English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

By using a newly developed Korean risk-based corrective action (K-RBCA) software (K-RBCA) and the RBCA Tool Kit, risk assessment was performed on a site that was contaminated with aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Eight chemicals including benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, naphthalene, benz(a) anthracene, benzo(b) fluoranthene, benzo(a) pyrene, and arsenic that exceeded the US EPA Soil Screening Level were chosen as the target pollutants. A conceptual site model was constructed based on the site-specific effective exposure pathways. According to the RBCA Tool Kit the carcinogenic risk of arsenic was larger than , which is the generally acceptable carcinogenic risk level. The K-RBCA estimated the same level of carcinogenic risk for arsenic. With the RBCA Tool Kit, the carcinogenic risk of benzo(a) pyrene was estimated to be about . However, with the K-RBCA benzo(a) pyrene did not exhibit any risk. The inconsistency between the softwares was attributed to the different fundamental settings (i.e., medium division) between the two softwares. While the K-RBCA divides medium into surface soil, subsurface soil, and groundwater, the RBCA Tool Kit divides medium into only soil and groundwater. These differences lead to the different exposure pathways used by the two softwares. The K-RBCA considers the exposure pathways in surface soil and subsurface soil separately to estimate risk, however, the RBCA Tool Kit considers the surface soil and subsurface soil as one and uses the integrated exposure pathways to estimate risk. Thus the resulting risk is higher when the RBCA Tool Kit is used than when the K-RBCA is used. The results from this study show that there is no significant difference in the risks estimated by the two softwares, thus, it is reasonable to use the K-RBCA we developed in risk assessment of soil and groundwater. In addition, the present study demonstrates that the assessor should be familiar with the characteristics of a contaminated site and the assumptions used by a risk assessment software when carrying out risk assessment.

Human Risk Assessment of a Contaminated Site Using Korean Risk-Based Corrective Action (K-RBCA) Software