typical occupancy for a given individual is 40 hours per week or less.e.. 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.

If the shallowest water table is expected to be within the gravel crush layer beneath a floor slab or above the crush layer. 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. 2006) and 0. The MOE recommended empirical attenuation factors can also be used when collecting subslab vapour data. the qualified person needs to consider the most up-to-date information and provide a rationale for the selection of any empirical values. Site Screening Process 4-18 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. 2004b). while for a dissolved contamination source in groundwater. as more empirical data become available the recommended subslab vapour empirical values should be revised. MOE recommends an alpha of 0.02 for the Residential setting (Dawson. 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. it also includes transport through the capillary transition zone. 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. for various soil types and varying depth from the building foundation to contamination source. For these cases. silty clay. Where groundwater level monitoring data is available and sufficient to determine the depth to the highest annual water table. then the J&E model can not be used to determine the attenuation factor. The attenuation factor can apply to both a current and future building scenario. alpha should be fixed at a reasonably conservative empirically-derived value. For soil vapour. However. the clay-type soils of the USSCS classification (clay. When determining an appropriate empirical attenuation factor. For further details about these parameters please refer to the MOE rationale document for the development of the site condition standards (MOE 2009).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4.004 for the Commercial/Industrial setting. sandy clay) should not be used because these soil textures have the potential to fracture and therefore the default soil properties are potentially non- MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Instead. The vapour attenuation factors for soil vapour and soil measurements include only transport within the unsaturated soil zone. The recommended building input parameters for calculating attenuation factors using the J&E model are provided in Table 2. However.

temperature. and along the gravel crush to the entry crack. They are consistent with reported values from empirical data from houses on coarsegrained soils (~1 to 10 L/min . the use of the J&E “perimeter crack model” for calculating Qsoil is not recommended by the MOE.9 (cm) The soil gas advection rate (Qsoil) into a building is a function of the soil-air permeability. The calculated vapour attenuation factors developed with the J&E Model do not assume biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours such as benzene. the next coarsest soil type should be selected (e. toluene. back up to the gravel crush. 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. Also. users may input combinations of soil and hydrogeologic parameters that are not self-consistent and that will produce unreasonable Qsoil estimates (Johnson 2005). Site Screening Process 4-19 representative.. Building pressures are affected by several factors (e.01 (vol/vol) Thickness: 29. building foundation properties and building size.g. 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 recommended Qsoil values are presented in Table 2. ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system inside a building) (Geosyntec 2010). As described below. For the above reasons. The effective vapour permeability is the bulk value for the entire flow path from the ground surface down and under the foundation footing. 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. 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. 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).g.40 (vol/vol) Moisture content: 0. This requires that the effective bulk permeability for the travel path includes that of the gravel crush.Golder 2008b). silt). building depressurization. If there are clay soils at the site. there is provision to MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . wind and operation of the heating. ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX). 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4.

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.1) are met and that there is a high level of confidence that sampling points intersect contaminant pathways in the bedrock.9 1225 1225 366 0.10 0. gravel crush thickness beneath basement/ foundation slab (cm) Enclosed space length (cm) Enclosed space width (cm) Effective enclosed space height (cm) Air exchange rate per hour (hr-1) Depressurization (Pa) Lcrack.8 1. The minimum depth criteria for external soil vapour samples needs to be met (i.e.3. Consideration should be given to subslab vapour characterization (when buildings are present) to improve the level of confidence in the CSM.0002 15 9. Site Screening Process 4-20 adjust the attenuation factors for bioattenuation for applicable chemicals and where conditions warrant. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .e. Table 2. minimum ½ the distance between lowest point of building and vapour contamination source).fine Residential 158 29. Recommended J&E Model Input Values Parameter Depth to underside of basement/foundation slab (cm) hB. to provide additional flexibility.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. 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. 0..coarse . an assessment may be completed using a conservative attenuation factor such as the default value for subslab (i.25 0. high-resolution sampling and repeat monitoring to adequately characterize spatial and temporal variability. This may entail mapping of fractures. However.45 1.9 2000 1500 300 1 2 11.02) for both groundwater and soil vapour provided that the basic site assessment requirements (Section 4.0 Commercial /Industrial 11.10 0.25 29.0002 15 8.. basement floor thickness (cm) Floor-wall crack width (cm) Ratio of Crack Area to Total Subsurface Area Soil Temperature (oC) Qsoil (L/min) .30 4 8 0.

In site specific assessments. The default air exchange rate should apply to almost all buildings. The commercial mixing height default (3.2.3 hr-1) may only be reduced downward. 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. the default air exchange rate (0.66 m) is based on complete mixing of vapours within the basement. 4. the attenuation factors may be calculated adjusting the exchange rate values. or the results of ventilation tracer test. if there is information indicating that the above default mixing heights are not representative... If the building ventilation is well understood and there is evidence to support relatively uniform mixing of vapours within a greater height. However.g. for residential buildings. but a lower rate may be warranted when there is evidence for very low air exchange (e. the default air exchange rate for commercial buildings may be increased accordingly.e. and therefore.2.2. Site Screening Process 4-21 4.6 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Air Exchange Rate If there is information indicating that the above default air exchange rates are not representative. and partial mixing within the first storey of the residence. The default height should apply to almost all buildings. parking garages)..g. the mixing height for vapours within a building with high ceilings (e.5 Adjusted Attenuation Factor Based on Building Mixing Height The residential mixing height default (3.7 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. actual heights can be used. 4.3.3. the default mixing height for commercial buildings may be increased by up to a factor of two (i. For commercial buildings. 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.. sealed basement with poor ventilation).0 m) is considered representative of mixing of vapours within a single-storey office building. the adjusted attenuation factor may only increase. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . mixing height of 6 m). documented measurements in a Test and Balance Report by a licensed mechanical engineer. If there is evidence to support a higher ventilation rate through either design requirements. but a smaller mixing height may be appropriate for some small single-storey residential dwellings. the default mixing height may only be reduced downward. toluene. the adjusted attenuation factor may only increase.3. For residential buildings.g. and therefore.

the soil vapour attenuation factors calculated with the J&E model. 1997. These different lines-of-evidence all indicate that often (but not for all site conditions) there will be significant aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours. Fischer et al.. DeVaull et al. detailed case studies where hydrocarbon vapour attenuation was assessed. and modeling studies.1-dichloroethene (11 DCE). A comprehensive research program on hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation was completed by Golder Associates for Health Canada and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute (CPPI) (Golder. The key site conditions that influence oxygen levels are hydrocarbon source concentrations and distance from the building to the vapour source. 1996. 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. with other potentially important factors being the soil type and properties of the surface cover at the site. 2008a). The hydrocarbon source concentrations have a critical determining influence on hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation. The empirical analysis of the attenuation between subsurface source concentrations and indoor air. empirical attenuation factors. Johnson et al.. 2007). 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. indicated that in general the BTEX attenuation factors were considerably lower than the factors for recalcitrant chlorinated hydrocarbons such as trichloroethene (TCE) and 1.. The results of modeling studies indicate a key factor influencing the estimated vapour attenuation factor is the oxygen available below the building.. while confounded by indoor background sources of these same compounds.. When there is aerobic biodegradation and a sufficient thickness of non-contaminated soil between the vapour source and building. 2002). reduction to negligible levels). providing there is sufficient oxygen present and a reasonable source-building separation (up to about 5 m from separate phase hydrocarbon. are often overly conservative for BTEX and alkane hydrocarbon compounds. 1998. 1991. 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. indicating it is important to determine the type of hydrocarbon present. 2000. Site Screening Process 4-22 ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX) and alkane hydrocarbons such as hexane and decane..e. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . but as little as one metre from moderate to low dissolved phase hydrocarbon concentrations).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. There is evidence for lower bioattenuation rates for certain hydrocarbons such as methylpentanes (present in relatively large proportions in certain jet fuels). while reasonable for recalcitrant chemicals such as chlorinated hydrocarbons (see comparisons in Golder. Consequently. which may influence the rate at which atmospheric oxygen migrates to the subsurface. there will typically be many ordersof-magnitude attenuation in BTEX or aliphatic hydrocarbon vapour concentrations (i. Laubacher et al. Hers et al.

hexane. up to 100X reduction in the attenuation factor is provided.. the bioattenuation reduction factors may not be applied when there is a significant capping effect that would limit oxygen migration to below buildings. A protocol for evaluation of aerobic biodegradation through soil vapour sampling is provided in Chapter 5. normal or straight chain alkane compounds (e.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. trimethylbenzenes. bioattenuation adjustment factors were developed. hydrocarbon vapour bioattenuation should be confirmed through characterization of vertical soil vapour profiles. When soil vapour bioattenuation factors are applied. which can be applied to the attenuation factor calculated using the J&E model for selected petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. which depends largely on whether there is a dissolved hydrocarbon source or non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) above the water table. F1 and F2 (except when aviation fuel).Low Dissolved – High NAPL Soil Vapour Dissolved Benzene < 0. The calculated attenuation factors may be divided by the bioattenuation adjustment factors (BAFs) in Table 3 for applicable petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. and distance between the contamination source and building. The capping effect may be significant when most of a site is covered with reasonably good quality concrete or asphalt (Golder 2006). Depending on the source concentrations and distance between the source and building. which are BTEX. The application of bioattenuation adjustment factors requires appropriate site characterization and the development of a conceptual site model (CSM). In addition. octane). Site Screening Process 4-23 On the basis of the above research. 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. naphthalene.1 mg/L F1 < 5 mg/L F2 < 1 mg/L Benzene < 1 mg/L F1 < 15 mg/L F2 < 5 mg/L Sheen or measurable floating layer Cg < 1 mg/L TVOCs** 100X for separation distance* > 1m 10X for separation distance* > 1 m 100X for separation distance* >3 m 10X for separation distance* > 3 m 100X for separation distance* >5m 10X for separation distance* > 1 m 100X for separation distance*>3m MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .g. Table 3: Bioattenuation Adjustment Factors Media Contamination Criteria Bioattenuation Adjustment Factors (BAF) Groundwater Dissolved .

Cg = BTEX + F1 + F2 + Methane (CH4) * Separation distance between source and the building foundation. and H = Henry’s law constant (dimensionless).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.2. and αv = the dimensionless soil vapour attenuation factor (adjusted based on criteria described above) (dimensionless).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 CairT = the health based indoor air target concentration (µg/m ) (see 3 attachment VI). 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? 2010 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment .4). 3 4.3. ** total VOCs 4.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4.2. Site Screening Process Media Contamination Criteria 4-24 Bioattenuation Adjustment Factors (BAF) 10X for separation distance* > 2 m 100X for separation distance* >4m 10X for separation distance* > 3 m 100X for separation distance* >5m 10X for separation distance* > 1 m 100X for separation distance* >3m Transition dissolved Cg > 1 mg/L < 50 & NAPL mg/L TVOCs NAPL Cg > 50 mg/L Soil All Notes: Above BAFs may only be applied when there is no significant capping effect and biodegradation supported through oxygen profiles (see Section 5.3.3. αgw = the groundwater 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: CairT = the health based indoor air target concentration (µg/m ).

e. The indoor air predictions from soil vapour should generally always take precedence compared to those predicted from soil or groundwater. soil. >10X to 100X lower).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. the conceptual site model and the field data should be careful evaluated. higher predicted indoor air concentrations from measured soil vapour compared to groundwater may indicate a contamination source within the unsaturated soil zone. when the predicted indoor air concentration from soil vapour is significantly less than that predicted from soil or groundwater (i. in light of the uncertainty in the data. 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. However.. For a dissolved groundwater source. The qualified person must evaluate the site complexity and distribution of contamination sources and plumes. when results are borderline or inconclusive. The data adequacy and uncertainty must be carefully assessed particularly when used to screen sites or buildings out of the assessment process. 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. Site Screening Process 4-25 • • Are the data adequate to evaluate vapour intrusion potential.. Large differences between media would be expected when there is a freshwater lens on the water table. the data quality and representativeness should be carefully reviewed. the observed spatial and temporal variability to assess data quantity and quality. Conversely. instead. 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. as outlined in Table 4. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 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. A “bright line” approach where the acceptable level definitively defines whether action is or is not taken should be avoided. Particularly.g. groundwater and soil vapour) and sampling locations evaluated in the context of the CSM. fine-grained high moisture content soil layers or bioattenuation. consideration should be given to how close the media concentrations are in relation to the site screening levels (SL). Appropriate follow-up actions will depend both on the consistency between predictions and comparisons of the media concentration and screening levels. When there are significant differences between indoor air concentrations predicted using different media.

ca/envision/land/decomm/condition. consider the need for additional subsurface characterization and/or indoor air testing program1 Indoor air testing program1 and/or preemptive exposure controls > 10 x SL 1 Indoor air testing program should generally include subslab vapour.htm. 4.3 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. please refer to “A Guide to Using the Modified Generic Risk Assessment (Tier 2) Spreadsheet Model”.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4.4 DETAILED VAPOUR INTRUSION ASSESSMENT For the vapour intrusion pathway.8. outdoor air and ancillary building testing. as well as sampling and reporting requirements.3. Site Screening Process 4-26 Table 4: Decision Matrix for Recommended Actions Measured concentration is: < 0.on. 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).5xSL > 0. Usually.5xSL but < 10xSL Recommended Action1 No further testing typically warranted Depending on how close the measured concentration is to acceptable SL and data uncertainty. it includes collection of indoor air. For details on how to use this model.2.gov. The SVSLs calculated by MGRA model can also be used to conduct screening level soil vapour intrusion assessments for brownfield sites. This framework may also be implemented through comparison of measured media concentrations to site screening levels. 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). A detailed assessment may also include development of site specific screening levels using different models and/or different input parameters than those MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 4.ene.3. available at: http://www. subslab soil vapour and outdoor air concentrations as well as building properties. Site screening levels (SL) are calculated using approach described in Section 4.

Where it is not possible to obtain soil samples below the building or where a future scenario is being evaluated. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Rosetta model and SoilVision model v. the use of water retention models may provide for more accurate prediction of soil moisture conditions below a building. care must be taken to minimize disturbance to soil samples since this will result in inaccurate measurements. 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). 1980)) assuming relatively dry conditions below a building.. When soil samples are obtained below the building.1 Estimation of Input Parameters Estimation of input parameters is challenging since only some input parameters may be directly measured. depth to water table. one option is to measure soil moisture and density. any modification of the default input parameters should be based on site-specific data (e. There are also software programs for estimation of water retention parameters from soil grain size data (e. The text below describes approaches and procedures for estimating input parameter values for use in the Johnson and Ettinger model. conditions of closure will typically include verification of model predictions through indoor air and subslab vapour testing. however. and to calculate the water-filled and total porosity based on these measurements. a direct measurement approach may be reasonable. Consideration may also be given to dividing the capillary transition zone into multiple layers to more closely approximate the water-filled porosity. van Genuchten (VG) (van Genuchten.g. As a starting point.3. soil sampling techniques that minimize disturbance should be used (e. 4.4. In cases where the assessment is conducted for existing communities and buildings. Shelby tube sampler). observations.. Also the presence of any model precluding conditions needs to be verified (typically through a door-to-door survey). intuition and experience will influence the selection of reasonable inputs for vapour intrusion models. Where possible.34). Site Screening Process 4-27 specified under the screening level assessment (Section 4. for others. Water-filled and Total Porosity and Bulk Density As part of a detailed soil vapour intrusion assessment. soil type.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. There are other methods for estimating water-filled porosity. However.2). building conditions).4.g. a water retention estimation method can be used (e. For example.g. which builds the curve by successively estimating a water retention curve for each particle-size group in the grain size distribution.g.

2. The Qsoil value could be calculated from this ratio.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. proponents may use alternative values for Qsoil (other than those recommended by the MOE in Table 2) based on: ƒ empirical attenuation factors and a specified range of values for the ratio of Qsoil/Qbuilding. There are other possible approaches or adjusting the Qsoil based on the ratio of Qsoil to building foundation area or perimeter crack length. The tracer test concept is based on characterizing soil vapour concentrations below the slab. the differences between these approaches and one based on the Qsoil/Qbuild ratio are relatively small.e. to guide selection of reasonable soil moisture inputs for different soil types.. the use of the “perimeter crack model” for calculating Qsoil is not recommended by the MOE. however. then from mass flux considerations. ƒ In many cases. using tracer tests. the Qsoil/Qbuilding ratio is between 0.01 (Johnson 2005). 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. consisting of the water-filled porosity divided by over the total porosity (“water saturation”).0001 and 0. Qsoil can be calculated. and if advection is the main process for vapour intrusion. Site Screening Process 4-28 Johnson (2005) recommends the use of a normalized parameter for soil moisture. If the proposed Qsoil value is based on published literature. measured VOC concentrations (when indoor background contribution is negligible). if the building air exchange rate and volume are known (i. indoors and outdoors. This is a reasonable constraint based on comparison of model predictions to the subslab vapour attenuation factor. If the building ventilation rate is known. or an injected tracer such as He or SF6. Soil Vapour Advection Rate (Qsoil) As indicated in Section 4.3. it will not be feasible to measure the Qsoil. 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. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . In detailed soil vapour intrusion assessments and/or site-specific risk assessments (Tier 3).4. A detailed rationale regarding the selected empirical attenuation factor may be required. a detailed rationale must be provided on why the proposed value is applicable to the site and existing buildings. Qbuilding is known) (Geosyntec 2010). the subslab vapour to indoor air attenuation factor). Typically. The tracer could be a natural tracer like radon. or a specified value for Qsoil (based on values from tracer tests).e.

g. It may also be important to evaluate thermal stratification for some buildings. in particular. EPA. now called energy star homes). In some cases. then both the test procedure and interpretation may be complicated by the presence of the foundation and disturbed soils.34 ach (SRC.0 ach for leaky homes (U. observational data and evaluation of mechanical ventilation design.30 hr-1 for residential scenario and air change of 1 hr-1 for commercial scenario. 1987). while in a study completed in the Greater Toronto area. “R-2000” houses in Canada. Site Screening Process 4-29 Building pressure measurements can also be used to refine estimates of the soil gas advection rate. may be used to refine the mixing height. the recent trend has been to construct “air-tight” houses with reduced ventilation rates to minimize energy consumption and costs (e. In an Ontario study.45 ach (Otson and Zhu. such measurements can be useful in determining whether. Commercial buildings.. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .06 to 0.. It is noted that if the intent is to estimate Qsoil (i. the average air exchange rate from 44 houses was 0. The air exchange rate for residential buildings typically ranges from 0. with the lowest air exchange occurring in summer with closed windows in R-2000 houses (Walkinshaw. Soil air permeability tests can also be used to refine the estimated soil-air permeability input in the Perimeter Crack Model.2 air changes per hour (ach) for airtight homes to 2. Ontario. the average measured air change rate from 44 houses was 0. In Canada. 1988). Building Mixing Height As part of a detailed site assessment. In regions with relatively cold climates.S. can be positively pressurized effectively eliminating the contribution of soil gas advection to intrusion. including those referenced in Johnson et al. in particular cross-floor mixing and leakage. (1995).3 air changes per hour.e. air change rates from 70 houses ranged from 0. in fact. test near foundation soil). (1990) and Garbesi et al. There are several mathematical solutions that can be used to estimate soil air permeability from this data. These tests can be performed by using a pump to extract soil gas from a small well or probe and measuring pressure and flow. since this may affect mixing of vapour within the building.77. 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. In a study completed in Saskatchewan and Tilsonburg. mechanical or HVAC engineers can provide useful information on mixing heights. or other models used to simulate soil gas flow. Gusdorf and Hamlin. there is a driving pressure gradient that would result in soil gas intrusion. Building Ventilation Rate The screening level assessment defaults for building ventilation rates are an air change rate of 0. 1995. 1992). 1997).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. At an initial scoping level.

For detailed assessment purposes.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. It is also possible to measure the ventilation rate using a tracer test (e. For several radon studies.01. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .5 to 17. epoxy) or other floor coverings. a reasonable starting point may be a range of 10-4 to 10-3. as described in the ASTM E741 standard. and/or small cracks surrounding utility penetrations.g. (1985)). Building Foundation Crack Size or Area Ratio The crack ratio.3 m. Site Screening Process 4-30 As part of a detailed site assessment. 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. although this is practically difficult to do. 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). the predicted indoor air concentrations decrease as the building size increases. is difficult to measure or estimate. several factors could be considered to possibly refine ventilation rates including HVAC design information and observations providing qualitative information on ventilation rate (i. the building size can be measured. While a perimeter edge crack between the foundation walls and base is relatively common.. Revzan et al. If the building has a poor quality foundation. At the eight houses where cracks were observed. open doors and windows). while if the foundation is of high quality or is coated with a sealant (e. a lower crack ratio may be warranted. (1991). The crack ratio used for regulatory or guidance purposes varies significantly. if all other inputs are held constant. the cracks widths ranged from hairline cracks up to 5 mm wide. a somewhat higher crack ratio may be justified. there may also be untrapped drains. and Nazaroff et al. However.g. 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. Figley and Snodgrass (1992) present data from ten houses where edge crack measurements were made.. shrinkage cracks in concrete.001 to 0. There have also been attempts to measure crack widths. while the total crack length ranged from 2. which corresponds to a perimeter crack width of about 1 to 2 mm for residential sized buildings. expressed as the area of the cracks divided by the subsurface foundation area. carbon dioxide tracer). For the J&E model.e. Most crack widths were less than 1 mm.

this factor may also influence selection of buildings. 4. building operation (e. For many sites. although if there are differences in the susceptibility of the foundation to vapour intrusion.g. building heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) system. sumps. fans. The number of buildings should be sufficient to draw initial conclusions of concentration trends.2 Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Testing An overview of key issues for IAQ studies is presented below with details provided in Chapter 6. drains). operation of appliances. 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. utilities.g. Typically. the IAQ program should typically be prioritized to begin with testing of buildings above the highest concentration areas.1 IAQ Study Design The next step is to develop the IAQ program. A communications program. wind effects) to months (seasonal temperature variations). Site Screening Process 4-31 4. This information. Important factors to consider include data on building type.. potential preferential pathways (e. An IAQ study requires proper planning. A minimum of two to three subslab soil vapour samples per building is recommended and multiple indoor air samples should also typically be obtained. Building Conditions and Methods The conditions under which the indoor air sampling is to be performed should also be defined. A complicating factor is that the timescales for temporal within building variability can range from a few hours (HVAC operation.4. near-foundation soils.g. building foundation construction. the building should be sampled under normal MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Experience gained at sites indicates that the spatial and temporal variability in indoor air and subslab vapour concentrations tends to be high. etc. access agreements and pre-sampling survey and occupant questionnaire are vital. In particular. When contamination is below multiple buildings. A larger number of subslab vapour samples or high volume composite samples may be warranted for larger commercial or industrial buildings..2.4.) and meteorological conditions (e. together with previous information obtained as part of subsurface investigation programs. wind. barometric pressure)..g. More than one sampling event under different climatic (e. summer/winter) and building conditions will also generally be required to avoid basing a decision on potentially non-representative or incomplete data. should be used to refine the CSM. 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. temperature..DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4.

combustion products and ambient (outdoor) air. Risk management decisions and risk communication can be problematic when the influence of background is not well characterized. building conditions may be controlled to facilitate sampling under either pressurized or depressurized conditions. Site Screening Process 4-32 conditions of occupancy. a multiple lines-of-evidence approach can assist in this process. Appropriate methods should be followed for collection of indoor air data.g. which may be affected in different ways depending on whether there is infiltration of soil vapour into the building. Whenever possible. 2009). Ancillary data on building conditions. subslab vapour data. spatial relationships in data providing evidence for vapour intrusion. but longer duration is preferred where practicable. such as differential pressure measurements between indoor and outdoor air and indoor air and subslab gas. comparison of indoor air concentrations to published literature values or a control building study. carbon tetrachloride. and/or relationships between different media concentrations (constituent ratios) providing evidence for vapour intrusion based on consistent patterns or ratios observed. There is significant variability in background concentrations depending on location. 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. Although it can be difficult to quantify the influence of background. benzene. For this line-of-evidence. The lines-of-evidence that can be evaluated include review of possible background VOC sources in buildings. and tetrachloroethene in a residential setting (Dawson and McAlary. there should be representative subsurface media concentrations and attenuation factor used should be sufficiently conservative to avoid a priori discounting of vapour intrusion. or exfiltration of air from the building to subslab soil. Sources of background VOCs in indoor air include consumer products.. potential background sources of chemicals should be removed from the building prior to sampling. although in some cases. building materials.2 Background Issues The possible confounding influence of background chemicals is often an important issue for data interpretation. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .2.4. and tracer tests to estimate building air change rates should also be considered. chloroform. Particularly problematic chemicals are those where background levels may exceed acceptable toxicological concentrations in indoor air (e. Composite samples (typically 24-hour duration) should be obtained. and building type and use.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. 4. Differential pressure data may be important for interpretation of subslab vapour data.

Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Approaches. and how close the measured media concentration is to the acceptable screening level.astm.A Practical Guide o USEPA. the data uncertainty and adequacy should be reviewed to determine whether additional monitoring is warranted. 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. although potential contribution of background sources to measured concentrations in indoor air should be considered when evaluating the need for exposure controls. When measured indoor air concentrations are less than acceptable risk-based target concentrations. 2007.org/Standards/E2435. When measured indoor air concentrations exceed acceptable risk-based target concentrations.g. EPA/600/R-08-115. There are several resources available that provide guidance or common practices on the selection. exposure controls may be warranted.4. October.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4. Site Screening Process 4-33 4. and long term monitoring of vapour intrusion mitigation systems. When the estimated or measured indoor air concentrations are significantly above the acceptable risk-based target levels.08 Standard Practice for Installing Radon Mitigation Systems in Existing Low-Rise Residential Buildings http://www.4. installation. subslab depressurization or venting systems). 2008.org/Standards/E2121. some of them are: • ITRC..4 Exposure Controls Exposure controls may include measures to eliminate or reduce contamination sources or intercept or control the vapour migration pathway (e.3 Data Evaluation and Next Steps The decision-making process and determination of next steps should consider data uncertainty and adequacy.astm. ASTM E2435 . exposure controls implemented in the short-term to control receptor exposure may in be warranted. Engineering Issue.05 Standard Guide for Application of Engineering Controls to Facilitate Use or Redevelopment of Chemical-Affected Properties http://www. The Ontario Ministry of Environment should be consulted when determining appropriate actions when this is the case 4.htm ASTM E2121 . Vapor Intrusion .htm • • MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .

EPA/600/R-08-115. owner and occupant preferences and practical considerations. October 2008.08 Standard Practice for Radon Control Options for the Design and Construction of New Low-Rise Residential Buildings http://www.astm. • Mitigation system design also depends to some degree on building-specific conditions. 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.org/Standards/E1465. EPA.S. access constraints.htm U. Site Screening Process 4-34 • ASTM E1465 . MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Engineering Issue – Indoor Air Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Approaches.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 4.

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .

...................1 5..1 5..................4........3 5....................... 5-2 Study Objectives ...........................................3..................................................4..................................................... 5-12 Biodegradation Assessment .........................1 5.......2 5......................4 5... 5-42 Data Organization and Reporting ..............................5..................... 5-37 Ancillary Data..................................................................6......... 5-25 Sample Probe Purging and Sampling .................................................4. 5-15 Probes Installed in Boreholes...............................................................5 5.. 5-21 Soil Gas Sampling Procedures..................5.........................................................................4...................8.... 5-20 Short-Circuiting Considerations and Shallow Probes..6.....................6 5.................................................................................................. 5-21 Probe Development and Soil Gas Equilibration .......... Purpose and Scope .......................4......................................4 5..1 5..............................................6............5 5.........2 5..........................6...... 5-44 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .....................................6 5.......................8 5...........3 5....................................................... 5-32 Quality Assurance / Quality Control Considerations..... 5-21 Flow and Vacuum (Probe Performance) Check ...................................................... 5-31 Fixed Laboratory Analysis..................................................................................................... 5-28 Selection of Method...................5..........................................................................................................1 5.........................................3......... 5-2 5..4 5.......... 5-29 Field Laboratory Analysis............................................ 5-42 Data Quality Analysis ............................................4 5........ 5-18 Subslab Soil Gas Probes ............................................................CHAPTER 5 SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION CHAPTER 5 SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION ..............................5....................8...............3 5.........4....8.... 5-39 Data Interpretation and Analysis ............8...... 5-22 Sampling Container or Device... 5-43 Further Evaluation ..........6....................................... 5-13 Soil Gas Probe Construction and Installation .............4 Context.2 5.......................................................... 5-18 Probe Materials ........3 5................................3 5. 5-3 Overview of Sampling Strategy..................... 5-3 Considerations for Sampling Locations....................5 5................................... 5-42 Data Consistency Analysis ........3..6 5...... 5-16 Direct Push Technology.............................................................................................5.............. 5-17 Use of Water Table Monitoring Wells as Soil Gas Probes........... 5-24 Testing of Equipment for Leaks and Short Circuiting..........7 5..... 5-3 Soil Vapour Sampling Approach and Design..................................................2 5................................................................................ 5-28 Field Detectors ................................................................4 5.............................5..... 5-26 Soil Gas Analysis.......2 5....................................... 5-4 When to Sample and Sampling Frequency.................3 5.......1 5.............2 5......................................................... 5-22 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment............5 5.............................................................3.........

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. 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. Since soil vapour characterization programs are highly influenced by site specific conditions and project-specific objectives and potential constraints. since at many sites soil vapour measurements are an important component of a technically defensible assessment of soil vapour intrusion. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . and to a lesser extent groundwater. however. 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. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This chapter describes methodologies for characterization of soil vapour. with only limited guidance available for soil vapour. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-2 CHAPTER 5 SOIL VAPOUR CHARACTERIZATION This chapter describes methodologies for characterization of soil vapour. While there are limitations and uncertainties associated with the use of soil data. 5.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. since at many sites soil vapour measurements are an important component of a technically defensible assessment of soil vapour intrusion. the concepts and techniques described are applicable for any site assessment where soil vapour sampling is proposed. it is not possible to provide a standardized template for sampling design and methods. Comprehensive procedures for soil vapour characterization are needed since historically greater emphasis has been placed on soil and groundwater testing. soil and groundwater data may provide useful additional lines-of-evidence for evaluation of soil vapour intrusion. 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. 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. However. However. The context of this chapter is to provide guidance on characterization of soil vapour intrusion. for evaluating soil vapour intrusion (as subsequently described in this chapter).1 CONTEXT.

• • The study objectives should be well defined prior to developing a sampling plan. 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.3. therefore. and. 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. Evaluate the influence of background chemical sources on indoor air samples through concurrent collection of subslab vapour and indoor air samples. 5. since these data can improve the confidence in the results and the conceptual site model. Evaluate hydrocarbon vapour biodegradation through collection of soil vapour samples from vertical profiles or lateral transects. If the initial characterisation indicates soil vapour MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 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.3 5.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. 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. For many contamination scenarios.1 SOIL VAPOUR SAMPLING APPROACH AND DESIGN Overview of Sampling Strategy Typically. deeper samples are strongly recommended to characterize the source. soil vapour from near to the source is least influenced by spatial and temporal variability in concentrations. 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. 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.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. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-3 5. Provide soil vapour data needed for input into models used for sitespecific risk assessment. the source consists of NAPL or dissolved constituents at the water table.

and where relevant. and subslab (immediately beneath the floor slab) and to identify issues and considerations for these three generic sampling locations (Table 5). should consider the characteristics of the contamination source. an additional phase of soil vapour investigation may be required.. See Golder (2007) for additional information on water retention modeling. The variability in soil vapour concentrations will tend to increase as the distance from the contamination source increases.g. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . their location. Many sites have groundwater monitoring wells screened across the Example Prediction of Capillary Transition Zone Height The height above the water table where the transition to continuous gas-filled pores begins can be approximated using a water retention model (e. building.e. possible temporal changes in site conditions. To avoid the zone of excessive moisture. it is important to recognize that soil vapour samples cannot be obtained until there is a continuous interconnected network of gas-filled pores. 5. testing of subslab vapour and indoor air may be warranted as part of subsequent phases. soil gas probes should generally be installed about 0. the predicted height of this transition point is approximately 17 cm for sand and 38 cm for loam. Repeat testing of soil vapour over different time periods to capture possible seasonal variations will often be warranted. which includes definition of the number of probes. when to sample and frequency of sampling. it is helpful to categorise sampling locations as deep (near source) soil vapour. except in instances where a LNAPL smear zone is present and water levels fluctuate dramatically over time.3. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-4 concentrations at or above levels of potential concern. weather conditions).5 m to 1 m above the water table. While there is a continuum of possible sampling locations. geologic heterogeneity. anthropogenic features such as utility corridors. The sampling design. which is a function of the capillary transition zone height above the water table.. Alternately or in addition to soil vapour external (adjacent) to the building. particularly where they intersect confining soil layers. Van Genuchten model). Near source soil vapour concentrations are also less influenced by biodegradation or biotransformation processes and will reach steady state conditions relatively quickly. intermediate (mid-way between the source and the building). When determining where to locate deep soil vapour probes. Using model input parameters for US Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil texture classifications.2 Considerations for Sampling Locations An important consideration for the design of a soil vapour study is the sampling location. 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5.

petroleum hydrocarbon compounds such as BTEX) that should be taken into account when locating soil gas probes. changes in near-surface conditions such as barometric pressure or temperature fluctuations.g.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. 2006). Hers et al. Near a building. Based on these simulations.. it is recommended that near-building soil vapour samples be collected at a depth mid-way between the building foundation and the source. 2000). and variation in foundation subsoils can cause variability in soil vapour concentrations. Therefore. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-5 water table.. 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.. at the same elevation) due to oxygen transport limitations and drier soils below the building. 1996. and surface cover (e. soil gas advection.. soil vapour concentrations below a building may be significantly higher than the vapour concentrations beside a building (i.e. Bioattenuation is an important process for aerobically biodegradable chemicals (e. for some sites. fine-grained layer) or aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours (Fischer et al. However... 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. paved versus non-paved surface). caused by building depressurization. and if they are properly sealed and adequately purged (for example oxygen and PID readings stabilizing after successive purged volumes). Intermediate (Mid-Way between Source and Building) Soil Vapour Shallow soil vapour samples are more likely to be affected by geologic heterogeneity. 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). MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . but samples collected mid-way between the building depth and source depth would likely be more representative.g.g. these can be used to draw deep soil gas samples. shallow soil vapour samples external to the building could lead to non-conservative predictions of indoor vapour concentrations.

as seen at some dry cleaner sites). 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. 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). Soil Vapour Characterization Hydrocarbon Vapours Oxygen 5-6 FIGURE 8. Subslab soil vapour testing may be advantageous when initially screening buildings (i. The reverse intrusion phenomenon (vapour extrusion) can be evaluated by monitoring the pressure differential across the slab using digital micromanometers.e.g. or small crack or void below the foundation slab due to settlement will tend to MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .. 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. It is important to recognize that with barometric pressure fluctuations and positively pressurized buildings.. this could confound interpretation of subslab data. If indoor air contains elevated VOC concentrations (e. it is possible for indoor air to move from the building into the subslab soil gas.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5.

The work may require an access agreement from the building owner. it is not always a practical line of evidence. ground penetrating radar) may be used for this purpose. 2008. EPRI. • Guidance on subslab soil vapour sampling has been developed by various agencies (ITRC.g. the soil gas advection rates into a building may be greatest at a perimeter crack. although geophysical techniques (e. Subslab vapour concentrations may be highest near the centre of a building for a uniform contamination source. and. Due to the challenges of subslab sampling. 2007. 2005. Therefore. however. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . the soil vapour sampling design should consider how land use changes will affect soil vapour measurements and data interpretation. • There may be spatial or temporal variations in subslab vapour concentrations as a result of source concentration variability. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-7 promote lateral soil gas flow and will yield gas at appreciable flow rates with minimal vacuum when sampled. biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours or advective pumping of soil gas caused by barometric pressure changes. especially if monitoring of multiple buildings in a residential neighbourhood is required. so the scope and cost of subslab vapour characterization programs can be significant. USEPA.g.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Subslab sampling is intrusive in that drilling or coring equipment must be used inside the building and floor coverings may be damaged. USEPA. 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. Future Land Use Considerations If the objective of the risk assessment is to predict exposure under future conditions. it is recommended that soil vapour characterization programs for the future use scenario focus on sampling of deep near source soil gas. There are practical drawbacks associated with subslab sampling that should be recognized.. USEPA. Future research may identify alternative sub-slab sampling methods that will overcome these challenges. which may be disruptive or undesirable for owners and occupants. Multiple samples may be needed to adequately characterize this variability. It may also be difficult to determine subsurface utility locations below slabs. Recent data indicates significant spatial variability in subslab concentrations below even single family dwelling sized buildings (e. 2002). 2006). which may be present along the interface between the floor slab and foundation wall..

temperature samples for statistical the foundation assessment of spatial and footings preferred. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-8 TABLE 5: Comparison of Soil Vapour Measurement Locations Type of Soil Vapour Data Deep Soil Vapour (external) Where Obtained As near to water table as practical. (external) peri-foundational may be greater than area. Characteristics Concentrations reach near-steady conditions quickly. since sub-slab concentrations already reflect the subsurface vapours enter a effect of biodegradation between building through the building foundation. Least affected by biodegradation. temporal variability using Potentially more representative for current methods. Sample depth Include monitoring of O2 and CO2 beneath the building. Shallow soil vapour Intermediate Close to the Water content and oxygen Soil Vapour building. subject to considerations relating to capillary fringe and depth limitations for drilling. Depending on where hydrocarbons. samples may of foundation and underestimate risks for the vapour source. Use of Data and Cautions If deep vapour concentrations are below target levels.g. changes. Greater potential for non steady may or may not be representative of the state conditions depending on vapour concentrations distance from vapour source to entering the building. vapour to indoor pathway likely not significant. May be affected by subslab utilities (e. hydrocarbons.collection. drains. HVAC systems and variability in foundation subsoils. sewers). MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . but outside concentrations should be lower content beside a building than deep concentrations. are affected by changes in near.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5.. so should be mid-way when assessing hydrocarbon external soil vapour between lowest part vapours. For future development scenario. only deep vapour concentrations should be used. Should represent the highest concentrations of soil vapour. the vapour source and the subslab sample location building. tend to be stable seasonally and are relatively unaffected by nearsurface changes. Generally. central Costly to collect sufficient location away from surface conditions such as barometric pumping. measurement point. Logistical issues Subslab Soil Immediately below Higher temporal and spatial associated with sample variability expected as samples Vapour foundation slab.

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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

Capillary Transition Zone

FIGURE 10. Lateral Transect Concept

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

5-10

Lateral Transects and Vertical Profiles The soil vapour sampling design may employ transects or vertical profiles to characterize spatial variation in concentrations (Figures 9 and 10). Lateral transects or vertical profiles can provide useful information for more in-depth analysis of the effect of biodegradation or fine-grained soil layers on soil vapour transport and pathway evaluation. Transect or vertical profile data can increase the level of confidence in the CSM for soil vapour transport and data quality.
Criteria for External Soil Vapour The recommended soil vapour design for vapour intrusion assessment is: 1. Sample on at least two sides of building; probes generally to be located within 2 to 3 m of building. Obtain soil vapour selected locations. profiles at

2. 3.

Minimum depth equal to half-way between lowest part of building foundation and contamination source, further constrained to be a minimum of 1 m below ground surface. 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 least two occasions. building. Generally, a minimum of 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.

4.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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-ofmagnitude) 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

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

Foundation subsoils that are not well connected to ground surface: Less opportunity for oxygen migration to below the building due to near-building capping effect (e.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Conditions that Enhance Below Building Bioattenuation and Lead to Representative External Soil Vapour Data • Lower source vapour concentrations (e.g. and (iii) the probe should remain sealed between sampling events.g. • Foundation subsoils that are well connected to ground surface: Greater opportunity for oxygen migration to below the building through barometric pumping and wind-induced advection. Contamination below part of building (lateral concentration gradients): Less oxygen demand. and. • Deeper depth to vapour contamination source and smaller building size: Greater opportunity for oxygen migration to below the building. or soil gas samples collected using direct push equipment while it is in the ground. Soil Vapour Characterization TABLE 6: Evaluation of Factors Affecting Below Building Hydrocarbon Vapour Bioattenuation and Soil Vapour Data Representativeness Conditions that Limit Below Building Bioattenuation and Lead to NonRepresentative External Soil Vapour Data • Higher source vapour concentrations (e. Contamination below entire building (laterally uniform concentrations): Greater oxygen demand. Geoprobe (2006) and EPRI (2005). • 5. Useful information is also provided in Atlantic PIRI (2006). For all probe types. it is important that subsurface utilities be located prior to installation.4 SOIL GAS PROBE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION Soil gas probes can be constructed of a variety of materials and installed using several techniques. (ii) techniques should be used to minimize the potential for short-circuiting of atmospheric air to the probe soil gas collection point.. low permeability soils or high soil moisture).. LNAPL above water table): Greater oxygen demand. • 5-15 • • Shallow depth to vapour contamination source and larger building size: Less opportunity for oxygen migration to below the building. Further discussion on the probe materials and installation methods for each of the above probe types is described below.g.. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Collect samples in direction of highest concentrations. dissolved groundwater plume): Less oxygen demand so greater chance vapours will be degraded by the time they reach the building. Probes installed via direct push technology. API (2005). Critical aspects to probe construction include (i) probes should be constructed from materials that are relatively inert and non-sorptive. The main options for installation of soil gas probes include: • • Probes installed in boreholes in soil or coreholes.

A potential disadvantage of smaller diameter tubing (i. No glue should be used for construction of probes.3 m thick) should be constructed above the screened portion of the probe. Coarse sand or fine gravel should be placed surrounding the screened portion of the probe. 12. 19 mm (¾ inch) diameter pipe is commonly available and suitable for soil gas probes (smaller diameter rigid pipe is more difficult to obtain). Granular bentonite has a particle size much like the sand used for a filter-pack.5 mm (½ inch) in diameter. although a re-equilibration period of a few weeks or more before sampling is highly recommended. a larger slot size (up to No. Since soil gas probes are installed in the unsaturated zone where soil moisture may be relatively low. Mud-rotary or water-rotary methods should not be used to install soil gas probes.1 Probes Installed in Boreholes Drilling methods that limit disturbance to surrounding soil such as corebarrels. and a bentonite seal (minimum 0. and so it will settle effectively within the borehole. While the slot size for groundwater wells is typically No.. A competent seal can be constructed through use of dry granular bentonite (16 mesh) and addition of distilled water to the bentonite during installation. but hydrates rapidly. 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.3 m length) should be used for probes since typically the objective is to characterize local soil gas concentrations (i. A threaded cap should be placed over top of the riser pipe and riser pipe segments should be flush-threaded with o-ring seal. 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. Commercially-available implants are typically 0.e. although the screen length may also be chosen as a proportion of the thickness of the vadose zone. The probe diameter should be kept small (between 6 mm (1/4 inch) and 25 mm (1 inch)) to minimize purge volumes.1 to 0.e.3 m long. 6 mm or smaller) is frictional losses if pneumatic tests are to be performed.4. For probes constructed of continuous PVC pipe to ground surface. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-16 5. which should only be used in bedrock that cannot be penetrated by augers).01 inch). Generally short screens (0. augers or rotary sonic are preferred over methods that result in greater disturbance (air rotary. however. Probes installed in boreholes are constructed in a similar fashion to groundwater monitoring wells. over a small volume).15 to 0.. careful consideration should be given to the hydration of the bentonite seal. 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. there are important differences in design. Two common probe designs are rigid PVC pipe and “implants” constructed of steel mesh screens connected to flexible tubing. Another effective method of sealing the MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . and connected to ground surface using 6 mm (¼ inch) tubing. 10 slot (0.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5.

A potential advantage of using direct push technology is that implants can be rapidly installed with minimal disturbance.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. In cohesive soils. If multi-level probes are used. there will be little cross-communication in vacuum between adjacent probes and any vacuum observed will develop slowly. the integrity of the seal should be checked by drawing a vacuum on each probe. the filter pack that surrounds the screen provides for more open area for drawing a soil gas sample than a driven probe.4. In general. dense soils). A potential disadvantage of probes installed in boreholes may be access restrictions for drill rigs. rubble. 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.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. 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.4. 5.. each probe should be tagged with a permanent label. and measuring the vacuum at adjacent probes. In cohesionless soils. In addition. gravel or cobbles may hinder or preclude the use of direct-push technology. The position of the filter pack and seal should be confirmed using a tamping rod. 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. A potential disadvantage is that soil core is not collected for assessment of geologic material properties. Soil gas probes should be completed with an air-tight valve or stopcock at surface to prevent atmospheric air from entering the probe. or markers. and protected using a well cover or other similar protective casing for security and weatherproofing. the presence of overconsolidated till. using no glues. If multiple probes are installed in a single borehole. For a competent seal. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . deep probes. In addition. 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. Soil Vapour Characterization 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. Natural collapse of the formation around the probes will not provide a competent seal and should not be relied upon.e. After allowing the seal to set overnight. 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. and implants (described above in Section 5.2 Direct Push Technology Direct-push techniques can be used to install a single soil gas implant in a borehole. the borehole above and below each probe should be sealed with granular bentonite. Direct push rods are pushed to the desired depth.

A fast setting. 5. foundation slab or subsurface utilities.4. After drilling the hole and prior to installation of the probe.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 samples should be collected after field screening readings stabilize.g. permanent probes typically consist of stainless steel or brass inserts installed within a corehole that are sealed with concrete grout (USEPA. Therefore. During purging. A subslab probe design by USEPA (2004) is shown in Figure 11. and whether there are any potential health and safety issues with drilling or coring. an air-tight fitting will need to be attached to the top of the well. and the annulus above the well screen is sealed with a bentonite slurry or grout.4 Subslab Soil Gas Probes Prior to drilling or coring through concrete slabs. and the well should be purged by removing a minimum of two to three casing volumes of air. 5. a purge rate of several litres per minute may be required. which is more likely to become a path of least resistance in low permeability soils. the hole should be temporarily sealed (e. Since groundwater wells are typically vented at surface.. the objective of subslab soil gas sampling is to characterize vapour concentrations in foundation subsoils immediately below the slab. relevant structural and utility information should be reviewed to evaluate whether drilling or coring could adversely affect the integrity of the building envelope. the amount of purging required to achieve stable field screening readings may be considerably more than 2 or 3 casing volumes. and should not contain any additives that could contain VOCs. Prior to collecting a sample for analysis. and therefore an appropriate sized pump is required for this approach. hydrating (swelling) cement may be a better option provided there are no additives that give off VOCs.. 2004). As warranted. The concrete grout should consist of Portland cement. For typical well diameters. 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 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .g. aggregate and water. soil gas concentrations may be measured to monitor the effect of purging. using helium) are recommended to evaluate possible annular leakage along the outside of driven probes. Tracer tests (e. Soil Vapour Characterization 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. Typically.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. geophysical techniques should be used to identify the location of re-bar within concrete slabs prior to drilling.4. using a rubber stopper) to minimize disturbance to subslab vapour concentrations.

Soil Vapour Characterization 5-19 diameter of the metal insert to be used (e. Another method of sealing the probe within the corehole is to use a rubber stopper with tubing inserted through a hole in the stopper. suggested diameter is about 12. a leak tracer test is recommended to verify the seal. which is then forced through the hole to the base of the concrete slab.g.. modeling clay) should be placed around the insert or tubing.. FIGURE 11: USEPA (2004) Recommended Design for Subslab Soil Gas Probes.g. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Although permanent probes sealed in boreholes are preferred. Regardless of the sealant method.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5.5 to 19 mm) . 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. both of the above methods may be acceptable provided that a high level of care is taken to ensure an adequate seal. TeflontTM-tape is wrapped around the outside of the metal insert.

While probes constructed of stainless steel are desirable.43 µg/m3. tape or other materials that could emit volatiles should not be used as part of probe construction. High density polyethylene (HDPE) tubing may also be acceptable. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and ChemfluorTM.77 µg/m3 and 0.4. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Steel probes should be decontaminated prior to use. The recovery test indicated good recoveries (70-130%) for all tubing. Glue. except when temporary steel probes are re-used. Relatively small diameter probes and tubing should be used to minimize purge volumes. The background test generally indicated highest artifact concentrations for Nylon tubing. Care should be taken when storing and handling probe material to avoid contamination. This study shows tubing can influence soil vapour and air monitoring results.. with locking caps should be considered. PVC probes are often installed. were 0.5 ppbV standard after gas flowed through a 2-foot length of tubing. except for heavier molecular compounds for Nylon only. except for 1.5 Probe Materials Relatively inert and non-porous materials are preferred for soil gas sampling. Nylon (Nyla-FlowTM). and (ii) recovery of known 0. although tight barbed-fittings (with tubing pushed over at least 3 barbs) should also provide for a reasonable seal.8 µg/m3). For security and to prevent damage to probes. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-20 Tubing Study A study of three tubing materials (PEEK. Only new materials should be used. where recovery for naphthalene was 31%. metal well protectors or well covers. based on practical considerations.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. tubing diameter should be sufficiently large to avoid excessive line losses. 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). respectively. Teflon and Nylon) by Air Toxics Ltd. The concentrations for Teflon tubing were lower. but may be subject to greater sorption than the above materials. Sampling trains should be kept as short as practical to minimize potential sorption. on average. (Hayes et al. 2006) evaluated (i) background artifacts generated by a 2-foot length of tubing. There have only been a few studies evaluating tubing. but acceptable materials are considered to include TeflonTM. which for toluene and benzene. Silicon and Tygon tubing are highly sorptive and should not be used. particularly given a short length of tubing was used for the study.1Difluoroethane (average of 13. although if pneumatic tests are performed. Couplings that are compression-fittings or Swage-lok connections are preferred. 5.

probes installed in auger holes (a few days). and leakage of soil gas and/or atmospheric air can occur at probe joints. purging and field screening should be performed after installation until soil vapour concentrations stabilize. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .4.6 Short-Circuiting Considerations and Shallow Probes Short-circuiting of atmospheric air to the probe can occur between the probe and soil. movement and cracking of soil around the probe. The probe surface seal integrity may be tested by introducing a tracer gas (e.. and hence the potential for short-circuiting during sampling. For finer-grained soils.g. ITRC (2007) and EPRI (2005). For probes installed using air rotary drilling. the probe should be allowed to re-equilibrate prior to sampling. probe performance testing. or suitable alternate material that is inert (e. Prevention of short-circuiting and leaks is particularly important for low permeability soil deposits. sampling containers. and purging and sampling. and then the probes should be allowed to re-equilibrate for a few weeks prior to sampling. Otherwise. the surface surrounding the probe should be sealed with bentonite prior to sampling. modeling clay). 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. Suggested minimum equilibration times are: probes installed in direct push holes (about a day). Soil Vapour Characterization 5-21 5. decontamination.g. A good overview of sampling procedures is also provided in API (2005). 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. Three probe volumes of air (including the probe pipe or tubing and the pore volume of the sand pack) should be removed during development.5.. 5.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. The methods used should be documented throughout the sampling process. the process of driving a steel probe may cause deflection of the probe.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. methods to detect leaks and short-circuiting. Geoprobe (2006). For driven probes.

. 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 field screening using hand-held detectors. step tests). As a minimum. soil gas samples are often collected using Tedlar bags. 1990).e. 5. a lower vacuum (less than 1 inch of water) would typically be expected since granular materials are commonly present below foundation slabs. a lower flow rate should be used to reduce the vacuum. For subslab soil gas samples.. The objective of the performance test is to verify the flow and vacuum are within acceptable ranges prior to sampling. Soil gas samples collected for analysis by a fixed laboratory for VOCs should generally be obtained using sorbent tubes or stainless steel (e. 1995) or to a well (Johnson et al. Such tests may involve measuring vacuum for several different flow rates (i..3 Sampling Container or Device Sample collection devices can include evacuated steel canisters. 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. allow the vacuum generated during performance testing to dissipate before collecting a soil gas sample for analysis.g. The selection of a collection device is influenced by investigation objectives. If the vacuum exceeds 10 inches of water. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-22 Equilibration Time for Sand Pack To answer how long does it take for the sand pack to equilibrate with surrounding soil gas. SummaTM) or glass-lined MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . the probe should be allowed to re-equilibrate using similar criteria described for well development. Gas-tight syringes are often used for on-site analysis using mobile laboratories (Hayes et al. The test is conducted by withdrawing soil gas from the probe at the desired flow rate using a pump and measuring the vacuum. 5. for a 10 cm diameter borehole.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. For example. 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.. 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.5. 2007). where practical. 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). analytical requirements and detection limits.5. glass cylinders and TedlarTM bags. sorbent tubes.2 Flow and Vacuum (Probe Performance) Check The performance testing of selected probes should be conducted prior to soil gas sampling.

Gas-tight syringes are typically used for on-site gas chromatography (GC) analysis. Glass cylinders are typically supplied by the analytical laboratory filled with high-purity nitrogen. SilcoSteelTM) canisters. Glass cylinders or Tedlar bags may be appropriate for light gas analysis (oxygen. but there are large differences in sorptive properties.5 to 1 litre cylinder is used for soil gas sampling. Gas-tight syringes are used to collect small volume gas samples (typically 5 to 60 ml). analysis of bags within 24 and 48 hours is recommended. Samples should be analyzed within a short time (30 minutes) of collection. • • • • • • Glass Cylinders • • • • Gas-Tight Syringes MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . which in turn causes the bag to fill with soil gas. analysis of cylinders within 24 and 48 hours is recommended.g. Tedlar bags can be filled using a: 1) small battery-powered electric pump. The vacuum chamber method involves placing a Tedlar bag in a sealed chamber that is evacuated. 1996. Electric pumps can become contaminated and thus cross-contamination is possible. Sampling devices are compared in Table 7. Studies indicate significant leakage of Tedlar bags over the first 24 to 48 hours after sampling (Wang et al. Once purging is completed. The vacuum chamber method is advantageous in lower permeability soils in that there is least potential for ambient air leakage (e. 1991). the cylinder should be inserted into the sampling train. Glass cylinders are available in a range of volumes. typically a 0.. 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. Soil Gas Sample Collection Containers and Devices TedlarTM Bags • • Tedlar bags are available in volumes ranging from 10 ml to 10 litre.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. 2) peristaltic pump or 3) vacuum chamber. through leaking pumps or connections). typically a 0. and Andino and Butler. carbon dioxide.. TABLE 7.. Although reported analytical holding times are up to seven days. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-23 (e. pumps do not function well and may leak. Syringes may be glass/Teflon or plastic. Tedlar bag samples should be analyzed as quickly as possible. methane). The glass cylinder is placed in-line between the probe and pump. At higher vacuums. An advantage of peristaltic pumps is that soil gas does not pass through the pump.g.5 to 1 litre bag is used for soil gas sampling.

sorbent and desired detection limit. immediately prior to and after sampling using a gauge supplied by the laboratory. However. For quality control purposes. Soil Vapour Characterization Sorbent Tubes • • • • • • • • 5-24 Stainless Steel or Glass-lined Steel Canisters • • A wide range of sorbent materials are available. passivated interior surface. permanent marking pens. Care should also be taken when handling equipment since sampling equipment could be contaminated through dirty containers. etc.5. Significant differences in laboratory and field vacuums (beyond the range of accuracy of the gauge) indicate possible leakage during shipping. the sample will not represent the entire planned sampling interval. or two tubes are placed in series to evaluate possible chemical breakthrough. a field blank sample comprised of ambient air should be collected through the entire sampling train and tested using the field PID or FID. it may be appropriate to re-use the soil gas probes. This can be implemented through decontamination of equipment or through the use of new. unused equipment.g. If concentrations in the field blank are elevated above background ambient levels. tubing and sampling containers (e. The vacuum is measured prior to shipping by the laboratory. There should be a residual vacuum left in the canisters. chemical type. Available volumes range from 400 ml to 6 litres. prior to installing a probe and collecting each sample. Sorbent tubes are placed in-line between the probe and pump.. The sampling duration will depend on the expected concentration. greater care must be taken with respect to decontamination and verification of clean sampling equipment and containers. the equipment should be cleaned or new equipment should be used. Sorbent tube sampling rates are typically 100 to 200 ml/min. 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. and by the laboratory upon receipt. vehicle exhaust. The sampling rate is typically controlled by a flow controller (either mass flow controller or critical orifice). Tubes are selected based on the types and concentrations of volatile chemicals expected in soil gas. the flow rate supplied by the sampling pump must be accurately determined.4 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment Clean equipment and sample containers should be used for soil gas sampling. Tedlar bags). Canisters are supplied under vacuum. It is MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . hands. sorbent tubes often have a “front” and “back” section. otherwise. Canisters have a relatively inert. 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 involves collection of soil gas samples for part-perbillion analysis. 5.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. flow rate.

diluted helium) of known concentration that is drawn through the sampling equipment at the approximate vacuum anticipated during sampling.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5.5 Testing of Equipment for Leaks and Short Circuiting There are several ways in which the sampling train can be tested for leaks. involves testing of sampling equipment for potential leaks using a tracer gas (e. do not provide for near real-time results (unless analyzed by a field laboratory). 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. For example. A liquid tracer such as isopropanol may also be deployed by wrapping paper towels soaked with the tracer around the probe and connections in the sampling train. are clean prior to shipment to the site and that new sample tubing in all cases be used for each soil gas probe.5. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-25 recommended that the analytical laboratory be required to demonstrate that the containers and flow controllers. Field blanks should be obtained using certified zero gas as opposed to ambient air. A leak tracer test may also be conducted by introducing helium beneath a shroud that covers the probe and part of the sampling train. described by API (2005). and experience suggests the liquid tracer may diffuse or permeate through very small cracks. if applicable. 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%. there is a good chance that atmospheric air leaked into the sample (see Section 5-9 for additional discussion). so if a soil gas sample contain high concentrations of both hydrocarbons and oxygen. 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. When under pressure. Potential short-circuiting of atmospheric air during sampling can also be indirectly evaluated through careful examination of oxygen and carbon dioxide data. 5. oxygen concentrations are generally depleted in the presence of elevated hydrocarbon vapour concentrations. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Potential disadvantages with liquid tracers are that they may interfere with laboratory analyses. a soapy-water solution may be used to identify any couplings that may be leaking since air bubbles should be observed. An alternate method..g.

6 Sample Probe Purging and Sampling Purging Probe The purpose of purging is to ensure a representative soil gas sample is collected by removing stagnant air from the probe and filter pack prior to collecting a sample.5. A flow rate between 20 and 200 ml/min should generally be used for purging and sampling. For narrow diameter tubing.. Creamer and McAlary. 2006). When purging is complete. 2004. Purging and Sampling Summary 1. therefore excessive purging should be avoided. where practical. 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. On the basis of this equation. Calculate the dead volume based on the inner volume of probe and tubing. Purge three volumes from the probe. 1996). This technique is analogous to the low-flow groundwater sampling technique (Puls and Barcelona. concentrations generally stabilize after the probe tubing and sand pack are purged (EPA. 5. 4. 2005). Soil Vapour Characterization 5-26 5. fewer purge volumes are likely needed to obtain a representative sample due to reduced mixing resulting from more a “plug flow” phenomena. the estimated concentration within the probe volume reaches 90 percent of the input concentration after purging about three volumes. Use direct reading instrument to monitor VOC concentrations during purging. 2006. Monitor the vacuum during purging. Check for leaks in sampling equipment. 3. Sequential sampling and field screening with portable instruments such as a PID. In properly sealed probes. close the sampling valve and allow the vacuum to dissipate before collecting a sample. 6.. FID or landfill gas meter may also be used during the purging process to demonstrate stable readings before a sample is collected. Allow probe to equilibrate. the removal of three purge volumes prior to sample collection is considered appropriate. 8. a volume-integrated concentration may be obtained. Lewis et al. the objective is to obtain a soil gas sample from the geologic material immediately surrounding the probe. Cody (2003) evaluated purge 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).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. reduce the flow rate if the vacuum exceeds 5 inches water. Based on the above. 2. Typically. The concentration trends over time as measured by direct reading MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 7. If the approximate permeability and soil gas flow regime is known.

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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 shortterm 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 5.6.1 SOIL GAS ANALYSIS 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

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

Tedlar Bag GC/PID GC/MS Modified USEPA 8021B Modified USEPA 8260B • • • Fixed VOCs Laboratory Analysis VOCs and SVOCs VOCs sorbent tube. which may be % level) Not compound specific Some detectors. Soil Vapour Characterization TABLE 8: Summary of Common Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis Methods Compound Class Field Screening Methods VOCs Collection Device Tedlar Bag Method No. electrochemi cal (O2) Platinum catalyst • • • • 5-30 Method PID/FID Comments Lower cost. thermal extraction Specially– treated (e. Summa ) canister Polyurthane foam (PUF) GC/FID1 OSHA 7 / NIOSH methods USEPA TO-17 USEPA TO-14A /TO-15 USEPA TO-13A • • • • GC/MS GC/MS • PAHs GC/MS MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . solvent extraction sorbent tube. Laboratory BTEX) Methods Glass and Teflon syringe. • • Light Gases (O2. are designed to sample against vacuum.. may be issues for sorbent tube analysis (e. such as those for landfill gases. equipment is simple to use PID sensitive to moisture and dust FID requires H2 source and more operator training Generally ppm detection limits (except light gases.g.. CH4) Combustible Gases Tedlar Bag Infrared (CO2. CH4). other instruments are sensitive to vacuum and flow rate constrictions Near real time results Use of liquid (as opposed to gas) calibration standards may not provide representative data for some compounds May need to analyze subset of samples using fixed laboratory methods Lower detection limits (except some NMOC & TVOC methods) More rigorous QA/QC Higher cost Depending of chemical. CO2.g.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5.g. recovery. breakthrough) High humidity can cause problems for analysis Tedlar Bag Field VOCs (e.. real time results.

NIOSH = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (USA) 6. 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. PID = photoionization detector. modified USEPA Method 8021B). H2) Notes: 1. FID = flame ionization detector. Glass syringe FID GC/TCD USEPA TO-12 ASTM D1945-03 MS is also used by commercial labs but is not part of the reference method.6. CWS-PHC = Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds 5.g. Soil Vapour Characterization Compound Class Collection Device Method GC/FID Method No. which can be used to modify programs while in progress. CO2. and potentially lower costs if the number of samples analyzed is high.S. Tedlar Bag. GC/FID (Cryotrap) Canister or on-line Canister. TVOC (C10-19)) and aromatic and aliphatic fractions (e.. Hydrocarbon fractions can consist of both ranges (e. The advantages of field laboratory methods are near real-time results. The portable GC usually analyses data through photo ionization. MS = Mass Selective detector 4.O2. Possible regulatory requirements for soil gas analytical protocols should also be reviewed when evaluating field laboratory analysis.. temporal. Soil gas air is usually collected using gas-tight syringes and is injected into the GC (or purge-and-trap apparatus) for analysis. The disadvantage of field laboratory methods are higher detection limits than fixed laboratory methods based on U. GC = gas chromatograph. EPA TO. CH4. The precision of MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .protocols (see below). 2. CO. Also the ability to collect repeat samples can be an advantage for assessing sampling.g.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.. NIOSH 1550 USEPA TO-3 Comments 5-31 TVOC & sorbent tube. and spatial variability. flame ionization or electron capture detectors (e. CCME CWS-PHC approach) 3. Hydrocarbon solvent Fractions2 extraction TVOC & Canister Hydrocarbon (Summa or Fractions non treated). TCD = thermal conductivity detector. USEPA = US Environmental Protection Agency 5.. NMOC = non-methane organic compounds 8. Tedlar Bag NMOC Light Gases (e.g.g. TVOC (C6-10). OSHA = Occupational Safety & Health Administration (USA) 7. CCME = Canadian Council for Ministers of the Environment 9.

. it is important to recognize that they are air methods that have been modified for soil vapour. 2005). low detection limits and more rigorous quality control requirements typically require that soil gas samples be collected using either active sorbent tubes (i.g. 5. The canister method involves collection of a “whole air” sample enabling direct analysis of the soil vapour sample. While a number of methods are available. For thermal desorption.e.g. recovery tends to be poor (Hayes et al.g. USEPA TO-17) or solvent extraction is used (e.. 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. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-32 the results can vary depending on the equipment used. Additionally.6. which usually is cryogenically cooled.. The air concentration is estimated by dividing the mass by the total volume of air drawn through the tube. the whole sample is released from the sorbent during the heated desorption step. and quantified by GC/MS methods. which provide greater certainty for compound identification (e. Both methods are described in detail below.. 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.. as compared to air. air is drawn through tube using pump) or passivated steel canisters. modified USEPA Method 8260B).4 Fixed Laboratory Analysis For risk assessment studies. Thermal desorption involves rapidly heating the sorbent to desorb the VOC. Modified water methods (Method 8021B and 8260B) can work well for many compounds. 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 passing an inert carrier gas through the tube. modified OSHA 7 or NIOSH 1501 methods). 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. The use of GC/FID analysis is generally not recommended due to non-specificity of compound identification. Analytical Methods: A key distinguishing factor between methods is whether thermal desorption (e. but for non-polar compounds and heavier molecular weight compounds such as naphthalene.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. can be very high and potentially MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . There are now some contractors that provide field testing services using portable mass spectrometers (MS). The VOCs are carried by the gas and concentrated on a smaller downstream trap.

which are difficult to trap using sorbent media.g. 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. some laboratories use the same method but substitute newer more sorptive materials such as processed synthetic carbon (e. There are wide variations in sorbent properties. The sensitivity of thermal desorption techniques requires a smaller soil gas volume to meet screening levels than solvent extraction techniques. In contrast to thermal desorption.. replicate analyses can be performed on the extract. Polar VOC compounds can also partition into the water phase reducing recovery. Other issues for sorbent sampling include sorbent pore size and uniformity. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . polymeric and/or carbonaceous resins. Solvent extraction involves use of a solvent such as carbon disulphide to extract the sample. Anasorb 747) or molecular sieve materials in place of the coconut shell charcoal. possible reactions between the sorbent and adsorbed molecules. hydrophobic sorbents are preferred since sorbed water reduces the retention of VOCs. longer sampling durations can pose challenges in terms of breakthrough. 2002). Types of Sorbents: Sorbents used for VOCs commonly used consist of charcoal.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. higher detection limits may not be an issue for soil vapour analysis (but may be problematic for air analyses)... typically only the XAD resin sorbent is used for semi-volatile analyses. Since trapping of particulates for soil vapour is usually not an objective. carbon molecular sieve) that are designed to optimize the collection process are used. graphitized carbon black. 1994). While chemical extraction methods are adapted from industrial hygiene practice and are typically not as sensitive as thermal desorption. Since soil gas typically has a relative humidity of close to 100 percent. tubes containing three materials with differing sorptive properties (e. Coconut shell charcoal is typically used for BTEX analysis (NIOSH 1501). 1994).g. To achieve low detection limits. For USEPA TO-17 analysis. Special attention should be paid to sorbents selected for analysis of highly volatile chemicals such as vinyl chloride. and slow breakdown of certain polymeric sorbents and release of aromatic hydrocarbons (Harper. Thermal tubes designed to perform well under conditions of high humidity should be selected. As discussed below. The laboratory methods typically specify the type of sorbent to use. and because water vapour can affect the GC analysis (Harper. NIOSH or OSHA methods involving chemical extraction are modified and typically utilize a larger mass of sorbent combined with longer sampling durations. 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). For chlorinated solvent compounds. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-33 overload the GC/MS).

Assuming a target indoor air concentration of 3 μg/m3. the sorption capacity and required detection limits. which may not always be practical to avoid. in general.1 μg (MS detector). 11% drop in flow at 3.g. pumps must be accurately calibrated and provide a constant flow rate throughout the sampling duration. A typical benzene detection limit is 0. The pump flow rate must be checked prior to and during sampling. the results of field PID analyses of soil vapour should be communicated to the laboratory analyst prior to sorbent sampling to guide selection of a sampling duration and flow rate that would minimize the potential for chemical breakthrough. At a sampling rate of 100 ml/min.1μg/30μg/m3 x 1000 L/m3). the required sampling duration would be 33 minutes. since actual pump flow rates may vary considerably depending on the soil air permeability and vacuum. An option is to collect two samples over different time durations to avoid the possibility of re-sampling. Nevertheless. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-34 Sorbent Sampling Volume: The sampling volume should be carefully determined through consideration of the expected VOC concentration and mass. 1999b). Canister Method Low detection limits can be achieved utilizing the Summa canister method (USEPA Method TO-15) and. a target detection limit of 30 μg/m3 for a soil gas sample is obtained (Eq. 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.4 inches H20.. When available. therefore approximately 3. the accuracy and precision of analytical results generated are high. Environmental Conditions: Appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate the effects of high humidity or cold weather when sampling using sorbent tubes. 40% drop at 9 inches H20 and 93% drop at 16.5 inches H20). 1999a) and USEPA TO-15 (polar and non-polar compounds) (USEPA.5). Further discussion on cold weather considerations is provided in Exhibit 3. USEPA Method TO-15 is commonly used for soil vapour analyses since there are a number of MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Analytical Methods: The analytical protocols for the Summa method are USEPA TO-14A (non-polar compounds) (USEPA. Pump Flow Rate: Since the concentration is sensitive to the flow rate.3 litres of soil gas would need to be drawn through the tube (0.6.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Sampling Volume Calculation An example sampling volume calculation is provided for sorbent tube analysis for benzene. Reducing the air flow rate or sampling with varying volumes of air (using multiple samples) may be a good approach under this circumstance. 5-1 Section 5. there are significant issues for this method as described below.

filter or inlet tube under these conditions. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-35 significant improvements for Method TO-15 compared to TO-14A. therefore.. For soil vapour sampling. For longer duration sampling (e. However.g. specific canister cleaning procedures. where the steel is coated with an inert fused silica layer. with some advocating the use of Tedlar bags. all MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . the sampling location should be communicated to the laboratory so that appropriate adjustments can be made. USEPA Method TO-15 utilizes a gas chromatograph (GC) with a mass spectrometer (MS) as the detector.e.. Experience has shown that there is a significant potential for contaminant carry over in the canister.. up to an hour).5 parts per billion by volume (ppbV). which are electro-polished steel canisters and Silco canisters.000. calibrated for vacuum conditions. Particulate filters consisting of sintered steel with 2 to 7 micron pore sizes or deactivated glass frit are placed before the critical orifice.000 µg/m3. Therefore. a residual vacuum should remain in the canister after sampling is complete. If warranted. The silcosteel canisters internal surface is intended to be non-reactive with sulphur compounds or compounds that react with metal surfaces (e.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Equipment Cleaning: The TO methods and hardware were designed to measure low VOC concentrations in ambient air. indoor air sampling). there is debate between practitioners on appropriate sampling device for sulphur compounds. a mass flow controller should be used to provide for a uniform flow rate. within an acceptable tolerance. dry cleaners. 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. canisters are subject to soil vapour concentrations that exceed 100. Hardware: Two types of canisters are available: Summa canisters.g.g. At some sites (e. regulator.2 to 0. Flow regulators are temperature and altitude dependent. Laboratories typically conduct performance studies to verify that flow regulator’s provide for an uniform sampling rate over the sampling duration.1. UST sites with free-phase NAPL). Analytical methodology considerations are further discussed in Section 6. however.000 to 1.. It is important that the canister hardware be in good condition. better water management procedures and better recovery of polar compounds. including enhanced measures for quality control. When the MS is run in full scan mode up to 70 compounds can be readily detected with typical reporting limits between 0. a one-litre canister is typically a sufficient volume. This is not of significant concern for soil vapour sampling. flow rates can be verified in the field using an extra canister using an electronic mass flow meter or rotometer. polar compounds).4. It is essential that all fittings are tight during sampling. but it does not provide for a uniform flow since the flow rate is a function of the pressure differential. A critical orifice is often used for short duration sampling for soil vapour (i.

vinyl chloride) can be difficult to control. breakthrough for light molecular weight VOCs (e. where the temperature may be well above freezing.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Field instruments such as photoionization and flame ionization detectors and pumps are not designed to operate when temperatures are below freezing. through use of translucent tubing). There may also be significant temperature gradients between shallow soil beside and below a building.g. Obtaining a soil vapour sample within frozen ground. however... while potentially feasible. Method Selection The chemical to be measured. Summa canisters can be used to measure a wide range of VOCs including MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 2007). is not considered representative and therefore either deeper external vapour samples or samples from below the building should be obtained. laboratory certification and quality control are factors that should be considered when selecting the soil gas analysis method.. consideration should be given to heating and insulating of sorbent tubes during sampling and keeping above-ground tubing as short as possible. EXHIBIT 3: Considerations for Cold Weather Sampling In many regions of Canada.e. Frost and snow cover may limit the flux of contaminant vapours to atmosphere and oxygen recharge to subsurface.g. Canisters are typically cleaned by heating the canister and passing humidified zero air under pressure through the canister. detection limit. 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. excessive humidity can create challenges for sample recovery and cryogenic focusing prior to analysis. For heavier molecular weight compounds (trimethylbenzene and heavier). Soil Vapour Characterization 5-36 equipment must be cleaned and canister blanks tested. with field samples collected and transported in Tedlar bags. Environmental Conditions: Although a water film on the internal surface of a Summa canister is needed for an inert surface. Field instruments may be kept warm in a heated building or vehicle. sorption onto metal tubing and filter has been shown to result in reduced compound recovery (Entech. For soil vapour sampling design the influence of frost and snow cover on the soil vapour transport should be considered. cost. freezing temperatures). Sampling pumps may be kept warm by storing them in insulated coolers or insulated lunch bags with heat packs. There may also be condensation through cooling of warmer soil gas during sampling. Certain pre-cautions should also be taken when conducting soil vapour programs during cold weather. although an alternate method of multiple focusing steps using non-cooled sorbent tubes can reduce problems associated with water vapour. environmental investigations may be completed during periods of relatively cold weather (i. 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. While the cold temperature performance of sorbent tubes is not well understood. ease of use.

5. 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. Detection Limits For risk assessments. for either a representative subset or all of the sampling devices. Standard operating procedures should be used for sampling and analytical procedures.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.02. except when hydrocarbon fractions are analyzed (see Appendix III). and SF is safety factor (5-10). batch MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . AF is the attenuation factor (0. In broad terms. data representativeness. Required detection limits may be backcalculated using risk-based target indoor air concentrations combined with a maximum expected attenuation factor between soil vapour and indoor air. Tedlar bags should generally not be used to collect samples for laboratory analyses. it is recommended the analytical laboratory demonstrate that the sampling device (canister. Systematic data collection and planning helps provide for defensible results and increased credibility. precision. Analysis by GC/MS is recommended regardless of the collection method. a reasonable upper bound attenuation factor is 0. Cair is the target indoor air concentration.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. There may also be specific considerations for cold weather sampling that should be incorporated in the data quality objectives (Exhibit 3). including the use of chain of custody records and identifying sampling locations. For projects involving soil vapour analyses where detection limits are in the part-per-billion range. data completeness and detection limits. the measured vapour concentrations are often used to predict indoor air concentrations. For subslab or near building soil vapour.02). Soil Vapour Characterization 5-37 naphthalene. The target detection limit is calculated as follows: DLtarget = Cair / (AF * SF) [5-1] Where DL is the analytical reporting (detection) limit. The development of a QA/QC plan will help to ensure that the desired data quality is achieved. 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.6. sorbent tube) is clean to below the required detection limits prior to sampling and analysis. Testing and Certification that Sampling Device is Clean For all methods.

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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. as described below: • Field transport blanks are sample containers that are shipped with the other samples. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-38 certification of the sampling devices may be adequate. which should be supplied by the laboratory in a separate canister. testing a field transport blank involves filling the canister with ultra high purity air or nitrogen. When duplicate samples are collected in sequence. individual certification will often be warranted. Duplicate samples can either be obtained simultaneously (i. While not a duplicate analysis.. it may be desirable to increase the frequency of testing or pool QC results from multiple programs before drawing conclusions about data quality. method blanks and spike samples. may depend on the total number of samples analyzed and analytical method. Depending on whether the laboratory has a thermal desorption unit with re-collection feature. but which are not used for collecting a sample. collection of duplicate samples for thermal desorption analyses may be advantageous in that it enables re-analysis of a second sample.e. For indoor and outdoor air sampling. Quality Control Samples Analysis of duplicate samples is required to assess the precision of the method and variability of the sampling process. while often each set at 10 percent of the samples analyzed. using a splitter) or in sequence. for sorbent tube analysis. a duplicate sample may be obtained using a splitter or side-by-side (co-located) samples may be obtained. variability due to temporal changes is introduced. For Summa canisters. both the front and back sections of sampling tubes (or two tubes in series) should be analyzed separately to evaluate for chemical breakthrough. 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 • MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . whereas for projects involving indoor air analyses at part-per-trillion levels. When only a small number of samples are tested. The frequency of field and laboratory duplicate sample analyses. Depending on project requirements. other quality control samples that may be analyzed include transport blanks. The field duplicate samples should be obtained from the same soil gas probe using identical sampling procedures and submitted blind to the laboratory.

water-filled porosity and total organic carbon content may be important in evaluating vapour intrusion. Passive diffusive samples can be used to estimate VOC concentrations in air and are described in Chapter 6. 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. sampling and storage of samples. including blanks. • 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. 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. but currently can not reliably be used to estimate soil vapour concentrations. The interpretation of quality control data is discussed in Section 5. However. prior to installation. and any suspect results should be flagged. bulk density. and typically analyzed using GC/MS methods. This information may have been collected as part of an environmental site assessment. 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. Although not commonly performed. The adsorbed compounds are removed from the adsorbent by thermal desorption or solvent extraction. The extended sampling duration also provides for high sensitivity. In the context of soil vapour intrusion studies. This type of test is normally performed by the analytical laboratory. including soil moisture.8. consideration can also MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .7 ANCILLARY DATA In addition to measured soil vapour concentrations. 5. All data should be clearly reported. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-39 sampled. Passive Soil Vapour Samplers: Passive diffusion samplers contain a hydrophobic adsorbent material that collects organic compounds over time. Care should be taken to minimize re-distribution of soil moisture or drying of soil during drilling. The passive soil gas method provides the mass of vapours adsorbed to the media. This can provide useful data on whether the sampling train is clean. Physical Properties: The properties of significant soil layers of the vadose zone. air-filled porosity. the supplemental data below may assist in understanding the vapour intrusion pathway. Passive soil gas samples are typically deployed for a few days to weeks. and therefore provide a time-integrated sample.

. Frost and snow cover should be noted.. barometric pressure and other weather data to assess whether there are any correlations in the data. 1999) and soil-air permeability (Baehr et al.e. Meteorological data may be useful in interpretation of soil vapour intrusion particularly if there were severe weather conditions during sampling (e. 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. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . For gas intrusion potential would be low such scenarios. The hydraulic conductivity and gradient are fundamental parameters required to evaluate groundwater flow systems.g. relative humidity and precipitation) can be readily downloaded. BarologgerTM). 2005). this meteorological data should be obtained. soil recommended in ASTM (2001)). an evaluation consisting if the pressure in the building is of review of HVAC design. 1998. If there is a weather station near the site.g. barometric pressure. private) for which meteorological data (temperature. Meteorological Data: There are an increasing number of weather stations (government... When measuring pressures.. 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. and through operation of HVAC system. 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.. Vapour intrusion will be significantly Information on pressure gradients curtailed if the building is sufficiently can be useful in assessing soil gas pressurized (i. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-40 be given to in situ tests to provide estimates of tortuosity (effective diffusion coefficient) (Johnson et al. wind speed and direction. and series of differential building. Barometric pressure and precipitation data for a few days prior to sampling should be obtained to enable trends to be evaluated. for example. and barometric pressure can be readily obtained (e. building air and subslab soil gas. 1991). interview with building engineer to review HVAC higher than in soil below the operation. rapid change in barometric pressure. comparable to 6 to 9 Pa intrusion potential. strong winds). Portable weather stations are also relatively inexpensive. Lahvis et al.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5.

although results may be somewhat biased by radon emissions from concrete itself or off-gassing from water. 2004). and not the total air handling volume. 2010. 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)... there are no common sources of indoor radon.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. indicating that trees may be a useful screening tool at some sites. Measurements of soil gas flow rates. The ventilation test involves release of tracer gas (carbon dioxide) within the enclosed space followed by monitoring of the concentration decay over time. 2008). Struckoff et al. 2005. The concentration decay rate is used to estimate the air exchange rate. The air exchange rate should be calculated from the make-up volume. Vroblesky et al. Larger-Scale Tracer and Pneumatic Testing: Several different techniques may be used to estimate soil-air permeability and evaluate soil gas migration pathways.. pressures and vapour concentrations may be used for evaluating contamination source zones and for remediation design.. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Flux chamber tests are affected by the methodology used and conditions at the time of sampling and are relatively difficult tests to perform. Helium tracers may be released at probes and travel times monitored at a central well where soil gas is being extracted. it may be possible to estimate the ventilation rate from HVAC system design. compared to analyses for VOCs. The use or scaling of data for purposes of a vapour intrusion assessment is also not straightforward. Tree Coring: Recent studies have shown tree core concentrations of chlorinated solvent chemicals to be related to soil. For commercial buildings. groundwater and soil vapour concentrations (Burken et al. There are also tracer test methods that use sulphur hexafluoride. although flux chamber tests may be useful when emissions to outdoor air are estimated. and indoor radon concentrations are in most cases above detectable levels (unlike VOCs where bias may be caused by non-detect values). if from a groundwater source containing radon. Soil Vapour Characterization 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). Radon Tracer Test: Naturally-occurring radon can be used as a tracer to evaluate sub-slab to indoor air attenuation (McHugh et al. are potentially lower analytical costs. The potential advantages of using radon.

review canister pressure before start of sampling. sample date. the data should be evaluated to determine whether they meet data quality objectives outlined in the sampling plan. Tabulate field screening and laboratory analysis data to enable side by side comparisons. and. there should be a small vacuum left in the canister. upon completion of sampling and receipt by the laboratory. Identify soil vapour target concentrations and background indoor and outdoor air concentrations.8. vegetated areas). if not. consider geologic conditions when evaluating variability. chemical analysis methods. Oil-filled gauges supplied by the laboratory for field measurements have an accuracy of plus or minus 1 or 2 inches Hg. Compare soil vapour with nearby groundwater concentration data.8. For Summa canister analyses. sample depth.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. the sample integrity could be compromised. 5. Prior to sampling.1 Data Organization and Reporting The soil gas data should be tabulated and plotted to facilitate evaluation and review of data relationships and trends. laboratory detection limits and results of chemical analysis. utilities. so only approximate • MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . paved areas. The following data organization and presentation is recommended: • Tabulate all data including sample location identifier. In some cases.2 Data Quality Analysis Following receipt of the soil vapour results. and after sampling is complete. The data quality checks should include the following: • Review reported detection limits relative to data quality objectives. • • • • • 5. sample dilution is required which results in raised detection limits. carbon dioxide and methane and boring log data where available. Prepare vertical profiles of soil vapour concentration data that includes oxygen. the vacuum should be close to 29 inches Hg. Prepare plan drawings showing soil vapour concentration data that includes pertinent structures (buildings. Soil Vapour Characterization 5-42 5. where available.8 DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS The procedures for data interpretation and analysis of soil vapour data are described below. sampling methods (including sampling duration and flow rate).

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 5. Soil Vapour Characterization

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.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment

2010

.....................................3..2 6..............................8 6.3.......................................3.....................................................................CHAPTER 6 INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION CHAPTER 6 INDOOR AIR QUALITY TESTING FOR EVALUATION OF SOIL VAPOUR INTRUSION ............................................3 6...............................5 6........... 6-15 Define Sampling Duration ..7 6....................3 6...............2......1 6...........6 6............................................3.............2 Context................. 6-15 Define Sampling Frequency ................................4 6.......... 6-13 Develop Communications Program..... 6-13 Conduct Pre-Sampling Building Survey.. 6-12 Define Study Objectives ...................................................2 6...4 6.................3......... 6-4 Building Foundation Construction..2.........1 6............................................3.....3 6..............................4............1 6................................................................. 6-14 Define Number and Locations of Indoor and Outdoor Air Samples .............3.................... 6-11 Mixing of Vapours Inside Building ...............................................2 6.........2.............................5.......2.......................................6 6.................................................................. 6-12 Development of Indoor Air Quality Study Approach and Design ....... 6-18 Air Analysis Using USEPA Method TO-15........ 6-14 Identify Immediate Health or Safety Concerns ..................................................4...........................................................10 6. 6-24 Data Organization and Reporting . 6-18 Air Analysis using Quantitative Passive Diffusive Samplers....................5 6..... 6-9 Building Ventilation... 6-2 Conceptual Site Model for Indoor Air ......................9 6.................................. 6-19 Data Interpretation and Analysis ............. 6-12 Identify Target Compounds ............................................................3.............................................................................................2 6................................... 6-9 Building Depressurization and Weather Conditions.. 6-24 Data Quality Evaluation........... Purpose and Scope .............................5..........................5 6...........................................2..4 6..............1 6.2................... 6-2 6...................................................................................................... 6-4 Background Indoor Air Concentrations...............1 6........... 6-17 Indoor Air Analytical Methods.................... 6-14 Conduct Preliminary Screening ........................3.. 6-16 Preparing the Building for Sampling and Conditions during Sampling ............................... 6-24 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2009 ..... 6-11 Vapour Depletion Mechanisms.............................................3.

5).4).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . and which 6. 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. 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). and (3) preparation of a sampling plan. As indicated for soil vapour characterization. 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. and investigation based on indoor air ƒ Data validation and interpretation (S measurements only. 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). should be taken into consideration.2). 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. exposure scenario (existing process and methods for IAQ studies.3). and instead key principles and factors that should be considered in developing a sampling strategy are discussed below.1 CONTEXT. 6. with specific consideration of factors that influence IAQ based on site conditions. number of issues that can ƒ Sampling approach and design (S 6. (2) development of IAQ study objectives. While indoor air key elements and their corresponding testing can provide a direct sections in the chapter are: measurement of potential inhalation exposure. it is not possible to provide a standardized template for IAQ program design.3). The building). complicate a vapour intrusion ƒ Indoor air analysis (S 6. ƒ Study objectives (S 6. there are a ƒ Conceptual site model (S 6. A detailed flow chart of the framework for an IAQ study is provided in Figure 12. 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.

PREPARATORY TASKS ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Define study objectives Identify target compounds Develop communications plan Pre-sampling building survey Conduct preliminary screening IMMEDIATE HEALTH OR SAFETY CONCERNS? YES UNDERTAKE MITIGATION DEVELOP DETAILED SAMPLING PLAN ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Assess building conditions (integrate above information) Define number & locations of indoor air samples Define sampling duration Define sampling frequency Sampling and analytical methods NO PERFORMING THE SAMPLING ƒ ƒ Building Preparation Sampling & analysis DATA INTERPRETATION & EVALUATION ƒ ƒ ƒ Data organization & reporting Data quality evaluation Discerning contributions of background sources ASSESSMENT OF EXPOSURE AND RISK YES ADDITIONAL SAMPLING NEEDED? NO END FIGURE 12: Framework for IAQ Sampling and Analysis Program MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . In addition. However. the program should be refined to address these changes. considering the study objectives and the data quality objectives. the plan should be flexible in that if the circumstances change.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-3 Indoor air sampling should be carried out according to an established plan. if relevant information is obtained from activities such as the pre-sampling building survey or preliminary screening. the plan could be adapted accordingly.

e. building ventilation.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. These types of samples may provide additional lines-of-evidence that are helpful in assessing potential VOC sources. The purpose of this section is to describe specific aspects of the CSM that could influence IAQ (excluding subsurface factors).. attached garages (i.nlm. Due to these and other indoor air sources.e. stored products).e. volatilization of trihalomethanes from tap water (particularly when heated) as well as through activities occurring in the home or workplace. building foundation construction. it is paramount that background sources of VOCs in indoor air be considered. heating oil storage. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-4 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.. outdoor air samples may provide information with respect to the influence of ambient air quality on IAQ.1 Background Indoor Air Concentrations When evaluating the impact of subsurface vapour sources on IAQ. which are background sources of VOCs in indoor air. combustion emissions). 6. since many subsurface contaminants of concern are also common “background” VOCs. building insulation. Common background sources of VOCs include household products. 6. carpeting. As a consequence of the large variations in building design. Subslab or near building soil vapour samples may be used to identify the contaminants that have the potential to migrate into indoor air. home heating (i. Table 10 provides a summary of VOC data from key Canadian studies including a Health Canada Study conducted in 1991 and 1992 across Canada. off-gassing from building products (i. IAQ data is also highly variable. a study conducted in the Greater Toronto area in 1996 and a study completed in MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . vehicle emissions. A number of studies have been completed in the United States.nih. pressed wood products. A list of dominant indoor air sources and associated volatile contaminants is provided in Table 9.2. Similarly. building depressurization and weather conditions. and vapour depletion processes within buildings.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. use. shower curtains. Other background sources of contaminants include outdoor sources such as vehicle or industrial air emissions that enter the building through air leakage or ventilation. tobacco smoke. but fewer studies have been undertaken in Canada examining background IAQ in residential homes. and environmental setting. Compounds present in various consumer products are described in the household products database http://householdproducts. contaminant concentrations in indoor air are frequently higher than in outdoor air.gov/. fabrics).

Xylenes. Toluene. Styrene. the data from these and other studies can be used to help interpret the results of IAQ investigations (refer to Section 6. Chlorobenzenes. Decane Wood Burning Toluene. Butadiene Paint Removers Toluene. Although background IAQ can be expected to vary between buildings.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. Chlorobenzenes. Styrene.4-dichlorobenzene Pressed wood products Formaldehyde Note: Adapted from Hers et al. Trimethylbenzenes. Xylene. Trimethylbenzenes. Toluene. Tetrachloroethene Spray Products Xylenes. d-Limonene. particular care must be taken in the collection.5 for further discussion). Methylene chloride. Toluene. Ethylbenzene. Trichloroethene (spot remover) Moth balls Naphthalene. Trimethylbenzenes. Toluene. Tetrachloroethene Benzene. Styrene. but also show that a large number of compounds can be expected to be found in residential buildings. Styrene. Xylenes. Acetone. Camphor. as well as minimize. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-5 Saskatchewan and Ontario in 1991 and 1999. Phthalates Tobacco Smoke Benzene. Naphthalene Polystyrene Board Styrene. Pentane. TABLE 9. review and interpretation of IAQ data. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Ethylbenzene. These studies demonstrate that background concentrations are highly variable. For instance. Trichloroethanes. (2001) Source Paints Carpets As a result of these background sources. Methylene chloride Dry Cleaning Tetrachloroethene. Trimethylbenzenes Solvents/Degreasers Toluene. regions and time frames. it is important to understand. Decane Room Deodorizers Ethanol. the effects of indoor sources through an assessment of building conditions and proper building preparation prior to sampling (Exhibit 4). Xylenes. Toluene. Dominant Sources of VOCs in Residential Indoor Air Contaminants Benzene. Acetone Adhesives/Tapes/Glues Benzene. Tetrachloroethene. Styrene Gasoline/Driving Benzene. Trichloroethene. 1.

91 115.6 0.99 10.05 3.1 Max 20.2.7 124 31.57 0.92 0.4.28 1. 2005f           MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment  .23 0.9 74.47 33.12 2.2 99.17 0.50 77.85 53.25 286.33 32.97 205.60 9.68 1687.18 24.  Compilation of Indoor Air Quality Data from Canadian Studies  Health Canada 1991.47 2.61 156.45 1.53 4.65 2.87 <0.9 2.27 0.43 0.19 70.10 0.03 0.32 123.5 <0.77 0.48 0.69 0.02 1.2.4 14.38 68.73 8.81 108 6.Chapter 6.8 8.42 15.17 6.71 7.02 9.61 1.37 7.85 15.92 2.7 0.83 57.1 7.5 32.9 5730 540 1470 320 130 640 5.71 3.09 3.9 9. 1993d Ottawa.51 1.22 26.09 7.84 16.96 17.2 20.06 0.57 179.7 12.10 41.62 5.94 14.93 Max 22.61 8.50 15. Indoor Air Quality Testing    _____________      ___       6‐6 TABLE 10.4 40.01 1.75 6.97 5.53 2.40 11.33 4.58 90th percentile 5.84 0.19 2.30 1.99 112.5Trimethylbenzene 1.61 3.99 9.35 114.88 0.38 Median 2.49 1.66 39.93 201.15 0.5 6.38 37.02 1.87 4.4 1.4Trichlorobenzene 1.51 Mean* 2.85 11.43 53.12 170.4 Max 42.77 178. 1996b Saskatchewan and Ontario 1991.03 0.3.09 1.87 3.Trichloroethane 1.38 8.11 6.03 22.5 25 Median 2.22 2.8 186 20.69 3.32 4.98 0.95 Mean* 3.8 8.15 48.02 <0.67 88.69 9.35 6.94 0.9 1.20 73.26 3.1 Max 67.51 2.55 203.02 43.00 1209.p-Xylene o-Xylene Styrene 1.3 110.4 18.21 25.10 15.17 0.2 2.07 0.59 1.44 2.3 15 30 91.39 2.7 4.44 Greater Toronto.1.17 3.30 236.15 0.1 5.30 0.98 14.26 95th percentile 10. 1999c Hamilton.41 138.28 0.2 1.30 4.90 53.6 21.36 0.44 56.17 176.61 148.99 25.5 30 6.21 2.00 3.76 16.37 3.1-Dichloroethene Vinyl Chloride Dichloromethane 1.37 0.4 14.20 26.35 6.19 0.69 0.90 0.45 2.9 1600 9.60 84. 2003e Quebec City.95 8.25 0.18 1.43 14.05 408.85 313.45 9.08 26.1992a Contaminant Mean Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene m.6 5.04 Geometric Mean 1.49 24.09 23. 2002.88 4.80 5.24 6450 1390 313 165 1.00 4.83 43.7 5.4Trimethylbenzene Naphthalene n-hexane n-decane n.59 Max 45.47 83.32 2.15 5.58 0.00 2.55 Mean 15 23.16 16.22 0.2 20.80 54.47 4.41 0.5 91.79 4.9 337.08 0.53 1.23 8.04 4.05 17.undecane n-dodecane Dichlorobenzenes 1.98 6.Butadiene Cyclohexane Isoprene 5.65 1.67 3.42 0.64 15.54 4.37 436.06 0.7 Mean 3.33 19.35 7.27 14.02 38.48 0.09 3.3.47 <0.72 2.46 0.5 5.58 0.48 0.3 2.3 7.04 9.Dichlorobenze Tetrachloroethene Trichloroethene 1.86 200.53 144.48 1.76 Max 54.2-Dichloroethane Carbon Tetrachloride Bromodichloromethane 1.05 5.24 0.65 54.12 Median 1.1.02 <0.17 0.21 317.49 4.21 <0.3 11.85 3.

14 2.02 0.04 <0.86 5.32 1.13 0.89 32. 1996b Mean Max - _____________      ___       6‐7 Saskatchewan and Ontario 1991.05 <0.Chapter 6.4 0.59 45.44 1.45 5.74 28.02 1.67 0.02 <0.40 Median 28.2-dichloropropane Ethylene dibromide 1.19 27.19 3. Indoor Air Quality Testing  Health Canada 1991.1.87 8.26 44.23 <0.02 Median 3. 2005f Geometric Mean 3.72 18. 1993d Mean* 40.18 0.70 0.01 <0.2 <0.012 <1.11 16.66 1.05 <0.23 238.12 3.95 28.2tetrachloroethane Cumene α-pinene d-limonene p-cymene Concentrations in units of ug/m3    *   Greater Toronto.01 <1.26 7.05 0.04 <0.71 0.02 Max 455.89 16.23 <0.05 <0.04 <0.88 9.00 9.2 <0.40 8.33 Hamilton.68 329.2 <0.27 2.42 0.14 <0.34 4.02 90th percentile 76.5-dimethylaniline 1.41 57.16 0.29 139.48 800.04 4.15 0.2.17 16.28 <0.79 95th percentile 85.44 1.02 <0.32 0.13 <0.55 Max 18.23 <0.02 <0. 1997.2-dichlorobenze 1.02 <0.1992a Contaminant Mean Acetaldehyde Hexanal Acetone Chloroform 2-propanol 2-butanol Phenol Carbon disulfide 1-butanol 4-methyl-2-pentanone Acrylonitrile 2-butoxyethanol Methyl methacrylate Methyl tert-butyl ether Chlorobenzene 3.06 <0.85 0.66 1. 1999c Mean Max Median 0.4 4.25 0.16 3.43 <0.75 Max 792.04 <0.54 0.48 0.54 1.06 0.06 <0.8 7.96 0.49 Quebec City.76 6. 2002.90 Max - Arithmetic mean  Davis and Otson (1996) b Otson and Zhu. 2003e Mean* 44.02 0.13 <0.48 1.02 Ottawa. a           MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment  .77 0.17 <0.89 41.26 0.39 68.8 0.06 1.01 <1.3-dichlorobenze 2-ethoxyethanol 2-methoxyethanol 1.15 <0.23 <0.

            MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment  .” Proc. June 8 to 13. (2008) d Davis. Toronto." Environmental Science & Technology 39: 3964-3971. C. (2005).-È. Otson (1996) “Estimation of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from Canadian residences.Chapter 6. Ontario. 1992.. et al. ASTM STP 1261. et al. R. Canada. Hamilton 1993 Indoor Air Statistics e Zhu et al. Canada. and R.” Report I-4800-1-C-92. R. Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) (1992) “Volatile organic compound survey and summarization of results. "Selected volatile organic compounds in residential air in the city of Ottawa. Indoor Air Quality Testing  c   _____________      ___       6‐8 Saskatchewan Research Council.” Volatile Organic Compounds in the Environment. Prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. "Housing characteristics and indoor concentrations of selected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Quebec City. Zhu. and J.. 1997. Air & Waste Managements Association’s 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition. J. Otson.S. Héroux." Indoor and Built Environment 17: 128– 137. Gauvin. (2007). D. Canada. (2005) f Héroux et al. Zhu (1997) “I/O values for determination of the origin of some indoor organic pollutants. M. Newhook. April.

which would tend to reduce (but not completely eliminate) soil vapour intrusion. soil vapour concentrations are diluted upon mixing with indoor air. while in a study completed in the Greater Toronto area. both specify minimum ventilation rates for residential and commercial buildings. grouped the results according to regions (defined by heating degree-days) and four seasons (Murray and Burmaster. 6. Soil vapour intrusion rates may vary depending on type of foundation. soil vapour can migrate through relatively small cracks or openings in the foundation or through utility penetrations. Ventilation rates for institutional buildings are higher. Utilities represent potential entry points for soil vapour intrusion regardless of building type.45 ACH (Otson and Zhu. air exchange rates in energyefficient (“R-2000”) homes can be quite low based on tight construction (i. Ontario. slab-on-grade. For the north central to eastern part of the US (which most closely approximates most regions in Canada).72 ACH for typical occupancy. In a study completed in Saskatchewan and Tilsonburg. design air exchange rates must meet minimum requirements based on building occupancy.S. crawlspace or earthen floor construction.1 to 0. the average in winter was 0. construction methods for commercial buildings may be different including some buildings where measures are taken to seal concrete foundations.2 Building Foundation Construction The building foundation construction will influence soil vapour intrusion rates into the building.3 Building Ventilation Through building ventilation and exchange with fresh air. In an Ontario study.. The average yearly air change per hour (ACH) for the four regions ranged from 0. Standards in Canada and the U. 1987).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. For houses.82 hr-1. the average ACH in summer was 0. the average in fall was 0. Compared to houses. with the lowest air exchange occurring in summer in R 2000 houses with closed windows (Walkinshaw. For example. 1992).34 ACH (SRC.2. A review of approximately 2.4 to 0. the average measured air exchange rate from 44 houses was 0.S. In Canada.36 hr-1 and the average in spring was 0. 0.98 hr-1.800 building ventilation measurements in houses across the U.e. there is often a perimeter edge crack between the foundation wall and slab for concrete floor slab construction. For example. the average air exchange rate from 44 houses was 0. construction and season. which include basement. Building ventilation or air exchange rates vary depending on climate.2 hr-1). 20 standard cubic feet of outdoor air is blown into the building per person to maintain sufficient fresh air supply. The USEPA BASE MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 1997). For commercial buildings. which corresponds to an air exchange of about 0.25 hr-1. although actual ventilation system efficiency may be variable depending on operation of the HVAC system.06 to 0. 1995).44 hr-1.2. ASHRAE (2007) indicates that for office use. air exchange rates from 70 houses ranged from 0.77 ACH. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-9 6.

• Operation and storage of automobiles in attached garages.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. and. which represented a wide range in construction. solvents.) should be extinguished prior to sampling (preferably 24 hours prior to sampling). paint. • Do not operate ventilation fans unless special arrangements are made.g. but should be noted in the field notes. After removal or control of known VOC sources (preferably several days before sampling). 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). furnishings or sealing work to dissipate. • Do not clean or polish furniture or floors with petroleum or oil-based products. wood stoves. etc.47 hr-1. paint strippers or solvents. as practical. Preparation of Building for IAQ Sampling Summary of measures implemented prior to IAQ sampling: • Removal of products that are known significant sources of VOCs. windows. When conducting a site specific assessment. Consideration should be given to delaying sampling to allow elevated VOCs associated with new construction materials.62 hr1. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-10 study of one hundred randomly selected commercial buildings. glues or petroleum-based materials within building or attached garages. • • • • Ensuring that containers of VOC-containing products are tightly sealed. incense. tobacco products.. 2004). 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. paint. 0. It should be completed at least 24 hours prior to sampling. candles. respectively (NIST. • Operation of fireplaces. • Do not store containers of gasoline or oil within the house or attached garage • (except for heating fuel oil tanks). such as fuel containers. • Do not smoke in vicinity of sampler and or disturb sampler in any way. found that the 25th. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . as practical. This may be done through operation of the building HVAC system or opening of doors. • Do not use oil based paints or varnishes. 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. 50th and 75th percentile air change rates were 0. Combustion sources (e. fireplace openings or vents. EXHIBIT 4.98 hr-1 and 2. ordinary storage of normal amounts may not need removal. and. or operation of exhaust fans. 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. ventilation may be required to help eliminate residual contaminants.

exhaust fans and vents.4 Building Depressurization and Weather Conditions The indoor and outdoor temperature. for some buildings HVAC units may create a similar level of positive pressure thus counteracting the pressure gradient for vapour intrusion (EPRI.e. These pressure differences may occur at varying temporal scales (hourly to seasonally). 6. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-11 6. fume hoods. Hers et al. contaminants will diffuse as a result of chemical gradients and disperse through air movement. Elevator shafts MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . oven vents). exhaust vent). 1997. The ASTM (2003) standard for radon mitigation specifies a pressure differential of 6 to 9 Pascals as sufficient to curtail vapour intrusion. weather conditions and HVAC operation may have a marked effect on air exchange rates and pressure differences between indoor and outdoors. flues. This creates a negative pressure in the building.. but may be as high as 15 Pa (Figley. and presence of chimney.2.g. In summary. Wind force may create pressure differentials between upwind and downwind sides of the building.. doors.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6.. but in general.. 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. 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. The operation of fans and fireplaces also can result in a depressurized building. the stack effect may be sufficient to maintain a negative pressure at ground level during cold weather. windows. number of storeys. Mixing between building floors will depend on the HVAC system and air leakage between floors. may contribute to the pressure differentials that affect the rate of intrusion of soil gas. leaky attic. but for tall buildings. the HVAC system may be designed to provide for positive pressure under most conditions.5 Mixing of Vapours Inside Building Within the building. which is another mechanism that causes the building interior to be underpressurized.2. thus drawing outdoor air and soil gas into the building through openings with the lower regions of the building (i. Commercial building pressures may also depend on operation of the HVAC system and exhaust fans (e. Changes in barometric pressure as a result of meteorological conditions can also cause pressure differences between the building interior and exterior. Pressure differences during the heating season for houses with basements typically range from 2 to 10 Pa. which can both affect the rates of soil vapour intrusion into buildings and the degree of mixing and dilution within the building structure. the most significant pressure differences occur under severe winter conditions. For commercial buildings. degree of air leakage between floors.g. 2005). 2001). cracks and/or the building foundation). through a chimney.

samples may be collected from close to cracks or within utility openings. depending on building conditions. half-lives of days) and biodegradation is unlikely to be a relevant process in an indoor environment. Elevator shafts can also represent conduits for inter-floor migration of vapours. as the sampling plan could vary substantially depending on the type of data required and how that data is intended to be used.. Furthermore. if the goal is to evaluate potential entry points for soil gas into a building. If the objective of the IAQ MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 6. Chemical transformations due to processes such as photo-oxidation are generally relatively slow processes relative to air exchange rates (i. For example. For example. Since soil vapour intrusion typically occurs over timescales of months to years. the building conditions and sampling locations should generally reflect typical exposure conditions. There may be other specific objectives of the IAQ study that would result in a different sampling strategy. To meet this objective. The movement of the elevator itself can cause pressure differential that may facilitate soil vapour entry. 6. as further described below. 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. Samples collected to meet this objective are typically referred to as “pathway” samples. Samples collected to meet this objective are typically referred to as “exposure point” samples.. 6.g. even after soil vapour intrusion is mitigated (e. through a subslab venting system).3. in addition to dilution through building ventilation. which is the case for at least half the year in most of Ontario. desorption can occur) and thus should also be considered as a source of volatiles.1 .e. 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. which may allow entry of sub-surface vapours.2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF INDOOR AIR QUALITY STUDY APPROACH AND DESIGN Define Study Objectives The study objectives should be well-defined prior to developing a sampling plan. 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6.6 Vapour Depletion Mechanisms Chemical or physical mechanisms may result in the removal of vapours from indoor air.e. buildings tall enough to need an elevator will often have a significant stack effect when the temperature outside the building is lower than inside. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-12 often include a sump with a drain hole at the bottom to allow any water from fire-suppression systems to drain away. Adsorption onto building materials can be reversible (i..

An initial preliminary investigation may consist of a limited number of IAQ samples. In addition to contaminants of potential concern. In addition.3. 2007). follow-up IAQ monitoring may be required for some period of time. Specific chemicals are often the more potent chemicals associated with the petroleum fraction and include carcinogenic compounds such as benzene.3. This can be done throughout the sampling process. Issues to address with building occupants include: why the study is being conducted and what the study objectives are. scheduling and discussing the sampling that will be conducted. 6. discussing the types of activities to avoid prior to the sampling events and background chemical issues (see Section 6. For an IAQ study designed to evaluate soil vapour intrusion from contaminated soil or groundwater. target compounds also may include petroleum fractions as well as specific chemicals of potential concern. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . as described in Section 6. Consideration should be given to the development of an access agreement between parties prior to sampling.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. If the preliminary investigation indicates a potential indoor air quality concern. The study objectives can also be broadly defined in terms of the phase or level of investigation.10. and communication of the results of the sampling program. For petroleum hydrocarbons. 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. to keep them informed and involved in the process. scheduling the pre-sampling building survey.3 Develop Communications Program An important part of the IAQ program is communication with the building occupants and owners and other stakeholders.2 Identify Target Compounds The target compounds for the sampling plan are dependant upon the contaminant source under evaluation. Finally. Target compounds would generally include the primary constituents of the contamination source and may also include potential breakdown products of these constituents.3. 6.10). if vapour intrusion mitigation systems are installed. a screening process based on volatility and toxicity can be used to identify target compounds (Health Canada. additional investigation may be appropriate. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-13 study is to evaluate the potential influence of background sources of indoor air quality relative to subsurface sources. other compounds that are present as background constituents and that could be useful as tracers should also be considered. the building environment may be artificially controlled at the same time IAQ sampling is conducted to assist in evaluation of background sources.3. but is especially important in the preparatory stage. several indoor air samples from different locations within a building may be required.

Therefore.. For example.g. 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. therefore.5 Conduct Preliminary Screening In conjunction with the pre-sampling building survey. dizziness.3. nausea). and the instrument calibration should be checked frequently.10). headaches. Examples of a pre-sampling building survey. relocate MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. they may also be capable of identifying entry points where soil gas intrusion is occurring. they may not be used to rule out the presence of background contaminants in indoor air. for most conventional PIDs/FIDs.3. When sensitive PIDs are used (low ppbV range). the sensitivity of these instruments is often insufficient to detect compounds at levels that may be of concern for human health. 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. further actions should be taken to identify the chemical source and mitigate the hazard (increase ventilation.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. Microparticles of dust and wood soot absorb moisture more readily than a clean sensor surface exacerbating the effect of moisture. relevant conditions during sampling should be noted. Furthermore.3. A survey should be completed for each building being investigated. that could be used to direct a building inspection and occupant interviews. Relevant portions of the survey should be reviewed again at the time indoor air sampling is performed. 6. Building occupants may also be interviewed to derive additional information on factors that may affect IAQ and to determine the building occupancy characteristics. The PID measurements in some environments may be biased high. while they may be a useful tool for identifying indoor VOC sources or targeting sampling locations at some sites.3. are those published by ITRC (2007) and NJDEP (2005). 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. 6.4 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. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-14 6. 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).

basement) since vapour concentrations are expected to be highest in lower regions of the building in instances of soil vapour intrusion. it is generally preferable to target the first level of the building (e. major highways. preferably near the centre of the room.8 Define Sampling Duration The duration for sample collection may depend on the study objectives. It is important to protect outdoor air samplers from the elements (rain or snow) and vandalism. it is also important to identify emission sources such as gasoline stations. commercial building. the MOE’s Guideline for Assessing Methane Hazards from Landfill Sites should be followed. If the study objectives require a statistical approach or analysis of results. For example.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. if the building is a small house with reasonably good ventilation. For a residence with multiple floors. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-15 occupants. For a MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .). The selected sample duration should yield an average concentration of chemicals of potential concern over the expected daily exposure duration. but several samples obtained from multiple locations may be needed. multiple samples are required to characterize indoor air quality. The building characteristics including size. If a preliminary investigation of IAQ is being undertaken. For a larger house. Outdoor air will influence IAQ and may also contain chemicals at concentrations that exceed risk-based concentrations. multiple samples would be required.5 m above the floor. In this case PID measurements and/or continuous samplers are used to assess or provide warning of explosion hazards. a limited number of samples may be sufficient. consideration should be given to collecting at least one sample per floor (per sampling event) to characterize inter-floor variability. The number of samples will be site specific. where indoor air concentrations may vary in different parts of the building. as warranted. As part of the outdoor air program. Therefore. In the case of methane gas from landfills infiltrating structures through subsurface transport. 6. the indoor air concentrations within the house may be relatively uniform.3. 6. Exposure samples should be collected within the typical breathing zone at a height of approximately 1 to 1. etc. which is generally representative of overall room conditions.g. it is good practice to obtain outdoor air samples as part of the IAQ program. or school.3. Where minimal sampling is conducted for a preliminary assessment. 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.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. paving operations and remediation systems. construction and ventilation patterns will also influence the required number of samples..

In general. repeat sampling is generally required to establish concentration variability at a given site. 6. (2001) found that soil moisture levels caused by precipitation caused variations in indoor radon concentrations. For this. the nature of the contamination source and variability expected due to factors such as building characteristics. depending primarily on the sampling duration and flow rate. necessitating repetition of the measurement. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-16 residential scenario. For a commercial scenario. 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. Ventilation systems are often designed for energy efficiency reasons to run at minimal levels outside of normal working hours. Passive diffusive samplers are better suited to longer sampling periods than active adsorptive or active whole-gas sampling methods. a minimum of MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . For sorbent tubes. 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. For example. (2006) in a study comparing timeintegrated 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. a minimum sample duration equivalent to the standard 8-hour commercial exposure duration is recommended. unless technical or time considerations require shorter time frames. if warranted. Studies of radon provide valuable insight on potential indoor air concentration variability for vapour intrusion.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. potential limitations in the sampling device should be considered. weather conditions and occupancy characteristics during sampling.3.epa. chemical breakthrough and moisture interference may be an issue for long-term samples. For example. sorbent tubes are not recommended when dealing with vinyl chloride contamination. it is possible that residents may be present in the home 24 hours per day. the flow controller accuracy may be difficult to control for longer than 2-hour samples. The feasibility and need for longer duration active air sampling for evaluation of vapour intrusion is an area of current research. A longer or shorter sample duration could be selected. for Summa canisters. Therefore.9 Define Sampling Frequency The sampling frequency will depend on study objectives. Continuous radon monitoring indicated roughly diurnal (24-hour) variations that were up to one order-in-magnitude. based on site-specific conditions and site use. Font et al. Groves-Kirkby et al. so a sample collected over longer periods to average temporal variability may be best collected in successive 8hour increments.gov/radon). a 24-hour sample duration is the minimum duration recommended for a residential scenario. When determining the sampling duration.

52 PCE 30 0. winter/summer) are recommended. additional sampling events may be warranted at some sites. such as the differential pressure between the building and outdoor air and meteorological data. Consideration should be given to obtaining ancillary data (see Section 5.063 0. One way to control building conditions is to either extract or blow in air using a blower or fan.3. 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.. For example. if the subsurface source concentrations are changing over time (e. The results indicated higher TCE concentrations for the ten day sample.046 0. In some cases. TCE = trichloroethene.g. it may be desirable to adjust building HVAC conditions to control conditions for soil gas intrusion. Repeat sampling may also be warranted.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. 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.055 1. to aid in the interpretation of indoor air data.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. higher indoor vapour concentrations would be expected when sampling is performed under winter conditions because of lower air exchange rates.8). water table fluctuations with an LNAPL smear zone being sometimes submerged and sometimes not). test”). central vacuum cleaners. Building occupants should be informed of the required measures or sampling conditions in advance of the sampling event. for example. Conc.g. Conc. (μg/m3) (μg/m3) Benzene 100 0.. or other mechanical devices that could influence ventilation and pressure conditions during indoor air sampling. which was attributed to time dependent desorption from the valve and canister. 6. however. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-17 two sampling events that capture possible seasonal variability (e.30 TCE 79 0. were cleaned.. These studies highlight that the challenges for sub-μg/m3 testing of air samples. with results as follows: referred to as a “blower door Max Chemical Number Avg. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . In general. higher stack effect and less vertical ground permeation through frozen soils. It may also be important to monitor the operation of fans. VC = vinyl chloride Detects A second study involved testing canisters one and ten days after they had been cleaned. mobile groundwater plume.42 VC 0 non detect non detect Note: PCE = tetrachloroethene.

. The main differences between soil vapour and indoor air sampling are that lower detection limits.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. 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). The low detection limits require that a high level of care be taken to avoid cross-contamination both by the laboratory (e.. thermal desorption methods may be required (e. For indoor air testing. GC/MS analysis may need to be performed in selective ion model (SIM) for some compounds. Since there are accepted methods for collection of indoor air samples using passive methods (unlike soil vapour). detection limits and the contaminants of potential concern. Typically indoor air samples are obtained using either sorbent materials or canisters (e. modified industrial hygiene methods involving solvent extraction (e. this section is limited to describing differences in analytical considerations for indoor air. indoor air testing using passive diffusive samplers is also described. (ii) no secondary source calibration standard is required.1 Air Analysis Using USEPA Method TO-15 While a complete discussion goes beyond the scope of this guidance. 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. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-18 6.g. including data quality objectives. Summa canisters) and sent to a laboratory for analysis. Summa canisters (six litre) are frequently used (USEPA TO-15).g. larger sample volumes and longer sampling durations are generally required for indoor air testing. cleaning of sampling device) and by persons performing the sampling (e. but typically is less than 1 µg/m3.g. For active sorbent tube analysis. 6. Detection limits should be optimally at a minimum 10 times lower than criteria/benchmark values of the target compounds. there are subtle issues for analytical protocols... Since analytical protocols were addressed in detail for soil vapour. To provide the sensitivity required to achieve reporting limits at or below risk-based target concentrations. which may be important. USEPA Method TO-17). Summa canisters must retain at least 2 inches Hg of negative pressure to be considered valid sample. modified OSHA 7 or NIOSH 5515) may not provide sufficiently low detection limits.4 INDOOR AIR ANALYTICAL METHODS The selection of the indoor air analytical method depends on a number of factors. The required analytical reporting limit will depend on the compound. and (iv) there is a relatively MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Instead.g.4. it is important to consider whether they can be cleaned and certified to the levels at which the analysis will be performed. For some analytes. handling and storage of sampling device). When using canisters.. risk assessment objectives. and are relevant since some QA/QC requirements in the TO-15 method are either not prescribed or are deficient.g. (iii) there is no requirement for analysis of surrogate compounds.

Recently. The laboratory to be used is to be accredited by CAEAL (Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories) for the method of analysis being used. (2006) report on the results of a thermal desorption method involving the SKC Ultra-II filled with Carbotrap C. 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. since the use of SIM mode only allows specific masses to be characterized. which is extracted using solvent (e.. which may be desirable when sub ppbV detection limits are desired. McClenny et al. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . CS2) and analyzed using GC/MS methods (GC/FID is not recommended). pressure. Coyne et al. the reporting limits are typically in the part per million (ppmV) range. Another issue is the use of selective ion mode (SIM). Other factors that affect performance include temperature. Passive samplers can be deployed for longer periods of time (up to about a week) to provide time-averaged concentrations.. It is recommended that the laboratory demonstrate how their implementation of the TO-15 method addresses the above quality control issues. and the geometry of the sampler. Hendricks. The lack of complete mass ion data may result in inaccurate compound identification and quantification. which is compound and sorbent specific. badge-style samplers can also be used for assessing VOC vapour concentrations at levels protective of long-term exposures.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. In this application. Carbotrap Z) (OSHA. These samplers have a known uptake rate so the concentration of chemicals can be calculated from the mass adsorbed over a known exposure duration. which may result in false positives or negatives. but they are growing in popularity as their capabilities become better known and demonstrated. carbon disulphide. Passive samplers are easy to use and do not require a sampling pump. other potential compounds are not monitored.g. 2002. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-19 wide acceptance window for replicate standards (30% relative standard deviation (RSD)).e. 2003).. However.g. where compound-specific method detection limits on the order of 0.03 to 0. The following is a short description of some of the passive sampler types available: 1) Badge-style samplers (e. 3M OVM 3500 and SKC Ultra II) have been used for decades for evaluation of workplace exposures to VOCs.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.. At these levels. samples are typically collected over an 8 hour period and the absorbent medium is typically charcoal. 2003. humidity.3 ppbV were reported.4. 6. The sampling (i. air velocity and transient changes in contaminant concentrations. diffusive uptake) rate is a function of the diffusive coefficient.

filled with graphitized charcoal for thermal desorption or activated charcoal for solvent extraction by CS2 (Bruno et al. which is sealed at one end and open at the other. The tube contents are analyzed by thermal desorption. Tenax TA or Carbograph 1TD) is packed into the closed end. or other sorbents for specific compounds. which improves the sensitivity of the sampler (lower reporting limits) with a shorter exposure time.html). Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-20 3M OVM 3500 SKC Ultra II 2) Radiello® is a radial symmetric diffusive sampler. or can be estimated from the physico-chemical properties of the analytes. gas chromatography and mass MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .g. Calibration constants for the sampler can be determined experimentally for each individual analyte. This body also provides a moderate resistance to wind. 3) Automatic Thermal Desorption (ATD) tube samplers. (http://www. Adsorbent media (e..DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6.it/padova/homepage. The radial design increases the uptake rate. The Radiello has been extensively tested for a wide range of compounds.fsm. During a measured time. This device uses a standard ATD Tube as the body of the sampler. including correlations for the uptake rate as a function of temperature. and the experimentally-determined uptake rates have been published. and held in place with quartz wool. the sampler is opened at the other end to expose the sampler to any ambient vapor concentrations (Co). 2004). and a concentration gradient is created through the air inside the tube. The microporous polyethylene body through which the vapors diffuse is manufactured with different pore-sizes to adjust the sampling rate. so advective uptake tends not to cause excessive positive bias in high wind-speed settings.

the concentration of interest and the required averaging time of the measurement. as appropriate. Assuming the correct sorbent is selected. protection from precipitation and security. 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. pressure. 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. the standard advises that in practical use the three main considerations are air velocity. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-21 spectroscopy or flame ionization detection (ATD/GC/MS&FID). air velocity. The standard also discusses the impact of environmental conditions such as humidity. The stronger sorbents tend to also absorb water. temperature. which can be a problem in the analysis and can be limiting for some applications. The sampler has been shown to perform as designed in locations with low MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 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. ambient and workplace air is described in international standard EN ISO 16017-2. but also as efficient release as possible when heat is applied in a flow of gas in the thermal desorber. Application of the method to determine VOCs in indoor. The ISO standard also recommends conditions for the thermal desorption of the different sorbents for the analysis by ATD/GC/MS&FID). This standard provides guidance on the selection of appropriate sorbents for particular purposes where key considerations are the properties of the target analytes. 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. and occurrence of transient concentrations on sampler performance. These types of processes can result in non-ideal behaviour of the samplers.

4) Waterloo Membrane Samplers™. 2006.. direct solar heating and high wind velocities may adversely affect performance. petroleum fractions).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. which avoids concerns for sampling in high wind-speed or high moisture environments.g. but if placed outdoors an appropriate shelter should be used because precipitation. Thus. the calibration constants can be easily estimated from the chromatographic retention times of the analytes. The analytical limits of quantitation (LOQ) were as low as 0. 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. al.g.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. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-22 air movement (e. 5 cm s-1).1 µg/m3 for trichloroethylene (using electron capture detection) for 24 hour sampling. The membrane is also non-porous and very hydrophobic. The sampler-tosampler reproducibility in determining the calibration constants was less than 8% RSD. This sampler is composed of a 1. with proportionally lower LOQs for longer sampling periods. 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. The performance of the samplers was evaluated alongside active air sampling techniques at various locations in a laboratory setting with excellent results. Aluminium cap PDMS membrane Crimp top vial MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . et. 2002). Górecki and Namiesnik. 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.

• Humidity above 50 percent will reduce recovery of certain compounds such as vinyl chloride. considerations relating to their use and results of selected research studies are summarized below: • The sampling rate is compound specific. but will decrease once saturation of the media is approached. with some studies indicating good comparisons between two methods with environmental factors having no significant influence on the results (Strandberg et al. while other studies report a downward MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . • In stagnant air. one study indicated a significant decline for sampling face air velocities that were less than 50 cm/sec (OHSA. Comparisons of active and passive samplers indicate variable results. 2008). 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. but reported that face velocities inside houses are typically less than 2. Another study indicated that badges performed satisfactorily down to face velocities as little as 5 cm/sec. Scobie. 2005. • Back-diffusion of compounds out of the sampler may occur for some compounds. 2006). 2004). • The sampling rate is typically relatively stable over a certain time interval. • Detection limits for passive badge-type diffusion samplers are typically about 1 µg/m3 or higher for common VOCs.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. • Extraction recovery varies depending on compound. 2000). whereas the lowest level are estimates from the diffusion coefficient of the analyte. significant underestimation in sampling rate was reported (about 20 to 60%) in the wind velocity range encountered in the indoor environment (Lee and Yun. 1998). the sampling rate will decrease.. • There is an absence of established methods for low-level VOC analysis and studies involving longer sampling durations. The highest level of validation are laboratory testing programs designed to evaluate the stability of the sampling rate under varying conditions and contaminant mixtures. acetone and methyl ethyl ketone (3M Bulletin 1028. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-23 Given that passive diffusive sampling methods have only recently begun to be used for low-level indoor air analysis.5 cm/sec indicating the potential for a “starvation” effect (SKC. and. although lower detection limits can be achieved with newer badge or radial samplers. 2001) to address varying recovery for contaminant mixtures. project specific recovery tests are recommended by some badge manufacturers (3M Bulletin 1028. there are varying (up to four) levels of validation studies.

furnace and fans. 2007). (ii) first building level to higher level air samples. operation of fireplace.5. and (iii) indoor air to outdoor air samples. 6. Note potential significant indoor sources of VOCs present during sampling. laboratory detection limits and results of chemical analysis.. sample date. Note building size. and stains on floor. utility penetrations through floor.6). Identify target risk-based indoor air concentrations and background indoor and outdoor air concentrations. sampling methods. However. The data quality analysis for indoor air is similar to soil vapour (Section 5.5 6. Indoor Air Quality Testing 6-24 bias in concentrations measured using passive samplers relative to active methods (Jia et al. Calculate constituent ratios and evaluate trends with respect to (i) indoor air to soil vapour or subslab vapour samples. • • • • • 6. sample height. chemical analysis methods. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . attached garages.5. There have been significant recent developments for passive sampling technology. which show promise for longer sampling durations and low-level analysis. only passive diffusive samplers that are validated for specific chemicals and sampling durations should be used. the data should be evaluated to determine whether they meet data quality objectives outlined in the sampling plan.1 DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS 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. Note building HVAC conditions during indoor air sampling and qualitatively describe opening of windows and doors. Passive samplers should be deployed in areas where there is good ventilation to avoid starvation effect.2 Data Quality Evaluation Following receipt of the indoor air testing results. where available.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 6. foundation conditions. sumps and drains. sample location within room.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2009 .THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

......... 7-3 Comparison of Indoor Air Data to Literature Background Concentrations ........................................5 7........... 7-2 Marker Chemicals...................................................................... 7-2 7.....2 7.................................................3 7..........1 7......................... 7-3 Emerging Methods................................................................ 7-3 Modification of Building Pressurization...................CHAPTER 7 METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF BACKGROUND FROM INDOOR SOURCES CHAPTER 7 METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF BACKGROUND FROM INDOOR SOURCES .................4 7.....................................................................................................6 7................ 7-2 Spatial Trends .................................................................................7 Constituent Ratios...................... 7-4 Comparison of Measured to Predicted Indoor Air Concentrations ....................... 7-4 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .........................................

multiple lines-of-evidence should be considered when evaluating IAQ data. To the extent possible.1-DCE in indoor air would suggest soil vapour intrusion is occurring (unless MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .2 MARKER CHEMICALS Marker chemicals are compounds which are associated with the subsurface contamination. Discerning Contributions of Background 7-2 CHAPTER 7 METHODS FOR DISCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS OF BACKGROUND FROM INDOOR SOURCES Since the intent of this guidance is to evaluate impacts to indoor air resulting from soil vapour intrusion.. Where there are potential significant differences in physicochemical properties or biodegradation rates. 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. If the ratios are significantly different (e.e.1 dichloroethene (DCE). by more than one order-of-magnitude). Chemical ratios in indoor air and soil vapour should be similar if vapour intrusion is the cause for the elevated indoor air concentrations.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 7.1. detectable levels of 1. 7. there may be background contributions of VOCs for some or all the chemicals under consideration. which is a degradation product of 1. as well as an understanding of background sources of contamination. 2005).1 CONSTITUENT RATIOS An evaluation of the ratios between contaminant concentrations in groundwater. but not background air sources. adjustments should be made to take into account different relative volatilities between contaminants (i.. The constituent ratio analysis works best for chemical groups with similar physical-chemical and fate properties. Ratios of more than two compounds can be inspected using multi-linear diagrams (e. 7. factors affecting IAQ as well as contaminant fate and transport mechanisms. the outline may have a characteristic shape. data quality. where the concentrations of each chemical are plotted on an axis and where lines are drawn to connect the plotted points (EPRI.. indoor air and outdoor air for concurrent data and chemicals with similar fate and transport properties can assist in discerning background sources of contaminants.g. this technique is less effective. soil vapour. corrected for varying Henry’s Law constants). Therefore. An example of a marker chemical is 1. such as tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene.1-trichloroethane and trichloroethene. Depending on the source. If groundwater data are used.g. and which is not known to be present as a background chemical in indoor air. tri-linear). The relative importance of various lines-of-evidence should be based on professional judgment and should consider site conditions.

if present.1.. However. testing of “pathway” samples collected near foundation cracks. 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 7..4 COMPARISON OF INDOOR AIR BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS DATA TO LITERATURE Indoor air quality data may be compared to published data on indoor air quality. commercial). For some chemicals (e. apartment.3 SPATIAL TRENDS An evaluation of spatial trends may provide insight on differentiating background sources from the contaminants of interest. Typical background sources and concentrations of VOCs in indoor air were discussed in Section 6. large divergences may suggest a subsurface vapour source. VOC concentrations in a basement may be higher than in upper floors. Discerning Contributions of Background 7-3 from an ambient air source). 7. elevated concentrations in proximity to chemical storage inside the building may indicate background sources are significant. Indoor air concentrations that are significantly different under positive and negative pressures suggest vapour intrusion is occurring. While modification of building pressurization goes beyond the typical scope of MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . This provides support for a subsurface vapour source.g. The ratio of measured indoor to outdoor air (I/O) concentration may also be compared to literature values. The data should be compared to data for buildings of similar type (e. since typically. benzene). but care must be taken to ensure that the results were not biased by products stored in the basement.2. Building pressures can be modified through control of the building HVAC system and use of temporary fans or blowers. 2001). spatial differences may be minimal in buildings with efficient ventilation systems. 7. For instance. Also. unsealed utility entry points or other possible preferential transport zones could be compared to samples collected at other parts of the building.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. are also useful compounds when evaluating constituent ratios using the method described above. soil gas advection caused by building depressurization is the main cause for soil vapour intrusion. Conversely. Marker chemicals.. single family residence. therefore. 7.g. the I/O ratio is normally relatively close to one (Hers et al.

Site-specific modeling may also be performed. 7.. one example is carbon 12 and 13. 2003. The results indicated a difference in the carbon isotope ratios for a subsurface and indoor source. When there is good quality input data. EPRI. for example using the Johnson and Ettinger (1991) model.. 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. 2005). If the measured air concentrations are much higher (i. Isotopes have a different atomic mass (number of neutrons). 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 nondetect values). 1x10-2 for soil vapour-to-indoor air. (2010) present preliminary analysis where isotope ratios of TCE were determined by a modified PT-GC-IRMS (purgeand-trap-gas chromatography–isotope ratio mass spectrometry). there may be a background source. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .e. it could be considered when it is important to distinguish background from possible subsurface vapour sources. barometric pumping or biodegradation. Discerning Contributions of Background 7-4 testing for IAQ studies. 2007).6 EMERGING METHODS Carbon stable isotope analysis (CSIA) is an emerging method for identifying potential vapour sources. McHugh et al. the modeled and measured values can be expected to agree within about an order-of-magnitude (Hers et al. 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. caution must be taken in that the conceptual site model must be well understood and data adequacy and quality must be high. and 2x10-2 for subslab vapour-to-indoor air (Golder. This approach pre-supposes that the empirical or model predictions are accurate and that source concentrations are well characterized. Fractionation may occur when biodegradation or other transformation processes preferentially break down lighter isotopes. When using this approach.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 7. outdoor air and subslab soil gas. Abreu and Johnson et al. 7. For non-degrading chemicals and representative data as defined in Chapter 5..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. an order-of-magnitude or more) than the predicted concentration. the upper range in empirical attenuation factors are approximately 1x10-3 for groundwater-to-indoor air.

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .

................................... 8-2 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 ........................................................ 8-2 REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION ........................................................CHAPTER 8 REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION CHAPTER 8 ..........................................

Hydrogeological information. Description of building heating. Reg 153/04). crawlspace. model sensitivity should be addressed. number of storeys) for current land use scenario and proposed building design for future use scenario. the following details should be provided: • • • • • • • Field investigation methods and scope. the environmental site assessment and risk assessment reports must meet the requirements of the Regulation. Description of building (approximate age. Generally. vapour attenuation factors and risk estimates. ventilation and air conditioning systems. Description of land use and conditions surrounding building (e. all input parameters should be described and rationale provided for values selected. Sources of variability in site characterization data including factors influencing spatial and temporal variability should be discussed. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . General description of building (type. Under a screening level assessment or detailed assessment. Information on subsurface utilities near building. 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. general condition of foundation). paved area. The uncertainties in the predicted exposures and risks should be discussed. Where applicable. the partitioning model..DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 8. and. Description of unsaturated soil lithology and grain size. When submitted reports under the Brownfield Regulation (O. and. Contamination characterization including quality control/quality assurance data. These include site characterization data. footprint area. number of storeys.g. basement. height of each storey. 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. general information on construction). land spaced areas). size.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

................................................................................................................................................... 9-2 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .................................. 9-2 REFERENCES ............___________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES CHAPTER 9 ....................................

1-2007. 2003. Standard Guide for RiskBased Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites. Effect of Vapor Source-Building Separation and Building Construction on Soil Vapor Intrusion as Studied with a Three-Dimensional Model. November 2005. 1992. (ASHRAE).American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM). L. Sci. Atlantic RBCA (Risk-Based Corrective Action) Version 2. Butler. 2010. (ASHRAE). 2001. 39. 2001. A study of the stability of methanol-fueled vehicle emissions in Tedlar bags. E-1739-95. Standard Practice for Installing Radon Mitigation Systems in Existing Low-Rise Residential Buildings. American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM).C. Sci. American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASTM E1465 . Environ. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. February 10. 1161-1196. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions. 4550-4561. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality.. Inc.W. Standard Guide for Soil Gas Monitoring in the Vadose Zone. 2003. Atlantic Partnership in RBCA Implementation (Atlantic PIRI). 1995. American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality. References CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES Abreu. 2005. (ASHRAE). Standard E-741-00 . D5314-92 (Re-approved 2001). and J. 2000.Standard Test Method for Determining Air Change in a Single Zone by Means of a Tracer Gas Dilution. American Petroleum Institute (API) (2005). Technol. ASTM Standard E-2121. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001. and P. 2001. American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991. American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. Inc. Environ. Andino. Collecting and Interpreting Soil Gas Samples from the Vadose Zone: A Practical Strategy for Assessing the Subsurface Vapour-toIndoor-Air Migration Pathway at Petroleum Hydrocarbon Sites. Johnson. pp. 2007. User Guidance.0 for Petroleum Impacted Sites in Atlantic Canada. Inc. 25: 1644-1646. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001.M. Technol. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Standard 62.08a Standard Practice for Radon Control Options for the Design and Construction of New Low-Rise Residential Buildings American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM). J.

Coyne. Guidance for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapour Intrusion to Indoor Air. 2004. G. M. Advisory – Active Soil Gas Investigations. L. Tx. Reliability of a BTEX radial diffusive sampler for thermal desorption: field measurements. British Columbia Ministry of Environment.env. Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in soil: Scientific Rationale.. Available at: http://www. CRWQCB (California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Los Angeles Region) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale. McAlary. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). Environmental Research Center. Department of Environmental Health).ca/epd/remediation/guidance/index. Caselli.gov. Canada-wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) in Soil: Scientific Rationale. CA. January 14-15. et. AZ. Dissertation. Burken. 2003. Lillehammer. 2006. Department of Toxic Substances Control. Ph. 2008. Fairmont Hotel.” A Platform Presentation at the Battelle Conference on Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds. Tempe. Interim Final.htm Bruno. 1991. and T. In: US EPA Seminar on Indoor Air Intrusion. 2003.F. A. Characterization of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacts to Arizona Groundwater Resources from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTS). 27. 2003. May 2006. P. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .. Draft Report: Phytoforensics: Investigating Subsurface Impacts of Chlorinated Solvents Using Tree Coring. de Gennaro. Atmospheric Environment 39(2005): 1347-1355. Hult. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). “The Effects of Purge Rate and Volume on Sub-slab Soil Gas Samples.D. December 2000. de Rienzo. California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). 2002. Supporting Technical Document.. References Baehr. 2004. et al..bc. L. R. P. T. Water Resources Research. 2000. 2005. Creamer. Monterrey CA. September. Supporting Technical Document. al. Supporting Technical Document. 2002. 2010.. Evaluation of unsaturated zone air permeability through pneumatic tests. Using Diffusive Samplers for Monitoring ppb Levels of Volatile Organic Compounds in Indoor Air. 2605-2617. Dahlen. San Diego. Caputi. presented at AirMon 02. CSDDEH (County of San Diego. Cody. Missouri University of Science and Technology. January. and M. Technical Guidance on Contaminated Sites: Vapour Investigation and Remediation. 2000. 2010. Site Assessment and Mitigation Manual. M. Norway. Soil Vapour Sampling and Analysis: Sources of Random and Systematic Error in the Characterization of Low Level Organohalide Sources. Dallas. Arizona State University.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. M.

H. A Guide for Estimating Indoor Concentrations of Soil Gas Pollutants in Houses. Accessed May 7. P. R.J. http://iavi.. D. and Johnson.A. D.. R. 2007. Fischer. R. California. P. K. Sci. Hodgson. Moseley. Paul. Dawson. 6/5/06.com/pdf/902AppNote. Technol.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. Dunkin. G. R & Gustnfson.org/attachments/WorkshopsAndConferences/1115_-_Dawson. A.L. 2005. February 2003. J 2002. M. Prepared for CMHC. 1996. M.rti. W. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). C.. R. GE 2007. Nazaroff. Winter Vol. Volatile Organic Compounds in the Environment. Entech Instruments..2006. Clifford.. A Compilation of Statistics from Post 1990 Indoor Air VOC Concentration Studies in North American Residences Unaffected by Subsurface Vapor Intrusion.. Factors affecting indoor air concentrations of volatile organic compounds at a site of subsurface gasoline contamination. USEPA ORD draft report. 30:2948-2957. Christensen. Bentley. Estimation of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from Canadian Residences. 1996. 625-641.A. Dawson. ASTM STP 1261.M. Chemical Vapor intrusion from soil or groundwater to indoor air: significance of unsaturated zone biodegradation of aromatic hydrocarbons.E. 2006. 2007. Inc. Cody.G. Ettinger. C.pdf Slide 15 [Accessed May 11. 2009. Willey. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .T. Sextro. Environ. Diguilio. References Dahlen. McAlary. 2010] DeVaull. and T. Davis. Reference Handbook for Site-Specific Assessment of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion in Indoor Air. Entech.. DiGiulio. Updated J&E Model . DeVaull. 1008492. 2003. A. and R.A. of Environmental Quality and Arizona State Legislature. Proceedings of US EPA Work Shop on Draft Vapour Intrusion Guidance. and J. E. Indoor vapour intrusion with oxygen-limited biodegradation for subsurface gasoline source. H. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation. Henry. Report to Arizona Dept.entechinst. Simi Valley.xls [OnlineWWW] Available URL. 1997. Comparison of Geoprobe PRT and AMS GVP soil-gas sampling systems with dedicated probes in sandy soils at the Raymark Superfund site.pdf Figley. Environmental Science and Technology 41(9).S. Palo Alto. 32413248. D. Atlanta. Otson. Raymark Site Preliminary Results. S. 29(1): 60-69. A. Matsumura.W. Soil and Sediment Contamination 11(4).. Impacts to Arizona's Groundwater Resources from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs). California. Daisay.http://www. Application Note 902: Improving the Performance of Time Integrating Sampling of TO14 Compounds in Stainless Steel Canisters.VIAModel. 2003. Lee and K.

Uncertainty. 2007. Baixeras. And C. (1996).nj. November. 2010. Geosyntec Consultants. Golder Associates Ltd. 2006. C. 2004. Owens. 25-31. R. Prepared for CCME. Total Environ. Prepared for Health Canada. Geoprobe®. Scale dependence of soil permeability to air: Measurement method and Field Investigation. November. K. Sextro.G. 2010. 2008. Technical Bulletin #3099. W. Scoping Report for the Development of a Protocol for Developing Soil Vapour Guidelines for Volatile Substances. Influence of Bioattenuation on Vapor Intrusion into Buildings – Model Simulations Using Semi-Analytical One-Dimensional Model. J. Final Scoping Assessment of Soil Vapour Monitoring Protocols for Evaluating Subsurface Vapour Intrusion into Indoor Air. 1995. Garbesi. K. Vol. J. 2008. M. July 27. 2008b. Sci. and M. of Soil. et al. Golder Associates Ltd. 1993. May. 2001. Environ. Technol. 3.. http://www. R. 1997. References Font. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Health Canada. and K. Final Draft. July 18.L. Updated Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) (Draft). 1996.D. Prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection September 2006.P. Garbesi. Prepared for Health Canada. Garbesi. Fisk. and Accumulation Indoors. D. 32. Indoor Infiltration of Volatile Organic Contaminants: Measured Soil Gas Entry Rates and Other Research Results for Canadian Houses.A.W. March. 27(3): 466-473.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. Variability.pdf Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) (Draft). 2008a. and W.J. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Fugler. 2006. Golder Associates Ltd. No. 6 (1). A Protocol for the Development of Soil Vapour Quality Guidelines For Protection of Human Exposures Via Inhalation of Vapours.G. Contamination. February 2008.L. Soil-Gas Entry into an Experimental Basement: Model Measurement Comparisons and Seasonal Effects. Entry. Revzan. “Direct-Push Installation of Devices for Active Soil Gas Sampling and Monitoring. 9-13. Adomait. Water Resources Research.. Evaluation of Vadose Zone Biodegradation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Implications for Vapour Intrusion Guidance. K. 2008.state. Domingo. Prepared for Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). J.L. Modera. A. L. Geosyntec Consultants. Wooley.us/dep/dsr/air/yr2-part3-biomodeling. Scale dependence of soil permeability to air: Measurement method and field investigation Water Resources Research. 32: 547-560. In-process guidance being prepared for Health Canada. Prepared for CCME. Robinson. Final Draft. Nazaroff. C. Sextro. Sci. 272. 2006.. and Sensitivity Analysis Applied to the RAGENA Model of Radon Generation. Golder Associates Ltd. Golder Associates Ltd.

D. A comparison between EPA compendium method TO-15 and EPA method 8260 for VOC determination in soil gas. California. SLTC Salt Lake City. I. www..com/articles. 2006. L. P. and Li. “How to Collect Reliable Soil-Gas Data for Risk-Based Applications. C. Evaluation of Disposable Syringes for the Collection of Soil Gas. 233-264. Grewal. 86 (1). Phillips. CA. or Chromosorb 106 When Challenged with a Mixture Containing Twenty of OSHA SLTC’s Top Solvent Analytes. Summer 2003. UT. Performance of SKC Ultra Passive Samplers Containing Carboxen 1016. November. 2003. Atwater. Industrial Hygiene Division. Gillmore. L. J.. 2002. Of AWMA Vapor Intrusion – The Next Great Environmental Challenge – An Update. Zapf-Gilje. Li. 2006. H. Evaluation of the Johnson and Ettinger model for prediction of indoor air quality. 2006. R. Time-Integrating Radon Gas Measurements in Domestic Premises: Comparison of Short-. G....S. Part I: Active Soil-Gas Method. Benton and N. 2002. R. S. Hers. 119. Hayes. Hers. October. Evaluation of vadose zone biodegradation of BTEX vapours. Zapf-Gilje.K. W. Comparison. J.. References Górecki.J. Los Angelos. Health Canada (HC) 2008.. Journal of Soil and Sediment Contamination. AWMA symposium. Denman.. p 276-291. Khan (2005). Crockett.Environ.. San Francisco. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology. 2007. 51: 174-185. D.. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. Johnson. Health Canada (HC). The Impact of Sampling Media on Soil Gas Measurements. Proc. C... L. H. 2000. 2003..” LUST Line Bulletin 42. A. J. I. 21(4). Hayes.M. R. September 13-15. Air & Waste Manage. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. Method Development Team. OSHA. Atwater. 2004.C.. 46. Trends in Analytical Chemistry.R. Analyst.tegenv... Final Draft on Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance For Health Canada. Harper. "Passive Sampling". L. Vol. CarbotrapZ. R. January. Hers. Groves-Kirkby.. N. Assoc. Hers. R. February Hendricks. D. 2001. and Li. Novel Sorbents for Sampling Organic Vapours. J. 2002. T. Validation and Use of Models for Predicting Indoor Air Quality from Soil and Groundwater Contamination. Medium and Long-Term Exposures. I. Khan. Li. Hartman. and J.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9..G. Woolridge. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Radioactivity. Air Toxics Ltd. Zapf-Gilje. The use of indoor air measurements to evaluate exposure and risk from subsurface VOCs. Prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. I. Hayes. April 2005. Namiesnik. 11 (4): 491-527. Benton. M. Evans.. A. L. B.J. H. 92-109. 1994. and Zapf-Gilje. Paper #46.J. Soil Vapour Intrusion Guidance for Health Canada Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA). P.

Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 2002.C. and monitoring of in-situ soil venting systems. 32. 32. no. Continuous. J Environ Monit 9 (2007).W. M. 1445-1452. Washington. Kemblowki. C.. Prepared by The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council. P. and J.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. In Situ Measurement of Effective Vapor-Phase Porous Medium Diffusion Coefficients.C. 10(2). 2002. Johnson. 3405-3409. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council).: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council. intermittent and passive sampling of airborne VOCs. 3405-3409. Inc. Vapor Intrusion Team. 2007a. R. Stanley. 2008.C. Johnson.C. A practical approach to the design. Academic Press. Environmental Science and Technology. Washington. Identification of application-specific critical inputs for the 1991 Johnson and Ettinger vapor intrusion algorithm. www. and R..25. References Hillel. 2007.itrcweb.C. May. 2001. New York.C. Lahvis. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion Rate of Contaminant Vapours into Buildings.. P.org. 2007. v. 1990. VI-1A.C. C. Batterman. VI-1..A. D... P. 25(1): 63-78.” Platform Presentation at the USEPA National Stakeholder’s Forum on Vapor Intrusion. and M.L. Technical Decision Analysis for the Potential Use of Passive Diffusion Bag Samplers for Long-Term Monitoring.1. San Diego. P. “Introduction to the Vapor Intrusion Pathway.L. D. Kemblowski. S.itrcweb. M.cfm?PageID=documentDetails&AttachID=370 Kreamer. and Godwin. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation. www. 1990. Jia.W.C.. 25 #8.L. D. operation.S.C. 1998. Johnson. R. Byers. Fall. C. Ettinger 1991. 1980.. Houston. Johnson. pp. Shell Global Solutions (U.D. TX. Johnson. 2005. P.org. W. 159-178. Johnson. P. 1998.). D. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). CA http://iavi. Environmental Science and Technology. C. Diffusion Sampler Team. ES&T. Vapor Intrusion Pathway: Investigative Approaches for Typical Scenarios. Field Innovation Forum: Down the Rabbit Hole with Alice – Sucking Soil Gas All the Way. pp 63 to 78. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation. Guidance on Use of Soil-Gas Surveys to Assess Vapour Transport to Indoor Air. Kemblowski. D. Rev.rti.. Colthart. Introduction to Soil Physics. 1220–1230. Identification of application-specific critical inputs for the 1991 Johnson and Ettinger vapor intrusion algorithm.C.org/Resources. Bruce. Ground Water Monit.. Vapor Intrusion Team. AEHS Conference. Johnson. P. Bruce. Johnson. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . C. ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. In situ measurement of effective vapor-phase porous media diffusion coefficients.. 2005. NY. Vapor Intrusion Pathway: A Practical Guideline. Johnson. and M.

.. Moore. Lewis.ppt Luo. W.. Reisinger. Burmaster. pp. K. Kuder. Laubacher. Dahlen and P. 29-30...state. Jacumin. Chicago. R. D. The petroleum hydrocarbons and organic chemicals in ground water: prevention. P. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). Tx (1997). Il. 2010.dep. Environmental Protection Agency Building Assessment Survey and Evaluation (BASE) Study. T. References Lahvis. 15:459-465.. Johnson. and B. prepared by HAS Engineers and Scientists for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Bartholomae. 7. 24-Hour diffusive sampling of toxic VOCs in air onto Carbopack X solid adsorbant followed by thermal desorption GC/MS Analysis – Laboratory studies. and D.. Water Resources Research.A. detection and remediation conference.J. 1995. Jacumin. Modified Active Gas Sampling (MAGS). ftp://ftp. T. Spatial Variability of Soil Gas Concentrations Near And Beneath A Building Overlying Shallow Petroleum Hydrocarbon-Impacted Soils.E. Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 29. S. 1999. 1/ Winter 2009/pages 81–91 Massman.S. O’Neill and J. 753-765...H. 2005. Effects of Atmospheric Pressures on Gas Transport in the Vadose Zone. Carbortap Z. K. T.. H. P. 2003.. Risk Anal.Murray. W. Vapour Intrusion Guidance. Baker. Philp. Use of CSIA to Distinguish Between Vapor Intrusion and Indoor Sources of VOCs. 248-256.us/pub/reports/wc/conwkshop2005/MAGSPresentationRichardLewis. H. Oliver. or Chromosorb 106 When MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA).D. and B. 2004.H..F. Houston.fl. E. Jr.recent U. McClenny. 2002. and Whitaker. Proc.. presentation at the Florida Dry Cleaners Solvent Cleanup Program Workshop 2005. Performance of SKC Ultra Passive Samplers Containing Carboxen 1016. Jr. no. 1992. J.H. H. Modified Active Gas Sampling Manual. Lewis. Oliver. Monit. Environ.H. Baehr and A. Peargin and T. S. Laubacher et al. 2005. 35. A. Prepared by Andrew Persily and Josh Gorfain.. Sept. An evaluation of the vapor profile in the vadose zone above a gasoline plume. Moore.C.G. E... 2009. S. 1995. Ambient volatile organic compound (VOC) monitoring using solid adsorbants .M.G.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. Folsom. J. 396–409. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 2004. and Daughtrey. Odencrantz. and Daughtrey. P. Jr. EPA developments. Gorder. Fiorenza. Water Resources Research 28: 777-791. 2006. Folsom. 1997 R. of AWMA Vapor Intrusion Conference. M.Farrier. Residential air exchange rates in the United States: empirical and estimated parametric distributions by season and climatic region. Analysis of Ventilation Data from the U.D. Quantification of aerobic and volatilization rates of gasoline hydrocarbons near the water table under natural attenuation conditions.C.. R. JEM 4(5) 695 – 705. McClenny. E. McHugh. NISTIR Report 7145.S. K.D.A.D. and D.Creamer.. R. Velasco and H.

and M. Puls. Determination of the Sampling Rate Variation for SKC 575 Series Passive Samplers. 2009a. and Site Specific Risk Assessment Work Group. Low-Flow (Minimal Drawdown) Ground-Water Sampling Procedures. Kampbell. Lacy. J. Stuart. Soil-Gas Surveying for Subsurface Gasoline Contamination Using Total Organic Vapour Detection Instruments Part I.R. Robbins. Dated December 22. R. Ostendorf. and D. Ontario. Utah 84115-1802. and M. OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center. Summer. EPA/540/S-95/504. February. Salt Lake City. Barcelona.A. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). 1998. 2004. Zhu. Groundwater and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario 1996". Air & Waste Managements Association’s 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition. Soil. Utah 84115-1802. Ground Water and Sediment Criteria for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. 1997. Criteria Development Subgroup of the Criteria Development. 1990. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Prepared by Warren Hendricks for Organic Methods Evaluation Branch. Water Resources Research. 1996b.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. April. Theory and Laboratory Experimentation. Dated July 27. 27 (4):453-462. Rationale for the Development and Application of Generic Soil. Rational for Development of Generic Soil and Groundwater Standards for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Salt Lake City. 1996.J. 2009. Ground Water Issue..W. Prepared by Warren Hendricks for Organic Methods Evaluation Branch.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center. Province of Ontario (Ontario).1 of the Environmental Protection Act. 2009. D. 1991. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy (MOEE). I/O Values for Determination of the Origin of Some Indoor Organic Pollutants.1 of the Environmental Protection Act. Deyo. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). Guidance on Sampling and Analytical Methods for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. Version 1. June 8 to 13. Proc.G. J. Temple. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE).1.D. B. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 1997. 2009. Biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours in the unsaturated zone. and J. Dated March 9. 2004. G. 1996a. Soil. Toronto. Site Assessment. Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV. Procedures for use of Risk Assessment under Part XV. Groundwater Monitoring and Remediation. April 1996. Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV. Otson.H. Canada. 1996. Standards Development Branch. References Challenged With a Mixture Containing Twenty of OSHA SLTC’s Top Solvent Analytes. M. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OHSA). Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE). Rationale for the Development and Application of Generic Soil. R. 2005. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .W.

2008. Sci. J-O. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Vapor-phase exchange of perchloroethene between soil and plants. Levin. Struckhoff. Spring 2006.. 2004a. Ljungqvist. Sundgren. K.S.G. P.3-butadiene and benzene in air. Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface Vapour Intrusion Guidance). Atmospheric Environment. 2003. SKC. G. and I. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). NJ. Prepared for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.C. Suthersan... 39. 2008. EPA’s Vapor Intrusion Database: Preliminary Evaluation of Attenuation Factors (Draft). Environ. Ontario. Scobie. Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC). 2006. B. 2006. G. Publication 1720. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 2008.. H. March 2006 United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. 1992. 2008. 1997.G. Office of Solid Waste. AWMA Vapour Intrusion Workshop. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Technol. Olsson. Assessment of Vapor Intrusion in Homes Near the Raymark Superfund Site Using Basement and Sub-Slab Air Samples. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. and Schumacher. and Fellin. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). pp. 1563-1568. S. April. 2004b. J. March 4. References Sanders. Technical Note. Measuring sub-ppb levels of VOCs in Indoor Air. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Environmental Indicators (EI) Fact Sheet. Saellsten. CRC Press LLC. and Barregard. Hers. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Installation of Sub-Slab Vapor Probes and Sampling Using EPA Method TO-15 to Support Vapor Intrusion Investigations.. User’s Guide for Evaluating Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Into Buildings. OK. Burken. Vol. M. 39(6). Ada..S.4101–4110.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. S. Evaluation of two types of diffusive samplers and adsorbents for measuring 1. U. October 28. 2002. 2006. Vapor Intrusion in Homes over Gasoline-Contaminated Groundwater in Stafford. Bailey. Sunesson. J. The Use of Passive Sampling Devices in a Vapour Intrusion Study. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Volatile Organic Compound Survey and Summarization of Results. 2005. L. Remediation Engineering: Design Concepts. G. P. Draft. February 12... Ottawa. EPA/600/R-05/147. A-L.. Report I-4800-1-C-92. USA. (2005). Issue 0611. Office of Research and Development. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Vapour Intrusion and RCRA Corrective Action (CA). Strandberg.

Journal of Chromatography A.. Method TO-15. 1996. 1117 p 19-30. Y.S. M. J. and Bradley. MN. Casey. and Potential Degradation Mechanism. CSIRO Land and Water. 2006. 2004. Cincinnati.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . D.3m. Vroblesky.. Summer 1997. Air Pollut. 1999a. J. B. Second Edition. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment. Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services. 2000. M. Assessment and Exposure.A. Indoor Air Quality in Cold Climates: Hazards and Abatements Measures Summary of an APCA International Speciality Conference.. D. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). J.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 9. OH. Method TO-14A. P. Petroleum and Solvent Vapours: Quantifying their Behaviour. Waitz. 3M: St. M. C.A. C. 2004. P. 177-184.. Department of Health and Family Services. Center for Environmental Research Information. 3M Technical Data Bulletin. The VOLASOIL risk assessment model based on CSOIL for soils contaminated with volatile compounds..com/intl/ca/english/market/traffic/ohes/pdf_pub/1028. W. Raihala. Guidance for Environmental Consultants and Contractors. U. OH. Cincinnati.T. Keule and F. Paul. 1997. Control Assoc. Influence of Recharge.. 36. 2000. Namieśnik. Harvey. State of Wisconsin. Enviro Science and Technology 30: 3115-3117. D.F. 235-241. p. Górecki.W.. Ground Water Chlorinated Ethenes in Tree Trunks: Case Studies. T. J.I. The Netherlands. Office of Research and Development. and R. Use of Tedlar Bags in VOC Testing and Storage: Evidence of Significant VOC Losses. Chemical Vapour Intrusion and Residential Indoor Air. B. Walkinshaw.pdf (accessed 2006).. J. Division of Public Health. Partyka. Compendium of Methods for Toxic Air Pollutants. Available at: http:// www. 1999b.P. Hyde. References U.S. 1987. Clinton. Center for Environmental Research Information. A. Swartjes. Diffusion samplers as an inexpensive approach to monitoring VOC's in ground water: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. Compendium of Methods for Toxic Air Pollutants.. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. Jackman. St. A. T. Wang. p. Zabiegała. D. Vroblesky. Organic Vapor Monitor Sampling and Analysis Guide (1028).. 2003. Freijer. John. 124–138. Second Edition.. Vose. Bilthoven. Application of the GC retention index system for the determination of the calibration constants of permeation passive samplers with PDMS membranes. 1996.S. Summer 2004. G. Office of Research and Development. M. Western Australian Department of Environment (WADE)..

___________________________________________________________________________ THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .

........................... 10-2 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 ............................ 10-2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..CHAPTER 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CHAPTER 10 ....................................................................................................................

toluene. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 10-2 CHAPTER 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACH AEC API APHA APEC AST ASTM AAP ATSDR bgs BTEX CAEAL CCV CPPI CPT Carcinogenic CCME CEQG CEAA CEM CH4 CO2 COPC CSM CSA CV CWS-PHC DQI DNAPL DRA ECD F2 F3 F4 FID GC/FID GC/MS HVAC HI air change per hour area of environmental concern American Petroleum Institute American Public Health Association Area of Potential Environmental Concern Above Ground Storage Tank American Society Testing Materials atomic adsorption spectrometry US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry below ground surface benzene. liquid that is more dense than water) detailed risk assessment electron capture detector Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C11-16 (CCME) Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C17-34 (CCME) Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the carbon range of C35+ (CCME) flame ionization detector gas chromatography/flame ionization detection gas chromatography/mass spectrometry building heating. ventilation and air conditioning systems hazard index (sum of HQs) 2009 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment .e..DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 10. ethylbenzene and xylenes Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories Continuing Calibration Verification Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute cone penetrometer test cancer-causing chemical Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines Canadian Environmental Assessment Act conceptual exposure model methane carbon dioxide contaminant of potential concern conceptual site model Canadian Standards Association coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by mean).Petroleum Hydrocarbons (CCME guidance) data quality indicators dense non-aqueous phase liquid (i. same as relative standard deviation) Canadian Wide Standards .

Representativeness. and Completeness photo ionization detector polyvinyl chloride quality assurance project plan quality assurance/quality control advective soil gas flow rate into building building ventilation rate risk assessment oxidation reduction potential reporting limit relative percent difference relative standard deviation (standard deviation divided by mean).D. Accuracy.. liquid that is less dense than water) Method Detection Limit milligrams per kilogram milligrams per litre membrane interface probe Monitored Natural Attenuation methyl tert-butyl ether non-aqueous phase liquid N-nitrosodimethylamine No Observed Adverse Effect Level Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons perchlorethylene Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Phase II Environmental Site Assessment parts per million (equivalent to mg/kg or mg/L) parts per billion (equivalent to ug/Kg or ug/L) practical quantification limit Occupational Safety and Health Administration Oxygen Five principal DQIs consisting of Precision. INAC IRIS J&E LCS LIF LRL LNAPL MDL mg/kg mg/L MIP MNA MTBE NAPL NDMA NOAEL PAH PCE Phase I ESA Phase II ESA  ppm ppb PQL OSHA O2 PARCC PID PVC QAPP QA/QC Qsoil Qbuild RA redox RL RPD RSD SABCS SCC SF hazard quotient heating. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 10-3 HQ HVAC IAQ I. ventilation and air conditioning indoor air quality inside diameter Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Integrated Risk Information System Johnson and Ettinger laboratory control sample laser-induced fluorescence laboratory reporting limit light non-aqueous phase liquid (i.e.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 10. same as coefficient of variation) Science Advisory Board for Contaminated Sites (British Columbia) Standards Council of Canada slope factor MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2009 . Comparability.

Type 2 error Null hypothesis is not rejected when it is actually false.e..DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Chapter 10. 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 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2009 . 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 that this error will occur is called beta (β) or statistical power. Probability of this error occurring is called alpha (α) or level of significance. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 10-4 SFR SLRA SOP SSD single family residence screening level risk assessment suggested operating procedure subslab depressurization (i.

MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

An example of a CSM for soil vapour intrusion is shown in Figure 1 below.). followed by specific CSM’s of interest for vapour intrusion (Exhibit 1). The CSM should be considered dynamic in nature and should be regularly updated and shared as new information becomes available. communicate and interpret existing data. A well developed CSM provides decision makers with an effective tool that helps to organize. September 2008 (prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. chemical. This Appendix is included with Health Canada permission. at a contaminated site. The following sections present an overview of contamination sources and fate and transport processes. A conceptual site model (CSM) is a visual representation and narrative description of the physical. and biological processes occurring. or that have occurred. while also identifying areas where additional data is required.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -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”. but may not necessarily reflect its policy at this time. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .

and chlorinated solvents. these compounds only represent a small fraction of hydrocarbon vapours and there may be other specific compounds of interest such as hexane. toluene. ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEX). decane. analytical MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 2002) Contamination Sources Common contaminants of potential concern for soil vapour intrusion comprise a range of organic chemicals including petroleum hydrocarbons from fuel products. Typically. coal-tar or creosote. depending on the fuel type. Petroleum hydrocarbons are associated with fuels such as gasoline. jet fuel and diesel and are mixtures of hundreds of compounds.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-2- FIGURE 1: Example of a Conceptual Site Model for Vapour Intrusion into a Residential Building (adapted from US EPA. While often the focus of risk assessments are benzene. trimethylbenzenes and naphthalene.

g.2-DCE). have similar organic contaminants of potential concern composed of monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.g.. for practical purposes. high volatility and their resistance to degradation under aerobic conditions. peat). While some of the heavier PAH compounds are identified as COPCs for the vapour intrusion pathway based on conservative screening approaches (e. may be generated as a by-product of the anaerobic decomposition of organic chemicals such as petroleum fuels. cis.. which are essentially non-volatile. trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1. the mobility of heavier molecular weight PAHs via soil vapour transport is limited and. Soil gases such as methane.and trans-1.. such as BTEX. The CSM subsequently described in this chapter does not address assessment of sites where there is potential for significant pressure-driven gas flow.g.. 1..g. F1 and F2 as defined in CCME (2001)) and aromatic and aliphatic fractions. Gas produced by microbiological activity may generate pressure gradients that enhance subsurface vapour migration through advection. 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. to five.g.and six-ring PAHs. 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 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .1. hydrogen sulphide. carbon dioxide and. Similar considerations apply to other heavier molecular weight organic chemicals with similar properties.2-dichloroethylene (cis-1. refuse) and/or native organic matter (e. The presence of these gases may represent a potential safety hazard through explosion or asphyxiation. Most chlorinated solvents are relatively mobile and persistent within the unsaturated zone due to their relatively low solubility. Methane is explosive in the range of 5 to 15 percent by volume in air. and PAHs. There is significant variation in the volatility and mobility of PAH compounds ranging from naphthalene. in some cases. and creosote.1-dichloroethylene (1. Coal-tar. Health Canada and USEPA vapour intrusion guidance). waste material (e. and associated breakdown products of biodegradation or abiotic transformation (e.1-trichloroethane (TCA).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-3tests for hydrocarbon vapours will also include hydrocarbon fractions based on carbon chain length (e.1-DCE) and vinyl chloride). their vapour concentrations are relatively low and organic carbon partitioning coefficients (Koc) tend to be higher. Common chlorinated solvents include tetrachloroethylene or perchloroethylene (PCE). As a consequence. associated with former manufactured gas plants (MGP). associated with wood preservation. is not of potential concern for vapour intrusion. Another source of pressure-driven gas is leaking natural gas lines. considered a semivolatile.

Equilibrium partitioning models are typically used to estimate the distribution of chemicals between different phases. which is a function of the mole fraction and vapour pressure. VP is the vapour pressure (atm). as follows: Cv = 1000 * MW * X * VP / (R * T) [1] where Cv is the soil vapour concentration (mg/m3). if there is a layer of “clean” groundwater above contaminated water. Since it is not possible to obtain a soil gas sample at the water table (i. Raoult’s Law is used to account for partitioning for a multi-component mixture of chemicals. as subsequently discussed in this chapter. R is the gas constant (m3-atm/Kmole). 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 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Where NAPL is present above the water table. and T is the temperature (K). due to the capillary transition zone). the measured soil vapour concentration should be lower than that predicted using the Henry’s Law constant. For a secondary source where chemicals are present only as a dissolved phase in groundwater. then volatilisation will be relatively limited since.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-4above the water table into soil gas (“volatilization”). Soil contamination within the unsaturated zone also represents a potential source of vapours. and since vertical dispersion tends to be limited.e. their distribution below the water table will also determine their potential to volatilize. The distribution of NAPL relative to the water table will have a large influence on its potential to volatilise and migrate to indoor air. MW is the molecular weight (g/mole).. If volatile chemicals are present near the surface of the water table. X is the mole fraction (dimensionless). as follows: Cv = 1000 * Cg * H’ [2] where Cg is the groundwater concentration (mg/L) and H’ is the dimensionless Henry’s Law constant. In contrast. a two-phase model based on the vapour pressure of the chemical is used to estimate the soil vapour concentration. The NAPL is referred to as a primary source of vapours while a dissolved phase plume is referred to as a secondary source. then the rate of volatilization will decrease. If the NAPL is situated below the water table. the mass transport through groundwater is relatively slow due to the low diffusion rate in water. volatilization will readily occur. For dissolved chemicals in groundwater. the Henry’s Law constant is typically used to estimate the vapour concentration in equilibrium with water.

NAPL). Several of the fate and transport processes that influence soil vapour intrusion are conceptually shown in Figure 1. soil-air and NAPL phases has been developed and applied to the vapour intrusion pathway (Park and San Juan. 1979. the accuracy of such models to predict soil vapour concentrations is poor.. provided the foc is above a critical level. they should be predicted from groundwater data using Henry’s Law constant (when appropriate) or directly measured. volatilization is occurring just above the top of the capillary fringe to create soil vapours. partitioning between soil. Hassett and Banwart. USEPA (1996) suggests that when foc is below about 0. it is generally not good practise to try to estimate soil vapour concentrations from soil concentration data. under equilibrium. biodegradation reactions. Instead. a three phase model 1 for partitioning between sorbed. the three phases become saturated by the chemical. Studies have shown that the sorption of organics by soils is highly correlated with the foc (e. Where there is soil contamination. Therefore. and. adsorption to inorganic mineral surfaces becomes important. The attenuation within the capillary zone has implications for soil vapour intrusion modeling and comparison of measured and predicted soil vapour concentrations. While soil partitioning models are well established. aqueous. then the remainder of the chemical will be in its pure form (i.001. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Cw is the soil-water concentration (mg/L). θa is the air-filled porosity (dimensionless). foc is the fraction organic carbon (dimensionless). advection. 2000). but no NAPL. Hassett et al. Guidance on calculation of the soil saturation (“Csat”) concentration for NAPL is provided in USEPA (1996). 1980. water and gas phases. θw is the water-filled porosity (dimensionless)... In this example.e. aqueous. for a multi-component mixture. H’ is the Henry’s Law constant (dimensionless) and ρb is the bulk dry density (kg/L). For non-ionizing organic chemicals. 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. 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.. These vapours are subsequently transported upwards toward the ground surface via 1 A four-phase model for partitioning between the sorbed.g. dispersion. 1989).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-5pores. a linear equilibrium partitioning model is widely used to predict absorption of organics into native organic carbon. If. Chiou et al. and vapour phases can be used to estimate the soil vapour concentration. Koc is the organic carbon-water partition coefficient (L/kg). as follows: Ct = Cw (Kd + (θw + θa*H’/ρb)) Kd = Koc * foc [3] where Ct is the total soil concentration (mg/kg).

this is expressed as the effective diffusion coefficient. or gradient. is calculated by Fick’s Law.e. 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. advective soil gas transport may be the dominant process.. than through water-filled soil pores.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-6diffusion. as follows: J = -Deff * δC / δZ [4] Where Deff is the effective diffusion coefficient (L2/T). The rate that a chemical will diffuse is a function of the concentration difference. J (M/L2-T). / θ 2 + Dw/H’ * θw 3. therefore. 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). diffusion is much faster through the air-filled soil pores. 2005). When contamination is limited to dissolved chemicals in groundwater. L2/T) are about four orders-of-magnitude higher than in water (Dw. The rate of volatilization at the contamination source is controlled by the mass flux rate for chemical migration away from the source. Mathematically. Closer to the building. Diffusion rates may also be highly sensitive to the presence of fine-grained. as influenced by their kinetic energy. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . L2/T). The diffusive flux is less in soil than in a gas-filled volume as a result of the tortuosity or nonlinear migration path for diffusing gas species. typically estimated from the Millington-Quirk relationship (1961): Deff = Da * θa 3. This will vary temporally as a result of fluctuations in various factors such as moisture content. Diffusion Diffusion is the movement of molecules from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. The thickness of the capillary fringe increases with decreasing soil grain size. temperature and elevation of the water table. diffusion through the capillary fringe is often the rate-limiting process because the moisture content in the capillary fringe is high.33.001) (EPRI. high moisture content soil layers within the vadose zone. The mass flux. / θ 2 [5] Diffusion coefficients in air (Da. dimensionless H’ less than 0. and may even be completely saturated.33. and the compound. if the building is depressurized relative to atmospheric pressure. C is the vapour concentration (mass/volume of gas) and z is the distance over which the concentration change is measured (L).and temperaturedependent diffusion coefficient.

1996).. For most geologic environments.g. water movement. Vadose Zone Advection Gas-phase advective transport can occur as a result of fluctuations in atmospheric pressure (e. Ririe et al. Soils with higher native organic carbon will tend to have a greater sorption capacity. for some chemicals biodegradation may occur simultaneously to reduce the concentration in soil water. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Choi and Smith (2005) through a modeling study found that pressure-driven advective flux increased for deep. diffusion is the dominant vadose zone transport process.. barometric pumping). Roggemans et al. biotransformation of these compounds will usually be limited due to the presence of oxygen within the unsaturated zone. water table fluctuations. soil gas advection can be important where there are high permeability. relatively deep unsaturated zone deposits (i... for all combinations of scenarios..g. This allows for the continuous partitioning of the chemical into the soil water. however. 2002). the transport of soil vapours will be retarded due to sorption to the soil matrix and transfer of chemicals into soil water. the aerobic biodegradation of volatile petroleum hydrocarbons in the vadose zone (e. For example. dispersion may also be important. tens of metres deep) and/or methanogenesis is significant. Biodegradation Different organic compounds will biodegrade at different rates. Several of these studies indicate orders-of-magnitude bioattenuation of hydrocarbon vapour concentrations over relatively small distances within the vadose zone. Hers et al. 2002. 1998. and with various oxygen demands. drier. The effects of these velocity variations are similar to the effects of diffusion (Auer.e. While partitioning into soil water will occur rapidly. the diffusive flux was at least one order-of-magnitude greater than the advective flux. Where there are relatively high soil gas advection rates. Hers et al.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-7Sorption As soil vapours migrate away from contamination source zones. and density gradients due to composition and temperature variations (soil gas advection due to building depressurization is discussed in Section 4.. permeable deposits.4. nevertheless. Dispersion is a mixing process that is caused by small-scale variations in air velocities in soil.4). There is evidence of aerobic biodegradation of vinyl chloride.. thus reducing the concentration in the vapour phase. BTEX) has been demonstrated through several investigations (Ostendorf and Campbell. 1999). 2000. Since chlorinated solvents such as PCE and TCE degrade primarily under anaerobic conditions through reductive dechlorination (Wiedemeier et al. 1991..

although vapour migration will also occur as a result of diffusion through the building foundation. Commercial buildings may be either positively or negatively pressurized depending on HVAC system design. Therefore. Soil gas advection can occur through untrapped floor drains. advective processes may be dominant. Summary Diffusion is the dominant process for soil vapour transport in many geologic settings. but will have little effect on reducing advection. ventilation and airconditioning (HVAC) systems. 1993. Plastic moisture vapour barriers placed during the construction of slabs may reduce diffusion to some degree. 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. unsealed entry points for utilities. as opposed to the permeability of the building foundation. 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. edge cracks at the building wall and floor slab interface (shown in Figure 1). as well as any nearby utility corridors. although aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours can be an important mechanism for vapour attenuation.. wind-loading and operation of the building heating.. 2002). poured concrete slab.e. Johnson.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-8Near-Building Processes for Soil Vapour Intrusion The primary process for soil vapour intrusion into buildings is typically soil gas advection.g. Hers et al. 2005). “stack effect”). since significant soil gas flows can occur through small openings. Field measurements and model simulations indicate that for most sites. Diffusion through the building foundation will readily occur through cracks and openings in the foundation. if present. Diffusion rates through intact building materials are relatively low.. operation and environmental conditions. 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.. but will depend somewhat on material type (e. 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. Soil vapour intrusion is influenced by building characteristics. There can be significant temporal variation in soil vapour intrusion due to environmental and building related MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . concrete block wall). the permeability of soil near the building will control the rate of soil gas flow. expansion joints and other cracks and openings. Closer to a building. which will be exceeded at many residential buildings. 2003. the properties of the backfill surrounding the foundation are important. geologic setting and anthropogenic features.

dissolved phase sources).e. plume diving. their distribution below the water table will determine their potential to volatilize and migrate to indoor air. Water table fluctuations and upward vertical gradients may prevent the formation of a fresh water lens.. volatilization will readily occur. calculators for determining the groundwater hydraulic gradient. then the rate of volatilization will decrease since mass transport is controlled by diffusion and dispersion in groundwater. References and Links The USEPA has developed a number of on-line assessment tools for groundwater and soil vapour that include. retardation factors for solute transport.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-9conditions. if there is a layer of “clean” groundwater above contaminated water. (http://www. “fresh-water lens formation”) (Figure 2). leaching and/or biodegradation. diffusion coefficients. If volatile chemicals are present near the surface of the water table. Fresh Water Lens Precipitation infiltration Fresh-water lens (noncontaminated groundwater) Capillary Transition Zone NAPL Source MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .e. 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. Johnson and Ettinger alpha calculator and unit conversions. In contrast.epa.gov/athens/onsite/) EXHIBIT 1: Conceptual Site Scenarios for Vapour Intrusion Fresh-Water Lens For chemicals present only in groundwater (i. for example.. Resources. FIGURE 2. Long-term transient effects may be important if there is depletion of the contamination source through volatilization.

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-10- Interface Plume Development If vapours are diffusing from contamination in the unsaturated zone. higher levels of dissolved contamination or NAPL. they will partition into groundwater (Figure 3). This will result in increased volatilization rates. which is a shallow plume located within the capillary fringe and groundwater just below the water table (Rivett. if present. Vapour Diffusion NAPL Source Mass transfer between groundwater and vadose zone Fluctuating water table FIGURE 3. with a transition to fully three-dimensional flow only below the water table. 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. Interface Plume Development Falling Water Table If there is a water table decline of sufficient extent. will become exposed to soil gas (Figure 4). MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .. This process combined with water table fluctuations can result in an interface zone groundwater plume. In addition. 2002). There is both lateral and vertical flow and solute transport within the capillary fringe (Silliman et al. 1995). Volatilisation from an interface plume may be significant. which contrasts with the common conceptualization of primarily downward vertical fluid flow through the unsaturated zone. 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 freshwater lens.

Falling Water Table MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-11- Falling water table Capillary Transition Zone NAPL Source FIGURE 4.

which intersect a contamination source and connect to the building. 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. which is a scenario of concern for indoor air quality. may result in enhanced soil vapour intrusion. Preferential Pathways The presence of preferential pathways such as utility conduits with granular backfill. vapour diffusion in all directions will occur. There will also tend to be greater lateral than vertical diffusion due to depositional history and soil layering. 2004). For the Health Canada vapour intrusion guidance. their presence alone is not typically of concern. Of relevance are pathways that facilitate enhanced movement of soil vapour toward and into a building. For unsaturated zone sources. Lowell and Eklund. NAPL Source Capillary Transition Zone FIGURE 5. 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. concrete slabs and fine-grained fill materials can reduce soil vapour flux to the atmosphere and may promote lateral diffusion of soil vapour. Since most buildings have subsurface utility penetrations.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-12Lateral Soil Vapour Diffusion Organic chemicals released near ground surface may result in a contamination source in the unsaturated zone. Lateral Diffusion and Preferential Pathways MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . which can potentially diffuse laterally toward adjacent buildings (Figure 5). 1995. The presence of anthropogenic features such as paved surfaces. particularly for smaller contamination sources. which tends to result in a rapid decline in soil vapour concentrations with increasing lateral distance from the source. VOCs will readily partition into air when contaminated groundwater is in contact with sumps or drain tiles. 2005. Abreu. although the effect for most soils is relatively minor.

Processes such as barometric pumping may also serve to increase oxygen transfer to below the building. Aerobic biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons is a rapid process and often occurs over relatively thin layers within the subsurface (Figure 6). other potentially important factors include the presence of requisite microbes. sorption into native organic carbon will initially cause concentrations to be transient as soil vapour migrates from the source. 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. but the process tends to occur under anaerobic conditions (except for vinyl chloride) and is much slower than the aerobic biodegradation of BTEX. so its presence represents an addition demand on oxygen within the subsurface environment. for a depth to contamination of 3 m. which may be significant for soluble chemicals such as MTBE. 2 The time to steady state may have implications for design of soil gas sampling programs (i. Aerobic biodegradation is typically primarily controlled by oxygen levels. Chlorinated solvents also can be biodegraded. For example. Since anaerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbons may also occur in oxygen-depleted zones.3 and organic carbon fraction of 0. 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 approximate time required for a steady state diffusion profile to develop would be approximately 0. 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.5 years. for a depth to contamination of 10 m. sampling location and when to sample). 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. moisture content. for trichloroethylene. Oxygen is supplied from the atmosphere through diffusion. Hydrocarbon Vapour Biodegradation Many petroleum-based hydrocarbons are readily degraded to carbon dioxide (CO2) in the presence of oxygen (O2) and ubiquitous soil microbes.. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .e. for example. (1998). availability of nutrients and pH. and 5. methane (CH4) may be generated.7 years. After a period of time. below a 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-13- Transient Soil Vapour Migration After a spill has occurred. barometric and diurnal pumping. an approximate steady state vapour profile will develop after sorption sites are filled (assuming no biodegradation).006. The key factors affecting biodegradation are source concentrations (“strength”) and separation distance between the source and building. There are also transient effects through partitioning into soil moisture. total porosity of 0. and infiltrating water containing dissolved oxygen. 2 The input parameters for this calculation are water-filled porosity equal to 0. an anaerobic zone (sometimes referred to as an “oxygen shadow”) may develop. based on solutions to this equation provided by Johnson et al.1. Methane will also undergo aerobic biodegradation.

Close to a building. These changes create a “piston-like” force on soil gas. this means that the top 0. One study reported MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .. If there is a low permeability surface seal adjacent to buildings. and also is affected by pressure dampening and time-lag in the pressure response.e. This may result in a cyclic up and down movement of contaminant vapours in the affected interval. atmospheric air will be pushed into surface soil to a depth up to about three percent of the total depth of the unsaturated zone. barometric pumping may result in the movement of atmospheric air in and out of foundation subsoils.org/press/breathing_wells.3 m of soil would be affected by the complete barometric flushing of soil gas. Conceptual Model for Aerobic Biodegradation Barometric Pumping A potentially important mechanism for soil gas advection is “barometric pumping. and expansion when it decreases. Assuming gas compression according to the ideal gas law. For a 10 m thick homogeneous unsaturated soil column. causing compression of soil gas when the air pressure increases. unsaturated.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-14- FIGURE 6. which can be significant for finergrained deposits.cgwa. 1992).htm ). There are unpublished accounts of barometric pumping causing significant movement of soil gas in deep (greater than 100 m). 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. the maximum variation in barometric pressure is about three percent over a 24-hour period (Massman and Farrier. Barometric pressure fluctuations may also result in episodic soil gas intrusion.” caused by cyclic changes in atmospheric pressure. Typically. cross-foundation slab pressure gradients may be generated when the barometric pressure decreases. The magnitude of the pumping effect decreases with increasing depth. fractured bedrock deposits where a “breathing” phenomena has been observed (i.

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. 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.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-15measured transient cross-slab differential pressures of up to 500 Pascals (Adomait and Fugler. FIGURE 7..e. The magnitude of the depressurization at the base of the building is proportional to the height of the building. Stack and Wind Effect The heating of a building. This causes an outward air pressure in upper storeys and inward air pressure near the base of the building. sunlight on the roof) creates a “stack effect” as warm air rises in the building (Figure 7). Stack and Wind Effect on Depressurisation (NPL = neutral pressure line) MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . radiator. Warm air that escapes is replaced by air infiltrating through doors and windows and soil gas migrating through the foundation. 1997). although tall buildings are designed with features to minimize crossfloor leakage of air and excessive depressurization. or other sources (i. either by furnace.

Condominiums or commercial buildings may have one or more levels of below-grade parking. In some cases. As a consequence.g. the foundation properties will tend to be significant. in turn. Surface soils with high moisture content may also reduce migration of atmospheric oxygen into soil. different foundation construction could lead to different processes for soil vapour intrusion. cause nonequilibrium mass transfer of the contaminants between the water and the gas phases (Cho et al. often observed at the interface between the foundation wall and floor slab. since the Henry’s Law Constant is temperature dependent. higher soil gas advection rates would be expected for houses with basements. there will tend to be greater dilution of vapours that may migrate into the garage than for other building types. however. intensive snowmelt or rain and wetting fronts can induce advective movement of soil gas. However. Higher building depressurization and soil gas intrusion rates would be expected during the heating season. also represent potentially significant entry routes for soil gas migration. there is empirical data indicating that soil vapour intrusion can be significant for several different types of building foundations including basements.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-16Foundation Construction Conceptually. There can also be significant short-term variability unrelated to seasonal factors caused by diurnal temperature fluctuations. Although working hypotheses have been developed.. and barometric MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . The influence of seasonal factors on building ventilation. temperature effects will be insignificant. For example. near surface ground temperatures may be higher leading to slightly higher volatilization rates. For houses with crawlspace foundations. which may. Temporal and Seasonal Considerations Potential temporal factors influencing soil vapour intrusion are complex.g. opening windows and doors). for smaller distances or where contamination is close to or in direct contact with the building (e. Since ventilation rates are high for parking garages. sumps. and at many sites. is difficult to predict. which may reduce aerobic biodegradation of hydrocarbon vapours. openings around utilities and a perimeter crack. due to higher depressurization and larger subsurface foundation surface area for intrusion. for larger distances the foundation may have little effect on vapour intrusion rate. 1993). wind. In cold climate areas. While natural ventilation through open doors or windows may be reduced in winter. crawlspaces and slab-on-grade construction. The amplitude in seasonal temperature variation decreases with increasing depth below ground surface. The importance of the foundation for vapour intrusion may depend on the distance from the contamination source to the building. there may be increased air exchange through building depressurization and operation of a furnace. which acts to dilute vapours. the migration of soil vapour toward drier soils below the building may be enhanced.. the influence of foundation type on soil vapour intrusion is still poorly understood.. 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. 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. crawlspaces are more likely to be well sealed to reduce the influx of cold air into the house. Winter frost or higher soil moisture in near surface soils may limit the surface flux of volatiles to the atmosphere. An off-setting factor is that during summer. occupant use (e. wet basements).

if there is a surface contamination source. vapours will migrate in all directions. a dry cleaner is one possible example of where this could occur. Once below the building. 2006).DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-17pressure variations. the above factors suggest that in Canada.. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . soil vapour intrusion would tend to be greatest during winter months based on climatic conditions. air will move downwards through the foundation. 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. Leaking underground storage tanks also represent potential soil vapour sources. In this case. On balance. While it would be rare for buildings to have a significant effect on subsurface soil vapour concentrations. vapours could diffuse away from the building. thus creating a zone of impacted soil vapour. 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. including downwards.

chlorinated solvents) … Describe the migration characteristics of the dissolved plume. density. if present at the site. type of soil) with particular attenuation to soil layering … Describe the bedrock with particular attenuation to fracture occurrence and orientation. distribution and composition of LNAPL and/or DNAPL..g. stable or shrinking.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-18Soil 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. if bedrock is present MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . but does not include considerations relating to characterization of indoor air quality. and whether the plume is expanding. … 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. source and history of the contamination release … Describe the presence.. 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.e. porosity. permeability) … Describe the natural organic carbon (or organic matter) content in soil … Describe the soil lithology (i. 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.

slab-at-grade). basement. the plan location. … 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.. 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. indicate percentage for each type Depth below grade to base of foundation Foundation construction for both floor and subsurface walls (e. long-term due to pumping) … Describe the hydrostratigraphic units and shallow groundwater flow system. Estimate distances for soil. if combination of foundations. seasonal.. wood) General condition of foundation (cracks.g.. concrete. brick. indicate the type of utility. industrial) … Approximate age of building … Describe characteristics of the building ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Size of building Number of storeys Height of storeys Foundation type (e. groundwater flow direction. recreational. concrete block. hydraulic conductivity. commercial. vertical and horizontal hydraulic gradients) … Describe foundation subsoils Utilities … Identify the location of subsurface utilities. and backfill properties.g. brick) MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . institutional.. openings) Building construction (e.g. crawlspace.g. groundwater (dissolved) and NAPL contamination sources. depth. and perched water table. wood frame. poured concrete. if present … Describe hydrogeological parameters ( e. tidal.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-19… Describe the depth to groundwater and fluctuations in the water table (e..g.

air intake and exhaust units For residential buildings with forced air furnace systems. steam.e.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-20ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Elevator shafts Moisture vapour barrier below building Sumps or drains Wells inside the building Attached garage (i. ƒ MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . apartment. … Describe the HVAC system in the building including: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Type of heating system (natural gas. single family residential) Below building parking (i. or identify building. electrical) Type of air conditioning system Location of heating and air conditioning units For commercial buildings. does furnace have source of combustion air Describe sub-slab ventilation systems or moisture barriers present on existing buildings. commercial building) Chemical use and storage.. radiant. for methane) or moisture barriers below foundations. oil.and fire-code requirements for sub-slab ventilation systems (e.e..g. return air ducting..

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-21CHECK LIST FOR SOIL GAS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAMS CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 1. Is repeat soil gas testing warranted? If so. Identify objectives of the soil gas sampling. Size. consider possible temporal variations. Integrate CSM into soil gas sampling design. 6. 2. lateral) from building to contamination source zones. Are vertical profiles needed? Is biodegradation assessment needed? 7. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . distribution and extent of COCs. Potential for meteorological or seasonal factors to influence soil vapour concentrations. 5. 2. 8. Identify soil gas probe locations. 7. Identify buildings of potential concern. physical-chemical properties. 4. phase. and potential for biodegradation or biotransformation. what should monitoring frequency be? 9. 3. 3. Identification of contaminants of concern (COC). Hydrogeological information. start with soil gas characterization near contamination source zone. Information on concentration. Vadose zone properties. Are subslab soil gas probes needed? 8. Do not conduct sampling during and after heavy rain. When determining when to sample. 5. Beyond source soil gas characterization. SOIL GAS SAMPLING DESIGN (WHY. WHERE AND WHEN) 1. Are transects needed? 6. 9. Location of subsurface utilities. Distance (vertical. 4. location and type of buildings. Depth to contamination source zones.

100 to 200 ml/min).. prior to installing probe as warranted. d. Monitor the vacuum during purging. f. Test field blanks (ambient or zero air drawn through probe assembly) to evaluate whether probe materials are clean. Allow soil gas probe to equilibrate. Select sampling container or device (in conjunction with analytical procedures). b. 4. and sample tubing is clean. Calculate dead volume of probe. a. batch or individual certification of each container or device may be warranted. Purge 2 to 3 purge volumes. 5. 8. For sampling container or device supplied by laboratory. SOIL GAS SAMPLING PROCEDURES 1. Collect soil gas sample using relatively low flow rate (i. Complete soil gas probe with valve or stopcock at surface to prevent atmospheric air from entering probe. 4. 3. turn off pump and allow vacuum to dissipate. 2. Select probe materials. Install probe. Purging and sampling of probe. 3. 7. evaluate safety issues and whether integrity of building envelope and structure will be affected. Select probe type. Pumps should be accurately calibrated prior to use. Review utility locations. Reduce the flow rate if the vacuum exceeds 10 inches water. Use consistent procedures between probes at a site and record procedures. Test sampling train excluding probe for leaks and short circuiting prior to sampling as warranted. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . g. When purging is complete. Seal driven probes at ground surface. 2. 6. For subslab soil gas probes. c. 100 to 200 ml/min).e.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-22SOIL GAS PROBE INSTALLATION (HOW) 1.. Ensure sampling container or device. Use relatively low flow rate (i. 5.e. e.

