Key takeaways:
- Bart Eklund and Rich Rago share research into seven compounds that often are detected in vapor intrusion investigations but rarely indicate a complete vapor intrusion pathway.
- They explore why each compound may be present due to other sources or otherwise not represent a risk due to vapor intrusion.
- They also offer strategies to help vapor intrusion practitioners address concerns when they find these compounds in vapor intrusion studies.
In a new article for the peer-reviewed journal Remediation, Haley & Aldrich technical experts Bart Eklund, CIH, and Rich Rago share research into seven compounds that commonly are detected in vapor intrusion (VI) work but either are background compounds due to other sources, are likely false positives, or are readily biodegraded and therefore do not warrant concern. The article caps a multiyear series in the journal that delves into VI mitigation (read the previous installment).
In “Considerations for Addressing Problematic Compounds in Vapor Intrusion Evaluations,” Bart and Rich focus on “seven ‘problematic’ compounds that can often confound VI investigations”: 1,3-butadiene; acrolein; vinyl chloride; carbon tetrachloride; chloroform; 1,4-dichlorobenzene; and 1,2-dichloroethane. Even when these compounds exceed screening levels, write Bart and Rich, they may not present significant risk due to VI: “For these compounds, screening level exceedances may not necessarily be reflective of a complete VI pathway.”
The article explores why each compound may not actually represent an issue for VI compliance or remediation and offers strategies to help VI practitioners understand the results and address concerns when they do find these compounds in VI studies.
Read the full article.
