Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 1833–1841

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c i t o t e n v

Environmental risk assessment of white phosphorus from the use of munitions — A

probabilistic approach
Øyvind Albert Voie ⁎, Arnt Johnsen, Arnljot Strømseng, Kjetil Sager Longva
Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Division Protection, P.O. Box 25, NO-2027 Kjeller, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: White phosphorus (P4) is a highly toxic compound used in various pyrotechnic products. Ammunitions
Received 28 August 2009 containing P4 are widely used in military training areas where the unburned products of P4 contaminate soil
Received in revised form 26 November 2009 and local ponds. Traditional risk assessment methods presuppose a homogeneous spatial distribution of
Accepted 4 January 2010
pollutants. The distribution of P4 in military training areas is heterogeneous, which reduces the probability of
Available online 21 January 2010
potential receptors being exposed to the P4 by ingestion, for example. The current approach to assess the
environmental risk from the use of P4 suggests a Bayesian network (Bn) as a risk assessment tool. The
Keywords:
White phosphorus
probabilistic reasoning supported by a Bn allows us to take into account the heterogeneous distribution of P4.
Environmental risk assessment Furthermore, one can combine empirical data and expert knowledge, which allows the inclusion of all kinds
Pollution of data that are relevant to the problem. The current work includes an example of the use of the Bn as a risk
Bayesian network assessment tool where the risk for P4 poisoning in humans and grazing animals at a military shooting range
in Northern Norway was calculated. P4 was detected in several craters on the range at concentrations up to
5.7 g/kg. The risk to human health was considered acceptable under the current land use. The risk for grazing
animals such as sheep, however, was higher, suggesting that precautionary measures may be advisable.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Thomas have reported on the lethal poisoning of sheep as a result of

White phosphorus (P4) is used in ammunition such as mortar,
artillery shells, and grenades. When ammunitions containing P4 strike
a target area, they burn and produce smoke. In military operations, the
smoke screen is used to protect potential targets, disorient the enemy,
and conceal the movement of personnel and materiel. Ammunitions
containing P4 are widely used in military training areas where
unburned P4 contaminate soil and local ponds. Investigations show
that up to 8% of the P4 may remain unburned (Spanggord et al., 1985).
P4 is extremely poisonous to various organisms, and incidents of death
among humans, mammals, birds and fish as a result of having ingested
it have been reported (Diaz-Rivera et al., 1950; Stewart and Thomas,
1930; Adams et al., 1942; Racine et al., 1992; Sparling et al., 1997;
Jangaard, 1972). A cause of mortality among birds is now known to be
due to ingestion of P4 in the sediments of shallow marsh ponds
(Racine et al., 1992). Particulate P4 appears to be the major risk to
waterfowl feeding in the sediments (Roebuck et al., 1998). At Eagle
River Flats in Alaska, P4 has also been found to be a potential threat to
predators of birds, since high contents of P4 have been measured in
dead and live birds (Roebuck et al., 1998). In 1930, Stewart and
⁎ Corresponding author. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment Division Protec-
tion, P.O. Box 25, N-2027 Kjeller, Norway. Tel.: +47 63807824; fax: +47 63807509.
E-mail addresses: oyvind-albert.voie@ffi.no (Ø.A. Voie), arnt.johnsen@ffi.no
(A. Johnsen), arnljot.stromseng@ffi.no (A. Strømseng), kjetil.longva@ffi.no
(K.S. Longva).
grazing in areas formerly used for artillery practice where residues of
P4 remain present in the soil. Dead musk oxen have been observed
and reported on a shooting range in Norway whereby the cause of
death was due to P4 poisoning (Tørnes, 1988). Most cases of poisoning
illustrate single episodes. Shooting ranges in Norway are managed
according to multi-purpose plans, whereby shooting ranges may also
be used for recreation and grazing. Whether these ranges pose a risk
to humans and grazing animals has not been considered previously.
Traditionally, environmental risk assessments are performed
according to standardized technical guidance documents (e.g. European
Commission, 1996). The environmental risks are typically estimated in a
deterministic way using point estimates for both exposure and input
parameters. In reality, the outcome of such risk assessment is subject to
uncertainty and variability (Van Sprang et al., 2004). In addition, there is
one assumption that renders the classical procedures inappropriate for
the current problem. The classical procedures assume a homogeneous
spatial distribution of pollutants. However, the spatial distribution of P4
in firing ranges is highly heterogeneous. Heterogeneous distribution of
contaminants represents a different kind of risk for exposure than
homogeneous distribution, since the probability of a person or an
animal being exactly at the polluted location strongly affects the
calculated risk. This might be overcome by using probabilistic reasoning.
This approach is new in the area of risk assessment.
Probabilistic reasoning is a consistent and coherent method for
describing uncertain causal knowledge and for updating it with new
data. It relies on probability distributions such as density, in contrast

0048-9697/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.01.002
1834 Ø.A. Voie et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 1833–1841
to single numbers (Ricci et al., 2003). Probabilistic approaches can
cover both the uncertainty in the estimation and the true variability
observed for most environmental variables (Zolezzi et al., 2005).
Concerning environmental risk assessment, probabilistic approaches
have been employed with success on several occasions (Liao and
Chiang, 2006; Fan et al., 2005; Solomon et al., 2000; Reiss and Griffin,
2006; Zolezzi et al., 2005). Probabilistic risk assessment differs from
the deterministic approach by allowing one or more input parameters
to assume different values following a probabilistic distribution.
Hence, the output of the risk assessment is a range of risks
experienced by the various members of the population of concern.
This enables the stakeholder to quantify uncertainties in the
prediction of risk (Fan et al., 2005). While most probabilistic
approaches utilise Monte Carlo simulations, the current study
employs a Bayesian network (Bn). Bn's have the property of being
able to combine discrete and continuous variables and to combine
empirical data with expert judgment. Furthermore, Bn's allow a range
of different factors to be linked together based on probabilistic
dependencies, while simultaneously providing a framework within
which the contributions of stakeholders can be taken into account
(Bromley et al., 2005). Bn's have in this respect been proven useful in
ecology for evaluating fish and wildlife populations, the management
of deer forests and in eutrophication (Marcot et al., 2001; Tremblay
et al., 2004; Borsuk et al., 2004). For an introduction to Bn's and the
relevant literature, see Castelletti and Soncini-Sessa (2006).
2. Subjects and methods
2.1. Study location
To demonstrate the use of Bn as a tool for risk assessment of P4,
Mauken shooting range in Troms, Northern Norway, was chosen as
the object of study. The shooting range is open for recreation as well as
grazing. Mauken shooting range has been used by Skjold Garrison
since the early fifties. Three types of shells containing P4 have been
used during exercises here: 155 mm artillery shells containing 7.1 kg
P4, 81 mm mortar shells containing 1.89 kg P4, and 81 mm mortar
shells containing 0.71 kg P4. There is no complete firing record for the
range, which makes it difficult to determine how many shells of a
specific kind have been used; however, officers who have frequently
used the area have provided estimates of the annual use of P4.
2.2. Exposure and toxicity
Humans can be exposed to P 4 through oral ingestion of
contaminated soil, consumption of contaminated water, or by direct
skin contact with the substance. Skin contact might cause chemical
burns, and can be fatal if the exposed area is large (Chou et al., 2001).
However, skin contact with remnants of P4 in the soil is anticipated to
produce less severe burns. Due to the high toxicity of P4, ingestion of
small amounts can be fatal. There are two premises whereby an
unfortunate consequence might occur as result of oral ingestion of soil
or water from the shooting range. The first is that soil or water from a
contaminated hot spot must be ingested. The other is that the
concentration of P4 in the ingested soil or water must exceed the
threshold for toxic effects.
The event of P4 causing an adverse effect in humans depends upon
the dose and the duration of exposure. If the duration of exposure is
short, a higher dose is generally needed to cause an effect. The literature
provides several studies where reported incidents of P4 poisoning range
from acute to chronic exposure (ATSDR, 1997). Acute exposure is most
often understood in the studies to constitute an exposure time of less or
equal to 14 d (ATSDR, 1997). The lowest dose that was observed to
cause an effect was 0.2 mg/kg/d in a study of impaired liver functions in
dogs exposed once a day for 14 d (ATSDR, 1997).
2.3. Environmental sampling and chemical analysis
Taking statistical representative environmental samples of a
heterogeneous distributed contaminant in a vast shooting range
represents a challenge. If soil samples are collected by using a grid, no
remnants of P4 are likely to be found. The existing knowledge about
the distribution of P4 in firing ranges would suggest that soil samples
should be taken, using a judgemental approach, from the craters
created by the P4 shells in those areas of the shooting range where P4
is most likely to be found. Visual characteristics such as shell
fragments, burns, and red particles (red phosphorus) were used in
our study to identify the P4 craters. In addition, a field instrument
(AP2C from Proengin SA, France) sensitive to phosphorus was used to
detect P4 contaminated areas. An Explosive Ordnance Disposal group
and researchers from the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment
identified range hot spots. Samples of soils were taken from the
uppermost 2–3 cm of the surface with a metal scoop. This was done in
order to relate the level of P4 to the fraction of the soil that is available
for accidental uptake or ingestion by animals and humans. Three sub-
samples were taken from an area between 100 and 200 cm2; these
sub-samples were then combined to yield one sample, transferred to
bottles containing water and then analyzed. The aim of the
environmental sampling was not to gain a total overview of the
pollution, but to obtain statistical representative values of levels that
are likely to be present in the craters. Since well defined craters were
hard to locate, samples from craters in three shooting ranges in near
proximity to each other (Mauken, Blaatind and Setermoen) were
included in the study. Water samples were taken from ponds, rivers
and streams in the shooting ranges in order to measure the
concentration of P4. Analysis of P4 was carried out according to the
procedure specified in EPA method 7580 (USEPA, 1996), except for
the use of carbon disulfide as medium of extraction.
The pyrophoric nature of P4 was taken into account to design a
sampling approach that would minimize the risk of contact with skin
and clothes and emergency actions were provided in case of contact.
2.4. Bayesian network structural development
Bayesian networks are directed acyclic digraphs (DAG) that
contain no directed cycles (Charniak, 1991), but in which nodes
represent random variables and arcs the cause and effect relationship
among these variables. Each node has a conditional probability table
associated with it that quantifies in probabilistic terms how much that
node is related to its parent nodes. In order to model the risk
associated with human activity in Mauken shooting range, all
variables of relevance to the problem were connected by constructing
a Bn. The nature and the general structure of a Bn are presented
elsewhere (Castelletti and Soncini-Sessa, 2006). There are many