Analyze field duplicate. self-consistent) and expected results based on CSM.. SOIL GAS ANALYTICAL METHODS 1. 4. Determine sampling duration and flow rate for sorbent tube sampling. Determine data quality objectives. DATA INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS 1. blank and spiked samples as warranted. 8. 5. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . Record weather conditions during sampling. 7. 2.e. Evaluate data completeness (were samples proposed actually collected and analyzed). 3. Select analytical method and sampling container and device. 6. 4. Evaluate data consistency with respect to data comparisons (i. Conduct any additional analysis needed based on program objectives. Evaluate data quality. Evaluate data quantity. laboratory duplicate. 7. Establish required detection limits based on conservative vapour intrusion dilution factors and other factors. Plot plan maps and cross sections of soil vapour (and other) data to improve data interpretation. Establish program quality assurance and quality control protocols. 3.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AI-236. Place sampling container or device in non-chilled container. Evaluate whether results reasonably representative of site conditions. 2. During sampling test integrity of probe surface seal using tracer as warranted.

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.g. Sources of compiled physical-chemical properties include: (1) US EPA MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . The theoretical soil vapour concentration (Cv) is the greater of the concentration predicted for partitioning from a NAPL and dissolved contamination source (Exhibit 1). MOEE (2009) should be consulted for physical-chemical data. This is based on recent empirical attenuation factor data that indicates the 90th to 95th percentile subslab vapour attenuation factor is equal to about 0.1. soil. The toxicity reference values (TRVs) should be obtained from sources approved by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1996a) to account for exposure via other pathways (e. an attenuation factor of 0. or where there is nonrepresentative soil vapour measurements (USEPA. If not available. For the calculation of target air concentration. Shiu and Ma (2006). consumer products). While the USEPA (2002) used a subslab to indoor air attenuation factor of 0.02 is considered to be a reasonably conservative value for screening purposes. defined below. 2007.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -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. and thus indoor air impacts are not expected. 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). Golder. the recommended primary sources of physical-chemical parameters are those provided by Mackay. food. The soil allocation factor (SAF) should be set equal to the value assumed for the derivation of the generic standards (MOEE.. the rationale being that background concentrations for many chemicals are highly variable and not well established. 2007). Montgomery (2006) and Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) CHEMFATE database. for chemicals with data. it is recommended that the background concentration be set equal to zero for all chemicals.

epa. The screening process described above is relatively conservative in that a number of semi-volatile or essentially non-volatile chemicals (e. Oak Ridge Operations (ORO) Office.3. three and four-ring polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds and polychlorinated biphenyls) are identified as potential chemicals of concern.7x10-6).gov/opptintr/exposure/pubs/episuitedl. (2) US EPA Region 9 2 . (4) U.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/files/04physchem.pdf http://webbook. Office of Environmental Management. Commerce Department) 3 .htm All Henry’s Law constants from Health Canada Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA) spreadsheet (June 2008) MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . This work is not yet published. A threshold equal to a Henry’s Law Constant of 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol results in chemicals such as naphthalene (4.8x10-4) as being identified as volatile.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-2Superfund Johnson and Ettinger Spreadsheet 1 . (3) Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS). 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.htm (V. BC Environmental Laboratory Quality Assurance Advisory Committee In Summer 2008.epa.05 Torr.nist. National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.2x10-4) 5 and fluorene (7. 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.S. Mark Hugdahl (July 8. Department of Energy (DOE).epa.S..g. 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. EPIWIN Suite–PcKoc developed by Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) for USEPA 4 . but not chemicals such as pyrene (9.1 (February 2004)) http://www. 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 database of toxicity factor and physical-chemical parameters maintained by the U.1x10-6) and benzo(a)anthracene (5.gov/chemistry/ http://www.S. but a presentation by Mr. 1 2 3 4 5 http://www. and (5) Montgomery (2006).gov/oswer/riskassessment/airmodel/johnson_ettinger.

Although eventually soil vapour profiles will theoretically reach a steady state profile as sorption sites are filled. With respect to n-alkane compounds. concentrations in soil vapour drop off significantly for alkanes heavier than n-C13. Equilibrium conditions may never be reached if there is an insufficient mass of chemicals or biodegradation occurring. 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). 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. the organic carbon content in soil. and never above 25%. they were usually found at concentrations that were below 2. acenaphthene and fluorine). tridecane (n-C13) is identified as the cut-off for volatile substances. • Functionally. • A review of soil vapour data for semi-volatile analyses indicated at sites where PAHs heavier than methyl-naphthalenes were identified (acenaphthylene.e. but not PAHs with higher molecular weights.5% of the naphthalene concentrations. The rate at which chemicals will move in subsurface will be dependent on the chemical. The vapour pressure is considered to be a more effective measure of total volatility for screening purposes. For example. Organic chemicals that are near neutral (i. the approximate time to reach steady state conditions for vapour transport within a soil MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . the review of soil vapour data revealed that the nc13 to n-C16 fraction was 2-4% of the total volatile organic fraction.. 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. 1-methylnaphthalene and 2methylnaphthane as being identified as volatile substances. With respect to n-alkane fractions. soil moisture and transport distance. A brief review of Golder Associates project files suggests similar trends as those described above. but non detect concentrations of heavier molecular weight PAHs including 2-methylnaphthalene. organic carbon-chemical (Koc) partitioning coefficient. Mobility Considerations The above approaches do not consider the potential mobility of chemicals in the subsurface. but very low solubilities. Since the regulatory framework for this guidance assumes at least 1 m of unimpacted soil between the building and contamination source.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-3• A threshold based on Henry’s Law constant alone is considered impractical. there is at least a 1 m buffer for sorption to occur. this process can be relatively slow. the above criteria results in naphthalene. For one-dimensional transient soil vapour transport by diffusion and sorption. On average.

A relatively dry sand soil was assumed with a water-filled porosity equal to 0. when volatility and mobility considerations are applied. combined with observations from soil vapour data from sites.5% (Tables 1 to 3). Deff is the effective diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec). The model predictions suggest that the mobility of polycylic aromatic hydrocarbon vapours will be low. This functionally results in 1.05 Torr.and 2-methylnaphthalene being the volatile cut-off for PAHs and tridecane for straight chain aliphatic hydrocarbon compounds.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-4column. ρb is the bulk dry density (g/cm3). For a transport distance of 1 m and relatively low fraction organic carbon of 0. The time to reach steady state conditions was evaluated for transport distances of 1 m and 5 m. Koc is the organic carbon –water partitioning coefficient (cm3/g). It may be possible to further refine lists of COPCs through consideration of relative volatility and toxicity for different contaminant types or mixtures.1% and 0. but is a few years for chemicals such as naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene (Table 1).33. for sites with coal-tar and MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . L is the transport distance (cm). For example. Although there is no simple threshold that can easily be applied. Dw is the water diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec). Da is the free air diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec). / θ 2 [4] Where τss is the time to steady state (sec). and fraction organic carbons of 0. θa is the air-filled porosity (dimensionless). the time to reach steady state conditions is a few days for chemicals such as vinyl chloride. a reasonable threshold may be a Henry’s Law constant of 1x10-5 atm-m3/mol and vapour pressure of 0.. 1999). θw is the water-filled porosity (dimensionless). Summary A number of approaches have been developed to identify COPCs for the vapour intrusion pathway. Kd is the soil-water partitioning coefficient (cm3/g). 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. 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.055 (Health Canada default for SCS Sand). decane and tetrachloroethene.1%. / θ 2 + Dw/H’ * θw 3. H’ is the dimensionless form of the Henry’s Law constant. θ is the total porosity (dimensionless). τss = Rv θa L2 / Deff Rv = 1 + ρbKd/(θaH’) + θw/( θaH’) Kd = Koc * foc [1] [2] [3] Deff = Da * θa 3.33. Rv is the retardation coefficient (dimensionless).

69E-02 7.9 10.90E-02 5.474096 200 3.026 Rv (-) 1. Soil properties assumed were based on SCS Sand.24 98 197 1. Tridecane .017 0.312673 2. foc = 0.225 0.Koc assumed to be equal to decane.0 9.23E-05 1.32E-03 16.375.87 1.02 5011. Peter Grathwohl (HGC II 2006 lecture notes).20E-06 9.1% Chemical Da 2 Dw 2 Deff 2 Koc 3 H' (-) 3.75E-06 1.40E-02 9.and 2-methylnaphthalene would likely capture most compounds of potential concern for the vapour intrusion pathway.02 5011.00E-02 7. except for decane where H' is from Dr. Soil properties assumed were based on SCS Sand. and Koc for decane from Montgomery (2006).69E-02 7.017 0. Tridecane . Peter Grathwohl (HGC II 2006 lecture notes). naphthalene. styrene.079459 3.80E-06 7.87 Notes: All physical-chemical parameters were from Health Canada PQRA spreadsheet. with total porosity = 0.22E-02 1. with total porosity = 0.08 0.97E-03 1. Table 1.32 and soil bulk density = 1.15E-02 1.80E-06 7. foc = 0.423 79.079459 59 3.552 Τss (days) 2.5959 50118.22E-02 1.50E-06 7.7 8. trimethylbenzenes.Koc assumed to be equal to decane.4328 1122.06E-01 5.7 275.00E-05 8. Da and Dw assumed to be equal to CCME C10-12 aliphatic fraction properties.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-5creosote contamination. except for decane where H' is from Dr.026 Rv (-) Τss (days) (cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /g) Vinyl chloride Tridecane (n-C13) Decane (n-C10) Tetrachloroethene Benzene Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene 1.65 g/cm3 Table 2.4284 1001.4284 34590 1001. water-filled porosity = 0.00E-02 7.41E-03 8.50E-06 7.32E-03 16. a list of COPCs that consists of BTEX.32 and soil bulk density = 1.06E-01 5.055.7 50118.7 50118.23E-05 1.5959 50118.584224 351.00E-02 5.7 275.40E-02 9.312673 269 2.4328 1122.97E-03 1.20E-06 9.055.80E-02 5. water-filled porosity = 0.1% Chemical Da 2 Dw 2 Deff 2 Koc 3 H' (-) 3. and Koc for decane from Montgomery (2006).00E-05 8. air-filled porosity = 0.65 g/cm3 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .41E-03 8.375.97E-03 7.423 79.00E-05 1.00E-05 1. Compounds heavier than naphthalenes would likely contribute very small additional risk relative to that represented by the lighter molecular weight compounds.24 98 197 1. Estimated Time to Steady State .552 111422 Notes: All physical-chemical parameters were from Health Canada PQRA spreadsheet.90E-02 5.80E-02 5.15E-02 1.20E-02 8.75E-06 1.584224 237 351.20E-02 8. air-filled porosity = 0.225 0.474096 3. Estimated Time to Steady State .63874 423 2.5 1384 4457 (cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /g) Vinyl chloride Tridecane (n-C13) Decane (n-C10) Tetrachloroethene Benzene Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene 1.00E-02 5.97E-03 7.4 16. Da and Dw assumed to be equal to CCME C10-12 aliphatic fraction properties.Transport Distance of 1 m.08 0. 1.63874 2.Transport Distance of 5 m.

06E-01 5. except for decane where H' is from Dr. foc = 0.00E-02 7.69E-02 7.65 g/cm3 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .559874 878 7. Da and Dw assumed to be equal to CCME C10-12 aliphatic fraction properties.23E-05 1.185104 65 14. Peter Grathwohl (HGC II 2006 lecture notes).20E-06 9.18669 1648 7.375.7 50118.5% Chemical Da 2 Dw 2 Deff 2 Koc 3 H' (-) 3. and Koc for decane from Montgomery (2006).97E-03 1.80E-02 5.733908 624 10.50E-06 7.701 168575 4977.225 0.22E-02 1.20E-02 8.5959 50118.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-6Table 3.41E-03 8.00E-05 8.24 98 197 1.40E-02 9.055.423 79.02 5011. Estimated Time to Steady State .00E-02 5. water-filled porosity = 0.87 1.316 553722 Notes: All physical-chemical parameters were from Health Canada PQRA spreadsheet.017 0.Koc assumed to be equal to decane.00E-05 1.97E-03 7.75E-06 1.7 275.80E-06 7.32 and soil bulk density = 1.15E-02 1.32E-03 16.86557 717 1712. Tridecane .08 0.90E-02 5. Soil properties assumed were based on SCS Sand. air-filled porosity = 0.Transport Distance of 5 m. with total porosity = 0.026 Rv (-) Τss (days) (cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /sec) (cm /g) Vinyl chloride Tridecane (n-C13) Decane (n-C10) Tetrachloroethene Benzene Naphthalene 2-Methylnaphthalene 1.4328 1122.

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) MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 273oC + T(oC)) H’ = Dimensionless Henry’s Law Constant S = Pure chemical aqueous solubility (mg/L) UCF1 = Unit Conversion Factor (mg/g) UCF2 = Unit Conversion Factor (L/m3) Ca = Concentration in air (mg/m3) 2.21x10-5 288 Chemical specific Chemical specific 1. use IR and BW for adult for COPC screening purposes. Estimate Maximum Vapour Concentration NAPL Present: No NAPL Present: Maximum Vapour Concentration: Parameter Cv NAPL CvNAPL = UCF1 * MW*P/(R*T) Cv NO NAPL = UCF2 * S * H’ Cv = Max (CvNAPL. Cv NO NAPL) Default 3 = Vapour concentration NAPL is present (mg/m ) Calculated Calculated Chemical specific Chemical specific 8.000 Calculated Cv NO NAPL = Vapour concentration NAPL not present (mg/m3) MW = Molecular weight (g/mole) P = Pure chemical vapour pressure (atm) R = Gas constant (m3-atm/K-mole ) T = Absolute temperature (K.02 3.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-7EXHIBIT 1. SCREENING PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF CHEMICAL IS VOLATILE AND TOXIC 1. 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. Calculate Maximum Indoor Air Concentration Cair = Cv * α where α = 0.000 1.

7 Chemical Specific 1.8 16.0 Chemical specific 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.5 70.0 Chemical Specific 9. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AII-8- Parameter CairT = Target concentration of contaminant in air (mg/m3) Cb = background air concentration (mg/m ) DRIHV = Dose rate from inhalation of volatiles (mg/kg(BW)-day) ILCRT = Target incremental lifetime cancer risk (dimensionless) HQT = Target hazard quotient SF = Slope factor (mg/kg-day)-1 IR = Receptor air intake rate (m3/day) (toddler non carcinogens) IR = Receptor air intake rate (m3/day) (adult carcinogens) BW Body weight (kg) (toddler non carcinogens) BW = Body weight (kg) (adult carcinogens) UR = Unit risk factor (mg/m3)-1 ET = Fraction of time exposed (dimensionless) TCair = Tolerable concentration in air (mg/m ) 4. Determine if Chemical is Volatile and Sufficiently Toxic 3 3 Default Calculated Zero Calculated 10-6 1.3 15.

02 ug/m3 (0.002-0.5-500 ug/m3 (0.4-2.5 ppbv) 0. 10A VOC GC/FID SVOC GC/MS TO-12 NMOC FID USEPA 1999 TO-13A 3 TO-14A PAH VOC (nonpolar) VOC (polar/nonpol ar) VOC GC/MS USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999 USEPA 2000b USEPA 1999 OSHA (2000) NIOSH (1994) GC/MS TO-15 GC/MS GC/MS/S IM GC/MS.5 ppbv) 200 .400.2 .400 ug/ m3 5 Method GC/MS or GC/FID GC/MS Stability Reference USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999 USEPA 1999 TO-2 3 VOC TO-3 TO-9A.0.2 . solvent extraction sorbent.20 ug/m3 (0.6 .000 ug/m3 (100-200.2-2.5 ppbv) 1 .20 ug/m3 (0.02 .400 ug/m3 (0. FID GC/MS.04 ppbv) 0.4-2.600 ppbv) 0.400 ug/m3 (0.4 .1-200 ppbv) 1 .DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AIII-1APPENDIX III SELECTED LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS Method No.5 ppbv) 30 days 0. solvent extraction Detection Limit2 0.20 ug/m3 5 (0.000 ppbvC) 0.2-2.4 .2-2. Tedlar Bag (Cryotrap) Polyurethan e foam (PUF) Canister or on-line Polyurethan e foam (PUF) Speciallytreated canister Speciallytreated canister Speciallytreated canister Single/multi -bed adsorbent sorbent.200 ug/m3 (0.20 ug/m5 (0. TO-1 3 Type of Compounds VOC Collection Device Tenax® solid sorbent Molecular sieve sorbent Canister.20 ug/m3 (0.1-200 ppbv) 0.005 .5 ppbv) 100 . FID GC/FID TO-15A 30 days TO-17 3 Modified OSHA 7 Modified NIOSH 1550 VOC 30 days VOC Hydrocarbon fractions 14 days 30 days 4 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .01-100 ppbv) 0.4 .

50 ug/m3 (0.29. Glass vials Tedlar Bag. Glass vials Tedlar Bag. the indicated methods utilize a trapping-type sampling method and relation of results to air-borne concentrations may not be possible. Canister. CH4. BP 36°-216 °C” and NIOSH 1501 “Hydrocarbons.000 ppbv) 4. Method 3C Method 16 8015B/80 51D Type of Compounds N2. 4 Taken from NIOSH 1500 “Hydrocarbons. Canister. C2H6. Glass vials Tedlar Bag.000 ug/m3 (10.000 ppbv) 800 . Canister. Larger volumes can be collected to improve sensitivity. O2. Canister.000 ug/m3 (10. CO2.10.60 ug/m3 (0. Canister. O2.3 ppbv to 30 ppbv) 10. and CH4 H2S Collection Device Canister Tedlar Bag. 3 To achieve high sensitivity. Other proprietary or unpublished methods may also apply. Aromatic”. Detection limits shown are for the range of compounds reported by the analytical methods. Some methods may be more applicable in certain instances.700 ug/m3 (50 ppbv) 300 .000 . 5 Based on a sample volume of 50L. Glass vials Tedlar Bag.3000 ug/m3 (100 . CO2.6 ppbv to 25 ppbv) 1.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AIII-2- Method No. 2 Detection limits are compound specific and can depend upon the sample collection and the nature of the sample. CO.000 ug/m3 (20.150.18.000 ppbv) Reference USEPA 2002a USEPA 2002a USEPA 1998 USEPA 1998 USEPA 1998 USEPA 1998 ASTM 2003 GC/TCD GC/FPD TPH/VOC GC/FPD 8021B VOC GC/PID 8260B VOC GC/MS 8270C SVOC GC/MS D194503 natural gases and mixtures H2.000 ppbv) 100 . Canister.0 . Glass vials Method Stability Detection Limit2 20. Glass vials Tedlar Bag.000 ug/m3 (10. Glass vials Tedlar Bag.000 ppbv to 100. Canister. 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 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .000 ppbv) 800 . 1 This is not an exhaustive list.0 . and C2H4 GC/TCD D194690(2000) GC/TCD ASTM 1990 Notes: Adapted from API (2005).

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AIII-3PAH = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons NMOC = Non-methane organic compounds SVOC = Semi-volatile organic compounds Hydrocarbon Fractions include TVOC C6-10. differences in MS operation (i. 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. For the aliphatic/aromatic subfractions. Although quantitative studies have been limited. The F2 is typically calculated against decane response as a full scan GC/MS peak. 2001) and consist of the F1 (C6-C10) and F2 (C10-C16) fractions. one option is identify the peaks as being 1 In some cases C>16-C21 is also quantified. full scan versus selective ion mode (SIM)) and the number of and specific ions selected for quantification and calibration will influence the analytical results. When GC/MS is used for analysis of hydrocarbon fractions.. although the vapour-phase concentrations within this carbon range tend to be negligible. TVOC C10-19. Unfortunately. C>10-C12 and C>12-C16 1 . GC/MS analysis must be performed to obtain the aromatic and aliphatic subfractions. and F2 as between the apex of the decane and hexadecane peaks. C>10-C12 and C>12-C16. C>8-C10. This is a slight deviation from CCME (2001). The hydrocarbon fractions are described in the Canada Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon Compounds (CCME.e. ethylbenzene and xylenes (TEX) and therefore is sometimes not quantified MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 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. however. 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. and aliphatic and aromatic subfractions. C>8-C10. The aromatic fractions of interest are C>7-C8 2 . Therefore the response of decane only is often used to calibrate for the F2 fraction. which indicates the average of the decane and hexadecane response should be used. The aliphatic fractions of interest are C6-C8. 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. 2 This fraction is comprised mostly of toluene. CCME (2001) defines F1 as the total area summation between the apex of the hexane and decane peaks. CCME CWS-PHC fractions for F1 and F2. laboratories find it is difficult to generate and maintain a known vapour concentration of hexadecane. Canisters and Sorbent Tubes (Thermal Desorption Method) When canisters (USEPA TO-15) or thermal tubes (USEPA TO-17) are used. which may vary significantly between analytical laboratories depending on the method used.

DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE -AIII-4aromatic or aliphatic and then add full scan peak areas (not area summation) of the aliphatic and aromatic peaks within their respective carbon number ranges. While CCME (2001) clearly defines the F1 and F2 fractions. respectively. After adding the carbon disulphide to the column. The n-hexane peak should be included in the analysis considering it has a relatively high toxicity. The first implies including the n-hexane peak in the area summation. References Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 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. Publication No. This has lead to variable and uncertain definitions. One method commonly used by laboratories in Canada involves fractionation of the carbon disulphide extract (i. sample) using a micro-silica gel column. Reference Method for Canada-Wide Standards for Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PHC) in Soil – Tier 1 Method. MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 . 2001. the column is successively eluted with pentane and a pentane/dichloromethane (60:40) mixture to collect the aliphatic and aromatic fractions. for example. 1310. the C6-C8 aliphatic fraction is referenced as either C6-C8 or >C6-C8. aromatics against toluene..e. Aliphatic subfractions are quantified against the full mass spectra response of n-hexane.e. The second implies excluding n-hexane.. Sorbent Tubes that are Solvent Extracted Sorbent tubes that are extracted with a solvent such as carbon disulphide (i. modified industrial hygiene methods) allow fractionation using silica gel columns and analysis using GC/FID methods. 2001. no such guidelines exist for subfractions. Winnipeg. Each fraction is analyzed by GC/FID method for quantification.

Reg. As such.75E-01 5.25E+00 1.33E+01 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .97E+02 7.00E+00 1.01E+02 6.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 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).00E+00 4.1Dichloroethylene.1Dichloroethane.55E-03 5.29E+02 8.28E-02 1. 1.15E+02 6.25E+02 2. 153/04 as amended.01E+02 5.2Dichloroethylene.81E-03 2.2-cisDichloropropane.09E-03 2. Brownfields Regulation Health-Based Indoor Air Criteria Industrial CommercialCommunity µg/m3 8.13E+01 8.63E-03 1. 1. the risk assessor may consult the MOE for advice on appropriate screening levels for the specific case. 1.17E-01 2.67E-03 1.24E-03 2. Section 2.48E+01 5. 153/04. In such situations.31E+02 9. 1.36E-04 6.18E-03 9.25E+01 1.94E-01 1.15E+02 1.78E-01 3. 1.37E-03 2. The health-based indoor air criteria below are presented to assist the evaluation of indoor air contamination resulting from subsurface vapour intrusion in Brownfields.62E-02 4.34E+02 2.20E+01 1.2-transDichloroethylene.40E+00 1.50E+03 5.34E-01 Acetone Benzene Bromoform Bromomethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroform Cyanide (CN-) Dichlorobenzene.43E+00 7.7.72E+00 4.86E+00 CHEMICAL NAME Henry's (atm-m3/mol) at 15oC Vapour Pressure (mm Hg) Residential µg/m3 2.3.89E+01 2.10E-01 1.44E+01 4.01E+01 1.2- 3.96E-05 5.06E-01 1.11E-03 3. This approach was developed to calculate the generic soil and ground water standards according to the specific objectives and assumptions of O.77E-02 3.58E+03 1.2Dichlorobenzene. 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.63E+00 3.07E+02 2.09E+02 2.27E+02 7.46E+01 3.38E-01 4. 1.18E+02 1. The objectives and assumptions incorporated in the development of these indoor air target levels are specific to O.47E+00 1.62E+03 1. 1. 1.42E+02 1. Reg.33E-04 1.74E+00 2.92E-03 2.67E+00 1.29E+01 5.41E-03 5.4Dichloroethane.01E+00 1.

40E+01 9.95E-02 5.55E+02 2.63E-03 1.96E-03 1.87E-04 3.06E-02 2.67E+00 2.38E+01 1.80E+00 4.84E+01 4.86E+02 4.89E-03 1.10E-01 1.78E-01 2.79E+03 3.03E-02 3.65E+02 1.46E+02 Dichloropropene.1.68E-04 1.2.40E+00 1.35E+02 8.98E+03 7.79E+03 3.86E-03 2.85E-03 5.09E+02 6.58E+02 1.50E-02 4.80E+00 4.16E-02 1.21E+02 9.24E+02 2.72E+00 7.25E-04 9.01E+02 Residential µg/m3 2. 1.60E+00 1.79E+02 3.25E-03 4.84E+01 7.58E+03 5.90E+01 2.15E+02 2.80E+01 4.83E-01 6.43E-03 2.33E+01 1.1.30E+01 6.77E-02 6.80E+00 5.65E+00 2.67E-04 1.22E+00 1.06E-01 5.20E-01 2.78E-01 5.3Ethylbenzene Ethylene dibromide Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachloroethane Hexane (n) Methyl Ethyl Ketone Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE) Methylene Chloride Naphthalene Petroleum Hydrocarbons F1 Aliphatic C6-C8 C>8-C10 Aromatic C>8-C10 Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 Aliphatic C>10-C12 Aromatic C>10-C12 Styrene Tetrachloroethane.01E+02 5.02E+02 1.04E+02 5.72E-02 8.94E+00 3.00E+03 6.63E-03 3.79E+03 1.92E-02 5.42E+01 1.80E-01 4.29E+04 1.56E-01 1.4Trichloroethane.85E+01 2. 1.63E-01 8.50E-01 1.12E+01 2.60E-01 1.42E-03 3.17E-02 2.2Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Trichlorobenzene.23E-01 1.38E-04 5.58E+02 3. 1.2Tetrachloroethane.00E+03 6.74E-03 2.13E+03 3.1.1Trichloroethane.04E+02 1.72E-01 6.07E+02 5.55E-03 7.26E-01 1.51E+02 9.59E+03 5.79E-02 6.99E+00 MOE Technical Guidance: Soil Vapour Intrusion Assessment 2010 .96E+00 1.2Trichloroethylene Vinyl Chloride Xylene Mixture 3.28E+00 4.04E+03 1.88E-03 6.01E+02 1.21E+02 1.2.80E-01 6.50E+02 4.99E+01 2.70E-05 1.79E+00 4.94E-01 1.21E+02 1.40E-04 1. 1.42E-03 1.21E+02 1.20E+01 1.06E+01 1.02E+02 4.1. 1.1.DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE AIV-2 CHEMICAL NAME Henry's (atm-m3/mol) at 15oC Vapour Pressure (mm Hg) Brownfields Regulation Health-Based Indoor Air Criteria Industrial CommercialCommunity µg/m3 8.21E+01 1. 1.94E-01 2.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful