Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/yrtph
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the concentration and types of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a group of
environmentally toxic and persistent chemicals, at contaminated oil exploration and production (E&P) sites located in environmentally
sensitive and geographically distinct areas throughout Texas. Samples of tank bottom solids, the oily sediment that collects at the bottom
of the tanks, were collected from inactive crude oil storage tanks at E&P sites and hydrocarbon contaminated soil samples were collected
from the area surrounding each tank that was sampled. All samples were analyzed for the 16 PAH priority pollutant listed by US EPA
and for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The results demonstrate that overall average PAH concentrations were significantly higher
in tank bottom solids than in contaminated soils. Total PAH concentrations decreased predictably with diminishing hydrocarbon con-
centrations; but the percent fraction of carcinogenic PAHs per total measured PAH content increased from approximately 12% in tank
bottom solids to about 46% in the contaminated soils. These results suggest that the PAH content found in tank bottom solids cannot
reliably be used to predict the PAH content in associated contaminated soil. Comparison of PAHs to conservative risk-based screening
levels for direct exposure to soil and leaching from soil to groundwater indicate that PAHs are not likely to exceed default risk-based
thresholds in soils containing TPH of 1% (10,000 mg/kg) or less. These results show that the magnitude of TPH concentration may
be a useful indicator of potential risk from PAHs in crude oil-contaminated soils. The results also provide credibility to the 1%
(10,000 mg/kg) TPH cleanup level, used in Texas as a default management level at E&P sites located in non-sensitive areas, with respect
to PAH toxicity.
2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
0273-2300/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.11.007
H.K. Bojes, P.G. Pope / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 47 (2007) 288–295 289
number of aromatic rings, and lower vapor pressure and Sampling sites were identified in 48 Texas counties and in each of the
nine geographically distinct Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) districts
solubility constants compared to the non-carcinogenic (Fig. 1). A sampling site typically consisted of an abandoned 210–500 bar-
PAHs. The physical–chemical characteristics of PAHs also rel tank with tank bottom solids and associated contaminated soils within a
contribute directly to their recalcitrant nature in the envi- 25 foot radius of the tank. A sample was collected from tank bottom solids,
ronment (Kanaly and Harayama, 2000). the oily sediment that collects at the bottom of the tanks, and three oil-con-
Oil exploration and production (E&P) processes can taminated soil samples were collected from the area surrounding each tank.
Contaminated soil samples are soils where oil has spilled on the ground and
contribute to localized loadings of PAHs into the environ- mixed with the native soil to varying degrees. Highest concentrations of oil
ment through accidental spillage or leaks of oil from were collected in soils nearest the tank and increasingly less contaminated
producing wells, storage tanks, gathering lines, transporta- soils were collected at increasing distances from the tank. Soil was catego-
tion lines and pits. However, limited information exists on rized as heavily contaminated soil, moderately contaminated soil, and
the content and relative concentrations of PAHs in tank
bottom solids, the oily sediment that collects at the bottom
of the tank, or in soils surrounding tanks that have been
subjected to multiple oil spills and environmental condi-
tions. For example, the American Petroleum Institute
(API) analyzed crude oil-containing soils and tank bottom
solids for PAHs including chrysene, naphthalene, phenan-
threne, and 1-methyl naphthalene; and the US EPA Office
of Solid Waste evaluated crude oil tank bottom wastes for
PAHs and other semi-volatile organic compounds includ-
ing naphthalene, phenanthrene, fluorene, and chrysene
(API, 1996; EPA, 1994). Both groups found relatively
low concentrations of PAHs in oil-contaminated soils
and tank bottom solids, e.g. maximum concentrations ran-
ged from 5.1 mg/kg for chrysene to 268 mg/kg for naph-
thalene. These results are limited in that only four PAHs
were evaluated.
PAHs were also evaluated in crude oils and condensates
collected from crude oil production sites around the world
Fig. 1. Samples were collected from 68 sensitive E&P Sites (black dots) in
(Kerr et al., 2001). It was demonstrated that the potential
48 different counties and in all RRC’s districts. Numbers refer to RRC’s
risk from direct soil exposure and leaching of chemicals districts: 1&2, San Antonio; 3, Houston; 4, Corpus Christi; 5&6, Kilgore;
to groundwater for 15 of the 16 priority pollutant PAHs 7B, Abilene; 7Cl, San Angelo; 8&8A, Midland; 9, Wichita Falls; and,
is not significant as long as TPH levels are less than 1% 10, Pampa.
290 H.K. Bojes, P.G. Pope / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 47 (2007) 288–295
mildly contaminated soil based on field screening by visual examination analysis of variance (p < 0.05) to determine if samples represent statisti-
and odor. Together, 72 tank bottom samples, 68 heavily contaminated soil, cally different populations. Pair-wise comparisons were made using the
68 moderately contaminated soil, 68 mildly contaminated soil samples were Tukey HSD test.
collected. Nine duplicate samples, one from each district, were also collect-
ed from the heavily oil-contaminated soil.
2.5. Quality evaluations
Sampling sites were located in sensitive areas in Texas. Sites were
determined to be environmentally sensitive based on the presence of one
In a few cases, detection limits that exceeded data quality objectives
or more factors including shallow groundwater or pathways for commu-
due to dilution in PAH analyses were not achieved using modified EPA
nication with deeper groundwater, proximity to surface water, including
method 3611 and, therefore, these data were not used. The remaining data
lakes, rivers, streams, dry or flowing creeks, irrigation canals, stock tanks,
collected for this study were determined to be valid and useable for the
and wetlands, proximity to natural wildlife refuges or parks, or proximity
purpose of characterizing the concentrations and distribution of PAHs
to commercial or residential areas (RRC, 1993).
in tank bottoms and associated impacted soils.
Table 2
Mean concentration and detection frequency of TPH in tank bottom solids and associated oil-contaminated soilsa,b
Total petroleum Sample type
hydrocarbons (C)
Tank bottom solids Oil-contaminated soil
Heavily Moderately Mildly
Mean conc. Detection Mean conc. Detection Mean conc. Detection Mean conc. Detection
(mg/kg) Frequency (%) (mg/kg) frequency (%) (mg/kg) frequency (%) (mg/kg) frequency (%)
Aliphatics
>6–8 15270 25 1195 3 309 9 503 1
>8–10 12949 54 949 13 558 16 657 9
>10–12 21544 77 2047 35 1058 26 784 15
>12–16 73298 99 6869 94 4479 90 1801 71
>16–21 83879 100 21948 100 12362 94 5790 85
>21–35 86773 100 32380 100 18310 93 8932 87
Aromatics
>7–8 1111 5 226 1 31 1 0 0
>8–10 2160 11 230 1 37 1 71 3
>10–12 3351 19 570 4 103 4 202 4
>12–16 6932 73 854 65 489 56 170 41
>16–21 12833 86 2625 79 1547 72 799 62
>21–35 17054 89 5362 18 3051 78 1593 63
Total TPH 337154A 100 75254B 100 42333C 100 21302D 100
a
Mean conc. (concentration) of all detected TPH. Detection limits ranged from 0.02 to 500 mg/kg.
b
Letters indicate significant difference at p < 0.05. Results compared using one-way analysis of variance. Pair-wise comparisons were made using the
Tukey HSD test.
Table 3
Mean concentration and detection frequency of PAHs in tank bottom solids and associated oil-contaminated soilsa,b,c
Polycyclic aromatic Sample type
hydrocarbonsb Tank bottom solids Oil-contaminated soil
Heavily Moderately Mildly
Mean conc. Detection Mean conc. Detection Mean conc. Detection Mean conc. Detection
(mg/kg) frequency (%) (mg/kg) frequency (%) (mg/kg) frequency (%) (mg/kg) frequency (%)
Naphthalene 254.5 59 3.9 24 1.6 19 2.8 9
Acenaphthene 34.8 30 2.5 19 1.3 12 1.9 7
Acenaphthylene 24.2 27 2.4 13 0.4 7 0.5 9
Anthracene 24.8 37 3.2 26 2.3 10 0.5 6
Phenanthrene 19.9 67 12.0 53 4.1 40 5.2 29
Fluorene 80.6 54 13.6 44 2.5 24 3.1 19
Fluoranthene 15.5 33 3.4 28 3.2 16 1.8 7
Benzo(a)anthracene 9.4 10 13.4 4 11.0 3 3.2 3
Chrysene 24.5 80 4.5 74 3.2 65 1.9 54
Pyrene 19.9 46 4.3 43 3.4 28 2.1 19
Benzo(a)pyrene 8.4 6 5.4 10 4.0 10 1.6 6
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 8.2 8 3.4 18 5.1 7 1.6 7
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 7.3 6 3.3 19 5.1 6 1.7 4
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 4.1 1 2.6 3 3.0 1 0.6 3
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 5.9 3 2.9 6 14.9 19 1.1 4
Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 5.8 3 5.6 3 7.3 12 1.3 3
Total PAHs 547.7A 100 86.4B 100 72.5B 100 31.0B 100
a
Mean conc. (concentration) of all PAHs detected. Detection limits ranged from 0.02 to 0.33 mg/kg.
b
US EPA has classified PAHs in italics as probable human carcinogens (NTP, 2005).
c
Letters indicate significant difference at p < 0.05. Results compared using one-way analysis of variance. Pair-wise comparisons were made using the
Tukey HSD test.
the combined average PAH concentration of contaminated decreased significantly with decreasing visual evidence of
soil. Of the PAHs detected, low molecular weight PAHs, hydrocarbon-impact from 86.4 mg/kg in heavily contami-
such as naphthalene at 254.5 mg/kg, were detected at high- nated soils to 72.5 and 31.0 mg/kg in moderately and mildly
est levels in tank bottom solids. Average total PAH values contaminated soils, respectively. Benzo(a)anthracene at
292 H.K. Bojes, P.G. Pope / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 47 (2007) 288–295
Table 4
Comparison of the maximum detected PAHs in oil-contaminated soils to Tier 1 risk-based screening levelsa,b
a
Tier 1 risk-based screening levels, i.e. protective concentration levels, for commercial/industrial and residential scenarios for the direct contact to soil
and protection of groundwater exposure pathways (TCEQ, 2001).
b
Bold values and shaded squares indicate an exceedance of a Tier 1 risk-based screening level.
294 H.K. Bojes, P.G. Pope / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 47 (2007) 288–295
acceptable salt and pH levels, did not significantly reduced Chung, N., Alexander, M., 1998. Differences in sequestration and
plant yields (Deuel, 1991; Chaı̂neau et al., 1997; Salanitro bioavailability of organic compounds aged in dissimilar soils. Envi-
ronmental Science and Technology 32, 855–860.
et al., 1997). Other studies demonstrated 1% (10,000 mg/ Chung, N., Alexander, M., 1999. Effect of concentration on sequestration
kg) to be below the minimum level required for hydrocar- and bioavailability to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environmen-
bon mobility, i.e. less than the residual soil saturation tal Science and Technology 33, 3605–3608.
(Hamilton et al., 2001). The current study’s results provide Deuel Jr. L.E., 1991. Evaluation of limiting constituents suggested for
credibility to the 1% (10,000 mg/kg) TPH cleanup level in land disposal of exploration and production wastes. No. 4527,
American Petroleum Institute.
terms of PAHs and toxicity. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994. Associated Waste Report:
Crude Oil Tank Bottoms and Oily Debris. US EPA, Office of Solid
4. Conclusion Waste, Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1996a), Method 3600C: Clean-
up, US EPA, Washington, DC. <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
This study fills in some data gaps regarding PAH con- hazwaste/test/3_series.htm> (accessed 2006).
tent in oil at E&P contaminated sites where multiple oil Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1996b. Soil Screening Guid-
spills have occurred and oil contaminated soil has been ance: Technical Background Document, EPA/540/R-95/128, US EPA,
weathered. The results show that PAH content found in Washington, DC.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. Region IX Preliminary
tank bottom solids, collected from E&P sites located in
Remediation Goals (PRGs). US EPA, Washington, DC.
environmentally sensitive and geographically distinct areas Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005a. Method 8270C: Semi-
throughout Texas, cannot reliably be used to determine the volatile Organic Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spec-
PAH content in contaminated soil. Also, these results dem- trometry (GC/MS). US EPA, Washington, DC. <http://www.epa.gov/
onstrate that the magnitude of TPH concentration may be epaoswer/hazwaste/test/8_series.htm> (accessed 2005).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005b. Method 3611B: Alumina
a useful indicator of potential risk from PAHs in crude oil-
Column Cleanup and Separation of Petroleum Wastes. US EPA,
contaminated soils and provide credibility to the 1% Washington, DC. <http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/
(10,000 mg/kg) TPH cleanup level with respect to PAH 3_series.htm> (accessed 2005).
toxicity. Hamilton, W.A., Sewell, H.J., Deeley, G., 2001. Technical basis for
current soil management levels of total petroleum hydrocabons. In:
McMillen, S.J., Magaw, R.I., Carovillano, R.L. (Eds.), Risk-Based
Acknowledgments Decision-Making for Assessing Petroleum Impacts at Exploration and
Production Sites. Department of Energy and Petroleum Environmen-
We thank the following RRC district cleanup coordinator tal Research Forum, Tulsa, OK, pp. 36–45.
operators for their help and knowledge of the oilfield: Steve Harvey, R.G., 1991. Environmental occurrence and cancer. In: Combs,
M.M., Ashby, J., Hicks, R.M., Baxter, H. (Eds.), Polycyclic Aromatic
Graham, Rodney Moore, Ron Smelley, Adam Taylor, Roy Hydrocarbons—Chemistry and Carcinogenicity. Cambridge Univer-
Staiger, Kevin Shomette, Jeff Lauman, Paul Harris, Olin sity Press, Cambridge, pp. 11–25.
MacNamara, Nick Davis, Brian Floyd, Joe Guerra, Tim Kanaly, R.A., Harayama, S., 2000. Biodegradation of high-molecular
Prude, Rollen Nunley, Ray Horton, and Joe Kitchens. weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by bacteria. Journal of
A Brownfields Training, Research, and Technical Assis- Bacteriology 182, 2059–2067.
Kerr, J.M., McMillen, S.J., Magaw, R.I., Melton, H.R., Naughton, G.,
tance Grant from US EPA (TR-831279010) supported this 2001. Risk-based soil screening levels for crude oil: the role of
work. polyaromatic hydrocarbons. In: McMillen, S.J., Magaw, R.I., Caro-
The views and opinions found in the contents of this villano, R.L. (Eds.), Risk-Based Decision-Making for Assessing
document are those of the authors and do not necessarily Petroleum Impacts at Exploration and Production Sites. Department
reflect those of the RRC. Mention of trade names or com- of Energy and Petroleum Environmental Research Forum, Tulsa, OK,
pp. 142–155.
mercial entities does not constitute their endorsement by Macleod, C.J.A., Semple, K.T., 2000. Influence of contact time on
the RRC. extractability and degradation of pyrene in Soils. Environmental
Science and Technology 34, 4952–4957.
References Nam, K., Alexander, M., 1998. Role of nanoporosity, hydrophobicity in
sequestration and bioavailability: tests with model solids. Environ-
Alexander, M., 1995. How toxic are toxic chemicals in soil? Environmen- mental Science and Technology 32, 71–74.
tal Science and Technology 29, 2713–2717. National Toxicology Program (NTP), 2005. Report on Carcinogens,
Alexander, M., 2000. Aging, bioavailability, and overestimation of risk eleventh ed. Public Health Service, US Department of Health and
from environmental pollutants. Environmental Science and Technol- Human Services, Washington, DC.
ogy 34, 4259–4265. Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC), 1993. Cleanup of Soil Contam-
American Petroleum Institute (API) 1996. Characterization of Explora- inated by a Crude Oil Spill, Austin, TX.
tion and Production Associated Waste. API Publication Number Salanitro, J.P., Dorn, P.B., Huesemann, M.H., Moore, K.O., Rhodes,
DR53, Washington, DC. I.A., Rice Jackson, L.A., Vipond, T.E., Western, M.M., Wisniewski,
Atlas, R.M., Cerniglia, C.E., 1995. Bioremediation of petroleum pollu- H.L., 1997. Crude oil hydrocarbon bioremediation and soil ecotoxicity
tants. Bioscience 45, 332–338. assessment. Environmental Science and Technology 31, 1769–1776.
ATSDR, 2005. Toxicology profile for polyaromatic hydrocarbons. ATS- Shuttleworth, K.L., Cerniglia, C.E., 1995. Environmental aspects of PAH
DR’s Toxicological Profiles on CD-ROM, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. biodegradation. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 54, 291–302.
Chaı̂neau, C.H., Morel, J.L., Oudot, J., 1997. Phytotoxicity and plant Sugiura, K., Ishihara, M., Shimauchi, T., Harayama, S., 1997. Physico-
uptake of fuel oil hydrocarbons. Journal Environmental Quality 26, chemical properties and biodegradability of crude oil. Environmental
1478–1483. Science and Technology 31, 45–51.
H.K. Bojes, P.G. Pope / Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 47 (2007) 288–295 295
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2001. Texas Risk Zemanek, M.G., Pollard, S.J.T., Kenefick, S.L., Hrudey, S.E.,
Reduction Program Rule. Austin, TX. 1997. Multi-phase partitioning and co-solvent effects for poly-
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2005. Method nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in authentic petroleum-
1006; Draft TNRCC Method 1006.Austin, Texas, <http://www.tceq. and creosote-contaminated soils. Environmental Pollution 98,
state.tx.us/remediation/analysis.html> (accessed February 2005). 239–252.