modelling shells available for designing and implementing Bn's. We
used Bayes Net Toolbox for MATLAB (Murphy, 2001) and Netica
Application version 1.12 from Norsys. An example of a Bn is shown in
Fig. 1. It is composed of 16 variables whereof one variable is a result
variable. The implementation of the Bn in MATLAB including all
relation tables is added in Supplementary data. The structure of the Bn
for human health risk assessment and risk assessment for grazing
animals was the same except a few differences regarding soil intake
and body weight (Figs. 3 and 4).
2.5. Data evaluation
The data on the annual use of P4 in Mauken was based on the work
of an expert panel which included officers having knowledge of where
the different defence divisions had practised live firing and the
inventory lists of these divisions (Norwegian Armed Forces, 2003).
The probability distributions were based on data spanning a period of
11 years. Some uncertainty is associated with the extrapolation of
 Ø.A. Voie et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 1833–1841
Fig. 1. Concept Bayesian network for calculation of risk associated with human activity in Mauken shooting range where shells containing white phosphorus have been used.
these data for the whole lifetime of the shooting range (50 years). The
extrapolation of the data is anticipated to be a worst case situation
since the military activity in the area increased over that period, rather
than diminished. The inventory lists show that three types of
munitions have been used (see Section 2.1), but the amount of each
munitions type that has been used over the years is unknown. Hence,
a uniform probability distribution was used for this variable.
The land cover has implications for the fate of P4 in the contaminated
area. In ponds, or humid ground where the aeration is minimal, P4 can
remain for many years (Walsh et al., 1996). When shells containing P4
are detonated, most of the P4 remnants will be found inside the crater
itself where an intermingling of the contaminant with the soil
contributes to its conservation. P4 lumps can also be spread in the
vicinity of the crater, but except for those that fall into ponds, the contact
with oxygen will make them disappear quite fast. The purpose of
including input parameters on land cover in the study was to
characterise and quantify sub-areas that have consequences for the
persistence of P4. The characterisation of land cover in the impact area
was based on maps and surveys (Løvik and Rognerud, 2007). Three sub-
areas were identified at Mauken that have different implications for the
persistence of P4 and are listed in Table 3. Studies on the persistence of P4
in soils and sediments predict that in still water with low oxygenation,
P4 will remain for 50 years and more, while P4 will disappear from
streams and rivers in a couple of days. In saturated soils and sediments
P4 will remain for 50 years and more, while in unsaturated soil it will
disappear in a couple of days. In soils/sediments that have a moisture
content that is slightly less than saturated, loss of P4 can occur, but at an
unpredictable rate (Walsh et al., 1996; Spanggord et al., 1985). Episodes
of dry weather will also lead to loss of P4 at an unpredictable rate. Three
sub-areas were identified in the impact area: ponds with saturated
sediments (no loss of P4), wetlands with saturated/unsaturated soils
(complete loss of P4 in 1 to 10 years), and other areas with unsaturated
soil (complete loss of P4 in less than 1 year). The first and the last state
are possible to infer from the data with confidence. It is more
problematic to draw any firm conclusions about the state with
intermediate loss of P4. However, an examination of the marshes in
the impact area shows that these marshes have a quite high probability
of being drained during the year. Therefore the assumption of an upper
limit of 10 years for complete loss of P4 in these marshes seems
sufficient based on experience from the current laboratory. The states
are listed in Table 3.
1835
The size of the impact area was calculated from a polygon in a digital
map and is not associated with significant uncertainty. This value was
then used to calculate the density of polluted craters. A random
distribution of P4 hot spots in the impact area was assumed. In such a
random spatial pattern the probability P(r) of finding r points in a
square sub area of a land cover a is given by the following expression;
r
ðλaÞ
PðrÞ = expð−λaÞ ; ðr = 0; 1; 2; :::; Þ ð1Þ
r!
where χ is the density (number of points per unit area) (Rogers,
1974).
Point estimates were chosen for parameters on human and sheep
weights. Standard parameters for adult and child weight, soil ingestion
and intake of water for use in risk assessment are provided by the
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (Vik et al., 1999). Distributed
parameters could have been used, but point estimates make the
interpretation easier and more comparable to other studies. In order to
follow the precautionary principle (deFur and Kaszuba, 2002; Ricci et al.,
2003) it is emphasized that these values are conservative which ensures
that the calculated risk is not underestimated. It was assumed in the
study that a person ingests soil and water from one or more places that
sum up to the point estimates given in Table 4. The daily soil intake for
sheep was based on data from Abrahams and Steigmajer (2003) and
was a distributed parameter. Abrahams and Steigmajer's observations of
the soil intake by sheep were used to create the probability distribution
for the states. No distributions were obtained for water intake and body
weight for sheep. The value of 50 kg reflects a young or small adult, and
the daily water intake of 4 L is a worst case value. Following the
precautionary principle (deFur and Kaszuba, 2002), worst case values
were used when point estimates were chosen.
Since there are no available analytical standards for white
phosphorus, standards were obtained by retrieving P4 from grenades.
A purity of 95% was assumed. The detection limits are 0.2 ng/L in water
and 0.1 µg/kg in soil. All concentrations above the detection limit are
considered to be contaminated by P4. There are no reference standards
available, so quality assurance is obtained by the analysis of control
samples spiked with P4 and analysis of blank samples. There are few
laboratories that have methods for P4 analysis, but a comparative
analysis of P4 has been performed in cooperation with the TNO
laboratory in The Netherlands with good results.
1836 Ø.A. Voie et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 1833–1841
On the basis of findings from studies of acute exposure to P4 there is
reason to believe that a onetime exposure above 0.2 mg/kg can be
acutely toxic to humans (ATSDR, 1997). In the current study chronic
exposure is defined long term exposure to the substance (from 14 d to
365 d). The lowest dose that produced an effect (increased number of
stillborn rat pups) was 0.075 mg/kg/d, while the NOAEL was 0.015 mg/
kg/d. In the current study there is reason to believe that a dose of
N0.015 mg/kg/d can produce chronic effects in humans. A chronic oral
reference dose (RfD) has been derived (0.00002 mg/kg/d) (ATSDR,
1997). There is reason to believe that a dose of NRfD could give effects
having a lifetime perspective. In order to capture the different risk levels
which in turn are based on different durations of exposure, the risk node
was discretized into the states “Acute”, “Chronic”, “LifeTimeRisk” and
“Safe”. The connection between exposure time and risk levels is shown
in Table 6.
3. Results
3.1. Estimation of the P4 source term
The use of white phosphorus in Mauken shooting range has ranged
from 12 to 1342 kg/year between 1992 and 2002 according to an expert
panel and inventory lists (Table 1). As an example of how the data are
used to create input parameters and relation tables, a relation table
based on the data in Table 1 is shown in Table 2. The data was discretised
in three states, where each state represents a range of kg P4 used per
year. The percentage of years with amount of P4 corresponding to each
state was used to calculate the probability distribution.
Since there is less data on the specific grenades used, the relation
table in Table 2 was combined with the type of shells (node named
“Type munitions” in Fig. 3) in order to calculate the number of shells
fired per year (node named “shells fired/y” in Fig. 3). The calculation
was based on knowledge of the content of P4 in each type of grenade.
Also here the continuous variable was discretized into states of
different ranges, where the number of data corresponding to each
state (or range) was used to calculate the probability distribution. The
data is converted to the probability of a state being true based on the
states of the preceding nodes. This is performed by editing a relation
table attached to each node. The relation table of the node “shells
fired/y” is shown in Table 3.
3.2. Persistence of P4 in the environment, and density of hot spots
In Table 4, the persistence of P4 in different land covers is summarised
up. From the data two nodes were created (nodes named “Land cover”
and “Persistence in soil”, Fig. 3). The node “Land cover” comprises the
states “Wetlands”, “Open water”, and “Other”, where the percentage of
land cover in the impact area determines the probability distribution. The
node “Persistence in soil” consists of the different ranges of persistence
presented in Table 4. Due to the exact correspondence with the states in
“Land cover” it has the same probability distribution. These data were
combined with the number of shells fired per year and the age of the
shooting range (50 years) to estimate the number of hot spots in the area
(“Age of shooting range”, and “Number of hot spots” in Fig. 3). In order to
create a relation table, the data was used as follows: if the state of the node
“Persistence of soil”=b1 year and the state of the node “Age of shooting
range”=50 years, and “shells fired/y”=0–100, then the state of the node
“Numbers of hot spots”=0–100 since all the P4 fired the previous years
have disappeared. The impact area covers about 10 km2. The size of this
Table 1
Annual use of P4 (kg) in Mauken shooting range between 1992 and 2002.
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
P4 (kg) 189 – – 1 342 12
Table 2
Annual use of P4 in Mauken shooting range adapted for a Bayesian network.
Annual use of P4 in Mauken Probability (%)
0–500 kg 55.0
500–1000 kg 33.0
1000–1500 kg 12.0
area was used to calculate the densities of hot spots (χ) (“Density of hot
spots” in Fig. 3). These data were also made discrete by using ranges of
numbers. Furthermore, the formula (1) in Section 2.5 was applied to the
ranges of densities in the node “Density of hot spots” in order to calculate
the probability of a human or a sheep ingesting soil from one or several hot
spots. The resulting node is named “Contact” in Figs. 3 and 4.
3.3. Probability of being exposed to P4 hot spots
In 2007, several samples of plants were taken from the edge of
craters in Mauken and other shooting ranges in Northern Norway and
analyzed for the presence of P4 (Gjershaug et al., 2008). No traces of P4
were found. It is considered very unlikely that P4 would be present in the
edible parts of the plants. The remaining two possible pathways for
grazers to ingest P4 from the shooting range are by directly ingesting
contaminated soil that has adhered to pasture plants or from the soil
surface, or by drinking contaminated water. Soil intake is quite high in
grazers, and has been reported to be a significant route of exposure to
metals in metal contaminated areas (Abrahams and Steigmajer, 2003;
Francoa et al., 2006; Aslibekian and Moles, 2003). The median soil intake
by sheep over the year was calculated from a study by Abrahams and
Steigmajer (2003). The node was discretised into ranges of grams of soil;
0–50, 50–100, 100–150, and 150–200 (Table 5, and node “Intake of soil
hot spot” in Fig. 4). For human adults and children, the values for soil
intake were as described in Section 2.5.
3.4. Concentration of P4 in soil and water
In order to obtain data on concentrations of P4 within the hot spots,
samples of soil from craters created by the detonation of white
phosphorus shells were collected. Water samples from craters, ponds,
streams and rivers were also taken. Immediately following the
detonation of a shell containing P4 in water, high concentrations of P4
may occur. The initial concentration is expected to decrease as the P4
particles are removed from the water column by drift or sedimentation.
Due to small water volumes, ponds can contain high concentrations of
the contaminant in their water if unburned P4 remains in the pond after
detonation. P4 has a solubility of 3 mg/L (Budavari et al., 1996). In all
water samples from ponds and streams (n = 26) the concentration of P4
was below the detection limit (0.05 µg/L). Samples from two craters
taken from another range contained 3.0 and 4.5 µg/L. Considering the
low P4 levels and the fact that few craters contain water suggest that the
intake of P4 through water will not contribute significantly to the risk.
This exposure pathway was therefore not included in the Bn.
The concentration of P4 in the soil samples from the craters ranged
from 5.7 g/kg to below detection limit (Fig. 2). Samples that did not
contain P4 were probably older and dryer craters where all the P4 had
already disappeared or where there had never been any P4 in the
craters at all. These were not included in the Bn. The results were used
to create a node for different ranges of concentrations (Table 6), and
the node “P4 conc. in soil” in Fig. 3. Based on the daily intake of soil
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
492 558 578 300 223 743
 Ø.A. Voie et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 1833–1841 1837

Table 3
Relation table to the node “shells fired/y” based on the content of P4 in the 81 mm 1, 81 mm 2 and 155 mm of 0.71, and 1.89 and 7.1 kg, respectively.

ammo kg P4/y 0–100 100–500 500–1000 1000–1500 1500–2000 2000–2500

81 mm 1 0–500 14.0 57.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

81 mm 1 500–1000 0.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 0.0 0.0
81 mm 1 1000–1500 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.0 71.0 16.0
81 mm 2 0–500 38.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
81 mm 2 500–1000 0.0 89.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
81 mm 2 1000–1500 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
155 mm 0–500 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
155 mm 500–1000 43.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
155 mm 1000–1500 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 4 3.6. Calculating the risk

Estimated persistence of P4 under various environmental conditions found in Mauken
shooting range based on data from Spanggord et al. (1985), and Walsh et al. (1996).
Exact calculations of the risks were performed in MATLAB, and are
Condition % of total area Persistence (year) shown in Table 7. These calculations show that the risk for acute and
Ponds and marsh with saturated soil/sediment 2 N 50 chronic poisoning is rather low for humans, while somewhat higher
Marsh/soil saturated/unsaturated 5 1–10 for sheep. The node “Contact” in Figs. 3 and 4 is close to zero which
Dry ground, unsaturated 93 ∼1 shows that the heterogeneous distribution of P4 greatly influences the
calculated risk.
Bayesian networks are used to treat uncertainty explicitly. As an
example of how uncertainty associated with the input parameters is
Table 5 propagated down the network, consider the node “Type munitions”. If
Standard parameters for human soil ingestion and intake of water for use in risk
the state of this node was known, e.g. Type munitions = 155 mm
assessment according to the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority. The daily soil
intake for sheep was based on data from Abrahams and Steigmajer (2003) and was a artillery grenade, this would greatly reduce the number of shells fired
distributed parameter. No distributions were obtained for water intake and body per year and subsequently the calculated risk (see Fig. 5).
weight of sheep. The value of 50 kg reflects a young or small adult, and the daily water
intake of 4 L is a worst case value. 4. Discussion
Parameters Adults Children Sheep
This paper demonstrates a new approach to risk assessment for the
Daily intake of water 2L 1L 4L
Daily intake of soil 50 mg 150 mg 0–200 g heterogeneous distribution of contaminants. It is demonstrated that
Bodyweight 70 kg 15 kg 50 kg there is no risk to adults staying in a P4 contaminated target area for
up to a year. This is mostly due to the limited amount of soil that
adults ingest. The current pattern of land use suggests that a person
(“Soil intake”, Fig. 3) and the concentration of P4 in the hot spot, a will not stay for that long in this area, and that camping for a few days
node was created for oral intake of P4, when the soil is taken from a represents a worst case scenario. For children the risk of acute
contaminated crater (“Exposure hot spot”, Fig. 3). poisoning is low to non-existent. Furthermore, their risk of chronic
exposure to the contaminant is also very low. Taken into consider-
3.5. Toxicity of P4 ation that it is very rare that children visit the target area, the risk is
considered acceptable. However, such areas i.e. former military
When the daily intake of P4 is known, it is possible to calculate the shooting ranges, should not be converted into residential areas.
risk on the basis of the risk levels described in Section 2.5. These The major source of uncertainty in the assessment is attached to
calculations resulted in the node “Risk” in Figs. 3 and 4. See Table 6 for the number and distribution of hot spots in the area. Exact firing
the different risk levels and the associated exposure times. records would help to reduce this uncertainty and we recommend
that military training ranges keep good records of their live firing
activities in the future. The Bn approach aids our thinking about the
problem by pointing out what kind of data we should harvest in order
to minimize the uncertainties. Sub-areas consisting of wetlands are
predicted to have a higher density of hot spots. Since people tend to
avoid wetlands, it could be hypothesized that the actual risk is smaller
than the calculated one. Also, the probability of finding P4 craters in
the middle of the impact area is predicted to be higher than it would

Table 6
Distribution of concentrations of P4 in soils from craters in Mauken shooting range
(n = 22).

Concentration Observed in P4 craters

100–1000 g/kg 0%
10–100 g/kg 0%
1–10 g/kg 13.6%
100 mg/kg–1 g/kg 0%
10–100 mg/kg 4.6%
1–10 mg/kg 13.6%
10 µg/kg–1 mg/kg 13.6%
Fig. 2. Concentrations of P4 in smoke ammunition craters. Concentrations below the
5–10 µg/kg 54. 6%
detection limit are adjusted to the limit at 5 µg/kg.
1838 Ø.A. Voie et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 1833–1841
Fig. 3. Bayesian network for calculation of risk associated with human activity in Mauken shooting range where shells containing white phosphorus have been used. Results are
shown as bars in each node.
be to find them in the circumference. Dividing the impact area into
sub-areas with different densities of hot spots and including this
together with knowledge of the presence of wetlands in these sub-
areas could affect the number of present hot spots and cause a shift in
the risk distribution.
Under the current land use of the area the risk for human health is
considered acceptable. No incidents of human poisoning from white
phosphorus in shooting ranges are reported in the literature. However,
there are reports concerning deaths of sheep (USA) (Stewart and
Thomas, 1930) and musk oxen (Norway) (Tørnes, 1988) associated with
ingestion of P4 during grazing or drinking. The calculated risk for sheep
(Table 7) is higher than for humans due to the higher intake of soil. Sheep
are also more numerous on the range than humans as they move around
in flocks. This suggests that measures should be carried out to prevent
the exposure of grazing animals to P4 in historical target areas consisting
of much wetland. A study on sheep behaviour is currently carried out by
the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment and the Norwegian
University of Life Sciences in order to elucidate whether smell and taste
of P4 make sheep avoid polluted ground and water. This knowledge
might have an impact on the current calculated risk.
Even though uncertainties about many important input para-
meters have been included in the current study, certain variables have
not. These are the assumptions made about bodyweight, and water
and soil intake. Nor have uncertainties associated with white
phosphorus sampling and analysis been addressed. The variation of
white phosphorus analysis is within 30%. This will cause the
probabilistic distributions of the included variables to be under-
weighted. In order to follow the precautionary principle (deFur and
Kaszuba, 2002; Ricci et al., 2003), conservative values were used for
the point estimates for the bodyweights, and water and soil intake.
This ensures that even though not all uncertainties are accounted for,
the calculated risk is still not underestimated.
One of the advantages of utilising Bayesian networks is that it
enables the user to quantify uncertainties in the prediction of risk. This is
obtained by treating the risks explicitly, which enables the user to
directly spot the uncertainties associated with each parameter by
inspecting the probability distributions, including the probability
distribution of the calculated risk. Changing the predictor variables
allows the user to see how much each variable contributes to the
uncertainty in the predicted risk. An example of this is shown in Fig. 5. If
the Bn is complex, sensitivity analysis can be performed in order to
measure the sensitivity of changes in probability of query nodes when
parameters and inputs are changed (Pollino et al., 2007). Quantifying
uncertainty in risk assessments allows us to say something about the
frequency of worst case situations. If we otherwise consider a point
estimate of a risk that is below the acceptable risk level, the risk assessor
 Ø.A. Voie et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 1833–1841 1839

Fig. 4. Bayesian network for calculation of risk associated with grazing in Mauken shooting range where shells containing white phosphorus have been used. Results are shown as
bars in each node.

can be led to the conclusion that the risk is acceptable. However, However, the approach might well also be of value in respect to
introducing the uncertainties associated with the input parameters environmental risk assessment in general. Environmental sampling
could actually reveal that there is a great overlap between the risk most often results in statistical and incomplete data sets. As such they
distribution and the acceptable risk level. This would suggest that more are perfect for the Bn approach. Incorporating these distributed data
effort should be invested in reducing the uncertainties or that one as they are instead of using means or maximum values could have a
should move on to risk reduction. In the current Bn the calculated risk is great impact on the calculated risk without compromising safety. The
perceived as the overlap between the risk distribution curve and the scope of the problem in environmental risk assessments is often
different acceptable risk levels associated with different exposure times. complex, including many different sources of knowledge such as
The Bayesian network approach turned out to be very useful in this discrete and continuous variables, as well as variables formulated in
particular case where the pollution is heterogeneously distributed. language terms such as “low”, “medium,” and “high” based on expert
judgements. Hence, one of the advantages of Bns is that they provide a
framework for including all these different variables in a simple and
Table 7
Risk to humans and sheep associated with dwelling in the target area of Mauken
consistent manner (Marcot et al., 2001). In environmental risk
shooting range, Norway. assessments, the relationships between the variables are often non-
linear and complex, and as such are efficiently and especially well
Exposure Risk
handled by the reasoning machinery of Bns (Myllymäki et al., 2002).
Time Dose (mg/kg/d) Child Adult Sheep Bns are suitable for small and incomplete data sets, since there are
Acute (N14 d) N 0.2 0.00000 0.00000 0.00004 no minimum sample sizes required to perform the analysis, and Bns
Chronic (14–365 d) 0.015–0.2 0.00002 0.00000 0.00003 take into account all the data there is (Uusitalo, 2007). In this respect,
Lifetime 0.00002–0.015 0.00005 0.00004 0.00017
a Bn gives a good overview over the kind of data available for the risk
Safe b 0.00002 0.99993 0.99996 0.99976
assessment and the significance of the level of uncertainty associated
1840 Ø.A. Voie et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 1833–1841

Fig. 5. Bayesian network for calculation of risk associated with grazing in Mauken shooting range when the node “Type munitions” in grey is known to be 155 mm grenade.

with them. Bayesian networks can also be encoded with variables The usefulness of Bn's is very limited with respect to continuous
encoding remedial decisions that in turn affect the natural variables of variables (Myllymäki et al., 2002). These are most often discretised
the model. They can also be encoded with variables that encode the which implies that only rough characteristics of the original distribution
costs and utilities related to these decisions and their outcomes are captured (Uusitalo, 2007). Attention must be given to the
(Uusitalo, 2007). Bn applications contain special decision and utility discretisation since the way the data are discretised can make a notable
nodes for this purpose. Bn's allows for “bottom-up” reasoning which difference for the outcome of the calculated risk (Uusitalo, 2007).
implies that a decision maker can decide what constitutes an
acceptable level of risk and then proceeding from that, model what
Acknowledgement
kind of input parameters should undergo remedial actions, such as a
necessary cleanup level of contaminants in soil.
The authors wish to acknowledge The Royal Norwegian Ministry of
Despite their remarkable power and potential to address inferen-
Defence, and The Norwegian Defense Construction Service for providing
tial processes, there are some limitations and challenges with the use
data on historical use of P4 shooting field as well as data regarding land
of Bayesian networks. For example, the network is quite static, and this
cover. Thanks to Jennifer Høibråten for checking English syntax and
constitutes a challenge should a user make a novel request for
grammar. This work was supported by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of
information in a previously unanticipated way. One would most
Defence.
certainly have to reorganize the network and update the relation
tables. A Bayesian network is only as useful as the prior knowledge fed
into is reliable. If the expectation of the quality of these prior beliefs is Appendix A. Supplementary data
excessively optimistic, the calculated risk can be underestimated. It is
therefore important that the input parameters and variables are Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
evaluated carefully. online version, at doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.01.002.
 Ø.A. Voie et al. / Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 1833–1841
References
Abrahams PW, Steigmajer J. Soil ingestion by sheep grazing the metal enriched
floodplain soils of Mid-Wales. Environ Geochem Health 2003;25:17–24.
Adams SH, Davies RO, Ashton WM. Phosphorus poisoning. J Min Agric 1942;49:61–3.
Aslibekian O, Moles R. Environmental risk assessment of metals contaminated soils at
Silvermines abandoned mine site, Co Tipperary, Ireland. Environ Geochem Health
2003;25:247–66.
ATSDR. Toxicological Profile for White Phosphorus. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. Atlanta GA, USA; 1997. 212 pp.
Bromley J, Jackson NA, Clymer OJ, Giacomelloa AM, Jensen FV. The use of Hugin® to
develop Bayesian networks as an aid to integrated water resource planning.
Environ Mod Soft 2005;20:231–42.
Borsuk ME, Stow CA, Reckhow KH. A Bayesian network of eutrophication models for
synthesis, prediction, and uncertainty analysis. Ecol Mod 2004;173:219–39.
Budavari S, O'Neil MJ, Smith A, Heckelman PE, Kinneary JF. The Merck Index. An
encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs and biologicals. Whitehouse station, USA: Merck
Research Laboratories; 1996. p. 1265.
Castelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R. Bayesian networks and participatory modelling in water
resource management. Environ Mod Soft 2006;22:1075–88.
Charniak E. Bayesian networks without tears. AI Magazine 1991;12:50–63.
Chou TD, Lee TW, Chen SL, Tung YM, Dai NT, Chen SG, et al. The management of white
phosphorus burns. Burns 2001;27:492–7.
deFur PL, Kaszuba M. Implementing the precautionary principle. Sci Tot Environ
2002;288:155–65.
Diaz-Rivera RS, Collazo PJ, Pons ER, Torregrosa MV. Acute phosphorus poisoning in
man: a study of 56 cases. Medicine 1950;29:269–98.
European Commission. Technical guidance document in support of Commission
Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances. Commission
Regulation (EC) 1488/94 on risk assessment of existing substances. Luxenburg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1996. 739 pp.
Fan M, Thongsri T, Axe L, Tyson TA. Using a probabilistic approach in an ecological risk
assessment simulation tool: test case for depleted uranium (DU). Chemosphere
2005;60:111–25.
Francoa A, Schuhmacherb M, Rocaa E, Domingoc JL. Application of cattle manure as
fertilizer in pastureland: estimating the incremental risk due to metal accumula-
tion employing a multicompartment model. Environ Internat 2006;32:724–32.
Gjershaug JO, Rusch G, Hanssen F, Døsen L. Bioavailability of white phosphorus in the
shooting ranges in Midt-Troms. NINA report 2008;381:31.
Jangaard PM. Effects of elemental phosphorus on marine life. Fisheries Research Board
of Canada. Atlantic Regional Office, Research and Development. CircularNova
Scotia: Halifax; 1972. 313 pp.
Liao CM, Chiang KC. Probabilistic risk assessment for personal exposure to carcinogenic
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Taiwanese temples. Chemosphere 2006;63:1610–9.
Løvik JE, Rognerud S. Environmental risk assessment of the use by the Defense of white
phosphorus in shooting ranges in Troms, revised edition. NIVA report 2007:52 LNR
5493-2007.
Marcot BG, Holthausen RS, Raphael MG, Rowland MM, Wisdom MJ. Using Bayesian
belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land
1841
management alternatives from an environmental impact statement. For Ecol Mgmt
2001;153:29–42.
Murphy K. The Bayes Net Toolbox for Matlab. http://www.cs.ubc.ca/∼murphyk/
Software/BNT/bnt.html, 2001.
Myllymäki P, Silander T, Tirri H, Uronen P. B-course: a web-based tool for Bayesian and
causal data analysis. Int J Artif Intell Tools 2002;11(3):369–87.
Norwegian Armed Forces. White phosphorus — mapping of Defence use. Letter to The
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority; 2003.
Pollino CA, Woodberry O, Nicholson A, Korb K, Hart BT. Parameterisation and
evaluation of a Bayesian network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environ
Mod Soft 2007;22:1140–52.
Racine CH, Walsh ME, Roebuck BD, Collins CM, Calkins D, Reitsma L, et al. White
phosphorus poisoning of waterfowl in an Alaskan salt marsh. J Wildlife Dis 1992;28:
669–73.
Reiss R, Griffin J. A probabilistic model for acute bystander exposure and risk
assessment for soil fumigants. Atmos Environ 2006;40:3548–60.
Ricci PF, Rice D, Ziagos J, Cox LA. Precaution, uncertainty and causation in
environmental decisions. Environ Internat 2003;29:1-19.
Roebuck BD, Nam SI, MacMillan DL. Toxicology of white phosphorus (P4) to ducks
and risk for their predators: effects of particle size. Environ Tox Chem 1998;17:
511–8.
Rogers A. Statistical analysis of spatial dispersion. London: Pion Limited; 1974. 164 pp.
Solomon K, Giesy J, Jones P. Probabilistic risk assessment of agrochemicals in the
environment. Crop Prot 2000;19:649–55.
Spanggord RJ, Rewick R, Chou TS, Wilson R, Podoll RT, Parnas R, et al. Environmental
fate of white phosphorus/felt and red phosphorus/butyl rubber military screening
smokes. US Army Medical Research and Development Command. Frederick,
Maryland: Fort Detrick; 1985. 56 pp.
Sparling DW, Gustafson M, Klein P, Karouma-Renier N. Toxicity of white phosphorus to
waterfowl: acute exposure in mallards. J Wildlife Dis 1997;33:187–97.
Stewart WL, Thomas B. A curious case of phosphorus poisoning in sheep. J Min Agric
1930;37:56–9.
Tremblay JP, Hester A, Mcleod J, Huot J. Choice and development of decision support tools
for the sustainable management of deer-forest systems. For Ecol Mgmt 2004;191:1-16.
Tørnes JA. Analysis of white phosphorus in samples from a military shooting range in
Dovre. FFI Report 6909, Kjeller, Norway; 1988.
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Method 7580. Determination of
white phosphorus (P4) concentration by solvent extraction and gas chromatography;
1996.
Uusitalo L. Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental
modelling. Ecol Mod 2007;203:312–8.
Van Sprang PA, Verdonck FAM, Vanrolleghem PA. Probabilistic environmental risk
assessment of zinc in Dutch surface waters. Environ Tox Chem 2004;23:2993–3002.
Vik EA, Breedveld G, Farestveit T. Guidelines on risk assessment of contaminated sites.
Guideline 99:01a, Norwegian Pollution Control Authority; 1999. p. 103.
Walsh MR, Walsh ME, Collins CM. Persistence of white phosphorus (P4) particles in salt
marsh sediments. Environ Conserv 1996;15:846–55.
Zolezzi M, Cattaneo C, Tarazona JV. Probabilistic ecological risk assessment of 1, 2, 4-
trichlorobenzene at a former industrial contaminated site. Environ Sci Technol
2005;39:2920–6.