Probability distributions of arsenic in soil from brownfield sites in Beijing (China): statistical characterization of the background populations and implications for site assessment studies

Abstract

A probabilistic analysis was performed on soil arsenic concentration data from 4 brownfield sites at Beijing (Chaoyang and Haidian Districts), involved in environmental assessment studies. The available data sets were processed to provide a statistical characterization of the background populations and differentiate “anomalous data” from the natural range of variation of arsenic concentrations in soil. The site-specific background distributions and the existing wide-scale background values defined for the Beijing area were compared, discussing related implications for the definition of metal contamination soil screening levels (SSLs) in site assessment studies. The statistical analysis of As data sets discriminated site-specific background populations, encompassing 88% to 94% of the sample data, from outliers values, associated with either subsoil natural enrichments or possible anthropogenic releases. Upper Baseline Concentration (UBC) limits (+ 2σ level), including most of the site-specific metal background variability, were derived based on the statistical characterization of the background populations. Sites in the Chaoyang South District area had UBC values in the range 10.4–12.6 mg·kg^-1. These ranges provide meaningful SSL values to be adopted for As in local site assessment studies. Using the wide-scale background value for the Beijing area would have erroneously classified most of the areas in the subject sites as potentially contaminated.

Keywords

arsenic / probability plot / upper baseline concentration / site assessment

References

[1] US EPA. Regional Screening Level (RSL) Summary Table. Washington, DC: USEPA, 2013

[2] Breckenridge R P, Crockett A B. Determination of Background Concentrations of Inorganics in Soils and Sediments at Hazardous Waste Sites. EPA/540/S-96/500. Washington, DC: USEPA, 1995

[3] Salminen R, Tarvainen T. The problem of defining geochemical Baselines. A case study of selected elements and geological materials in Finland. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 1997, 60(1): 91–98

[4] Chen M, Ma L Q, Harris W G. Baseline concentrations of 15 trace elements in Florida surface soils. Journal of Environmental Quality, 1999, 28(4): 1173–1181

[5] Chen M, Ma L Q, Hoogerweg C G. Arsenic background concentrations in Florida, U.S.A. surface soils: determination and interpretation. Environmental Forensics, 2001, 2(2): 117–126

[6] Chen M, Ma L Q, Harris W G. Arsenic concentration in Florida surface soils: influence of soil type and properties. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 2002, 66(2): 632–640

[7] Chirenje T, Lena Q M, Chen M, Zillioux E J. Comparison between background concentrations of arsenic in urban and non-urban areas of Florida. Advances in Environmental Research, 2003, 8(1): 137–146

[8] Chen T B, Zheng Y M, Chen H, Zheng G D. Background concentrations of the soil heavy metals in Beijing. Chinese Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2004, 25(1): 117–122 (in Chinese)

[9] Chen T B, Zheng Y M, Chen H, Wu H T, Zhou J L, Luo J F, Zheng G D. Arsenic accumulation in soils from different land use types in Beijing. Geographical Research, 2005, 24(2): 229–235 (in Chinese)

[10] Zheng Y M, Chen T B, He J Z. Multivariate geostatistical analysis of heavy metals in topsoils from Beijing, China. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2008, 8(1): 51–58

[11] Wang Y P, Pei T, Xu C X, Chen D X. Research on the accumulative layers of As and Hg elements in columnar profile of soil in Beijing City. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 2004, 22(Suppl.): 135–139 (in Chinese)

[12] US EPA, Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, Method 200.8, Revision 5.4. Washington, DC: USEPA, 1994

[13] Sinclair A J. Selection of threshold values in geochemical data using probability graphs. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 1974, 3(2): 129–149

[14] Sinclair A J. Statistical interpretation of soil geochemical data. In: Robertson J M, ed. Reviews in Economic Geology, Volume 3: Exploration geochemistry: design and interpretation of soil surveys. El Paso, Texas: The Economic Geology Publishing Company, 1986

[15] Fleischhauer H L, Korte N. Formulation of cleanup standards for trace elements with probability plots. Environmental Management, 1990, 14(1): 95–105

[16] Aral H, Saraç C. Partitioning of geochemical population by Sinclair’s method. Communications, Faculty Sciences, University Ankara. Series C, 1988, 6: 313–323

[17] Panno S V, Kelly W R, Martinsek A T, Hackley K C. Estimating background and threshold nitrate concentrations using probability graphs. Ground Water, 2006, 44(5): 697–709

[18] Matschullat J, Ottenstein R, Reimann C. Geochemical background-can we calculate it? Environmental Geology, 2000, 39(9): 990–1000

[19] Stumm W, Morgan J J. Aquatic Chemistry. An Introduction Emphasizing Chemical Equilibria in Natural Waters. New York: Wiley, 1981

[20] Dzombak D A, Morel F M M. Surface Complexation Modeling. Hydrous Ferric Oxide. New York: Wiley, 1990

[21] Bowell R J. Sorption of arsenic by iron oxides and hydroxides in soils. Applied Geochemistry, 1994, 9(3): 279–286

[22] Battelle Memorial Institute, Earth Tech, Inc., NewFields, Inc. Guidance for Environmental Background Analysis Volume I: Soil. Hueneme: Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, 2002

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted within the scope of the Sino-Italian Cooperation Project “Cleanup of Contaminated Sites Standards–Guidelines and Test Cases–Phase I” (April 2007 – April 2009) developed in the framework of the cooperation between the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau (BEPB) and the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea (IMELS)

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2014 Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg