Exposures and Health Risks from Volatile Organic Compounds in Communities Located near Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities in Colorado (U.S.A.)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Chemical Identification
- Operator emissions inventories submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), including gas and liquid analyses, emissions modeling and engineering calculations.
- A source apportionment study that collected air data in OG areas of northeastern Colorado and modeled estimated percentages of OG source contributions to overall measured samples [13].
2.2. Exposure Evaluation
2.2.1. Air Data Selection
- Original data from a study with clear objectives using standard air sampling analytical methods and analysis.
- Samples collected in a region of Colorado with substantial OG activity in the Denver-Julesburg and Piceance basins (Figure 3).
- Samples collected at heights that would generally represent ambient ground-level exposures. Aircraft measurements of VOCs were excluded. However, lower level stationary tower measurements (22 m) such as Swarthout et al. [19] were included.
- Samples that generally represented community scale exposures (middle to neighborhood spatial scales of representativeness as defined by U.S. EPA [46]) at 500 feet or greater from an OG site or multiple sites. The current setback distance is 500 feet from OG sites as established by Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC Rule #604). If sampling locations were specified by the study authors, we estimated the specific distance from an OG source by comparing distance from the air sampling location to the location of the nearest well pad using Google Earth and COGCC database for well locations [47]. One of the measurement sites in Thompson et al. [16] study was stated by the authors as being approximately 350 feet from an OG site while the other sites were 500 feet or greater. However, the study aggregated the data from all the sites and therefore, we conservatively chose to include the 350 foot sample site to allow inclusion of this dataset
- Samples collected during any type of OG operation, including processing, tank batteries, separators, pipelines, drilling, and production operations. Most studies did not identify the type of operation occurring during sample collection.
- Samples collected in an area that had minimal influence from other potential major sources of air pollution, including roads, industrial activities, or urban areas.
- In an effort to balance comprehensiveness and accuracy of our evaluation, we only used samples that were collected from 2008–2017. We did not use data collected prior to 2008 because significant regulatory changes occurred in Colorado that included major technological advances such as green completion technologies and data prior to 2008 would not be representative of current exposures (COGCC Rule 805.b).
2.2.2. Acute Exposure Estimates
- For time-series data that were collected at frequency intervals less than one hour and for which we could obtain the raw data from the authors, we generated one-hour averages and selected the maximum one-hour measurement [22].
- For one time air samples collected at a specific location, we assumed that the value could be a one hour maximum and included it in our analysis [20].
2.2.3. Chronic Exposure Estimates
2.3. Toxicity Evaluation
2.3.1. Non-Cancer
2.3.2. Cancer
2.4. Risk Evaluation
2.4.1. Non-Cancer Health Effects
2.4.2. Carcinogenic Health Effects
2.4.3. Health Effects from Combined Exposures
3. Results
4. Discussion
Assumptions and Uncertainties
- It is possible that the VOCs we selected as high priority for this risk assessment do not reflect the full profile of VOCs emitted from OG operations. Although we used several sources of information, including a study in which investigators quantified emission rates of VOCs directly from each phase of OG operations in Colorado, it is possible that there are other OG constituents or reaction products, such as higher molecular weight VOCs, aldehydes, ketones and alcohols that were not assessed in this study. Several additional VOCs were detected in the ambient air quality monitoring datasets but were not included in this initial screening assessment because there was no direct evidence that these VOCs were emitted from OG operations.
- We used ambient air data collected in regions with substantial OG operations as a surrogate for a person’s exposure, which could over or under-estimate risk. The data may not adequately represent community level exposures to people living at all distances between 500 and greater from oil and gas operations and therefore, may over- or under-estimate VOC exposures. In addition, the air data represent a person’s total outdoor air exposure to both OG and non-OG sources of emissions and therefore, may over-estimate the health risks solely from OG emissions. For example, several source apportionment studies in the DJ basin have indicated that traffic and non-combustion sources are a significant contribution to total ambient air measurements.
- We conservatively assumed that the air data represented a person’s exposure. A more refined exposure assessment that accounts for exposure scenarios that include locations of people in a study area and how those people move around during the day would likely decrease the risk estimates.
- We estimated combined health risks using the assumption of dose additivity. This assumes that all individual VOCs could act by the same mode of action and that interactions are not likely to occur at the exposure levels below their associated health guideline levels. Human health risk from exposures to chemical mixtures is complexly related to the pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic mechanisms of interactions that can lead to decreased or increased health effects. For example, there is some evidence that petroleum based mixtures containing benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) can lead to competitive metabolic inhibition at high concentrations and increase blood levels of BTEX that could result in increased health effects. However, multiple studies and toxicity assessments indicate that these interactions are negligible at environmental levels of exposures and therefore, the default assumption of additivity is sufficiently protective [59].
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Czolowski, E.D.; Santoro, R.L.; Srebotnjak, T.; Shonkoff, S.B.C. Toward consistent methodology to quantify populations in proximity to oil and gas development: A national spatial analysis and review. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 086004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- US Energy Information Association. Colorado State Profile and Energy Estimates. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CO (accessed on 1 January 2018).
- Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Daily activity dashboard—Well status. Available online: http://cogcc.state.co.us/DAD.html (accessed on 10 February 2018).
- US Department of Commerce. National and State Population Estimates. Available online: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/estimates-idaho.html (accessed on 9 April 2018).
- McKenzie, L.M.; Allshouse, W.B.; Burke, T.; Blair, B.D.; Adgate, J.L. Population size, growth, and environmental justice near oil and gas wells in Colorado. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 11471–11480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adgate, J.L.; Goldstein, B.D.; McKenzie, L.M. Potential public health hazards, exposures and health effects from unconventional natural gas development. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 8307–8320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Werner, A.K.; Vink, S.; Watt, K.; Jagals, P. Environmental health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: A review of the current strength of evidence. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 505, 1127–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boyle, M.D.; Payne-Sturges, D.C.; Sangaramoorthy, T.; Wilson, S.; Nachman, K.E.; Babik, K.; Jenkins, C.C.; Trowell, J.; Milton, D.K.; Sapkota, A. Hazard ranking methodology for assessing health impacts of unconventional natural gas development and production: The maryland case study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0145368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eisele, A.P.; Mukerjee, S.; Smith, L.A.; Thoma, E.D.; Whitaker, D.A.; Oliver, K.D.; Wu, T.; Colon, M.; Alston, L.; Cousett, T.A.; et al. Volatile Organic Compounds at two oil and natural gas production well pads in Colorado and texas using passive samplers. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2016, 66, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brantley, H.L.; Thoma, E.D.; Eisele, A.P. Assessment of volatile organic compound and hazardous air pollutant emissions from oil and natural gas well pads using mobile remote and on-site direct measurements. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2015, 65, 1072–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pétron, G.; Frost, G.; Miller, B.R.; Hirsch, A.I.; Montzka, S.A.; Karion, A.; Trainer, M.; Sweeney, C.; Andrews, A.E.; Miller, L.; et al. Hydrocarbon emissions characterization in the Colorado front range: A pilot study. J. Geophys. Res. 2012, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pétron, G.; Karion, A.; Sweeney, C.; Miller, B.R.; Montzka, S.A.; Frost, G.J.; Trainer, M.; Tans, P.; Andrews, A.; Kofler, J.; et al. A new look at methane and nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions from oil and natural gas operations in the Colorado denver-julesburg basin. J. Geophys. Res. 2014, 119, 6836–6852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilman, J.B.; Lerner, B.M.; Kuster, W.C.; de Gouw, J.A. Source signature of volatile organic compounds from oil and natural gas operations in Northeastern Colorado. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 1297–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Colborn, T.; Schultz, K.; Herrick, L.; Kwiatkowski, C. An exploratory study of air quality near natural gas operations. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 2014, 20, 86–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helmig, D.; Hannigan, M.; Milford, J.; Gordon, J. Air Quality Monitoring Study to Assess Exposures to Volatile Organic Compounds and Develop Cost-Efficient Monitoring Techniques; University of Colorado: Boulder, CO, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, C.R.; Heuber, J.; Helmig, D. Influence of oil and gas emissions on ambient atmospheric non-methane hydrocarbons in residential areas of northeastern colorado. Elem. Sci. Anth. 2014, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. North Front Range Ozone Precursor Monitoring 2011–2017. Available online: https://www.colorado.gov/airquality/tech_doc_repository.aspx#ozone_precursor_data (accessed on 3 March 2018).
- Garfield County Health Department. Annual Air Monitoring Reports 2008–2016. Available online: https://www.garfield-county.com/air-quality/documents.aspx (accessed on 10 January 2018).
- Swarthout, R.F.; Russo, R.S.; Zhou, Y.; Hart, A.H.; Sive, B.C. Volatile organic compound distributions during the nachtt campaign at the boulder atmospheric observatory: Influence of urban and natural gas sources. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 10614–10637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfister, G.; Flocke, F.; Hornbrook, R.; Orlando, J.; Lee, S.; Schroeder, J. Process-Based and Regional Source Impact Analysis for Frappe and Discover-Aq 2014; National Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory: Boulder, CO, USA, 2017.
- Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Air Emissions Case Study Related to Oil and Gas Development in Erie, Colorado. Available online: https://www.colorado.gov/airquality/tech_doc_repository.aspx?action=open&file=Erie+Air+Emissions+Case+Study+2012+-+revised+11252014.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2018).
- Halliday, H.S.; Thompson, A.M.; Wisthaler, A.; Blake, D.R.; Hornbrook, R.S.; Mikoviny, T.; Müller, M.; Eichler, P.; Apel, E.C.; Hills, A.J. Atmospheric benzene observations from oil and gas production in the denver-julesburg basin in july and august 2014. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2016, 121, 11055–11074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macey, G.P.; Breech, R.; Chernaik, M.; Cox, C.; Larson, D.; Thomas, D.; Carpenter, D.O. Air concentrations of volatile compounds near oil and gas production: A community-based exploratory study. Environ. Health A Glob. Access Sci. Source 2014, 13, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolden, A.L.; Schultz, K.; Pelch, K.E.; Kwiatkowski, C.F. Exploring the endocrine activity of air pollutants associated with unconventional oil and gas extraction. Environ. Health 2018, 17, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McKenzie, L.M.; Allshouse, W.B.; Byers, T.E.; Bedrick, E.J.; Serdar, B.; Adgate, J.L. Childhood hematologic cancer and residential proximity to oil and gas development. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Casey, J.A.; Savitz, D.A.; Rasmussen, S.G.; Ogburn, E.L.; Pollak, J.; Mercer, D.G.; Schwartz, B.S. Unconventional natural gas development and birth outcomes in Pennsylvania, USA. Epidemiology 2016, 27, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stacy, S.L.; Brink, L.L.; Larkin, J.C.; Sadovsky, Y.; Goldstein, B.D.; Pitt, B.R.; Talbott, E.O. Perinatal outcomes and unconventional natural gas operations in Southwest Pennsylvania. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tustin, A.W.; Hirsch, A.G.; Rasmussen, S.G.; Casey, J.A.; Bandeen-Roche, K.; Schwartz, B.S. Associations between unconventional natural gas development and nasal and sinus, migraine headache, and fatigue symptoms in Pennsylvania. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rabinowitz, P.M.; Slizovskiy, I.B.; Lamers, V.; Trufan, S.J.; Holford, T.R.; Dziura, J.D.; Peduzzi, P.N.; Kane, M.J.; Reif, J.S.; Weiss, T.R.; et al. Proximity to natural gas wells and reported health status: Results of a household survey in washington county, Pennsylvania. Environ. Health Perspect. 2015, 123, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steinzor, N.; Subra, W.; Sumi, L. Investigating links between shale gas development and health impacts through a community survey project in Pennsylvania. New Solut. 2013, 23, 55–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rasmussen, S.G.; Ogburn, E.L.; McCormack, M.; Casey, J.A.; Bandeen-Roche, K.; Mercer, D.G.; Schwartz, B.S. Association between unconventional natural gas development in the marcellus shale and asthma exacerbations. JAMA Intern. Med. 2016, 176, 1334–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jemielita, T.; Gerton, G.L.; Neidell, M.; Chillrud, S.; Yan, B.; Stute, M.; Howarth, M.; Saberi, P.; Fausti, N.; Penning, T.M.; et al. Unconventional gas and oil drilling is associated with increased hospital utilization rates. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werner, A.K.; Watt, K.; Cameron, C.M.; Vink, S.; Page, A.; Jagals, P. All-age hospitalization rates in coal seam gas areas in Queensland, Australia, 1995-2011. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fryzek, J.; Pastula, S.; Jiang, X.; Garabrant, D.H. Childhood cancer incidence in Pennsylvania counties in relation to living in counties with hydraulic fracturing sites. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2013, 55, 796–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McKenzie, L.M.; Guo, R.; Witter, R.Z.; Savitz, D.A.; Newman, L.S.; Adgate, J.L. Birth outcomes and maternal residential proximity to natural gas development in rural colorado. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122, 412–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whitworth, K.W.; Marshall, A.K.; Symanski, E. Maternal residential proximity to unconventional gas development and perinatal outcomes among a diverse urban population in texas. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McKenzie, L.; Witter, R.; Newman, L.; Adgate, J. Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 424, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ethridge, S.; Bredfeldt, T.; Sheedy, K.; Shirley, S.; Lopez, G.; Honeycutt, M. The barnett shale: From problem formulation to risk management. J. Unconv. Oil Gas Res. 2015, 11, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bunch, A.G.; Perry, C.S.; Abraham, L.; Wikoff, D.S.; Tachovsky, J.A.; Hixon, J.G.; Urban, J.D.; Harris, M.A.; Haws, L.C. Evaluation of impact of shale gas operations in the barnett shale region on Volatile Organic Compounds in air and potential human health risks. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468–469, 832–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- British Columbia Ministry of Health. Screening Level Risk Assessment; Intrinsik: Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Coons, T.; Walker, R. Community Health Risks of Oil and Gas Industry Impacts in Garfield County; Saccommano Research Institute: Grand Junction, CO, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- McKenzie, L.M.; Blair, B.; Hughes, J.; Allshouse, W.B.; Blake, N.J.; Helmig, D.; Milmoe, P.; Halliday, H.; Blake, D.R.; Adgate, J.L. Ambient nonmethane hydrocarbon levels along colorado’s northern front range: Acute and chronic health risks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 4514–4525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- US Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol i Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part F: Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment); Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Ed.; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
- Collett, J.; Ham, J.; Hecobian, A. North Front Range Oil and Gas Air Pollutant Emission and Dispersion Study; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Collett, J.; Ham, J.; Hecobian, A. Characterizing Emissions from Natural Gas Drilling and Well Completion Operations in Garfield County, Co; Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- US Environmental Protection Agency. Network design criteria for ambient air quality monitoring. In 40 C.F.R Part 58 Appendix D; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Cogcc Interactive Map. Available online: https://cogcc.state.co.us/maps.html#/gisonline (accessed on 27 June 2018).
- US Environmental Protection Agency. A Preliminary Risk-Based Screening Approach for Air Toxics Monitoring Data Sets; Air Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Ed.; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
- US Environmental Protection Agency. Air Toxics Risk Assessment Reference Library Volumes 1–3. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/fera/air-toxics-risk-assessment-reference-library-volumes-1-3 (accessed on 1 March 2018).
- US Environmental Protection Agency. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments; Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Ed.; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
- US/ICCA. Sids initial assessment profile for c7–c9 aliphatic hydrocarbon solvents category. SIAM 30. 2010. Available online: https://hpvchemicals.oecd.org/ui/handler.axd?id=afd8ccb9-af39-43ca-b49c-5034972e75dc (accessed on 12 March 2018).
- World Health Organization. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Iarc Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- US Environmental Protection Agency. National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; benzene; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
- US Environmental Protection Agency. Regional Removal Management Levels for Chemicals (RMLS); Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Ed.; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
- US Environmental Protection Agency. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
- Elliott, E.G.; Trinh, P.; Ma, X.; Leaderer, B.P.; Ward, M.H.; Deziel, N.C. Unconventional oil and gas development and risk of childhood leukemia: Assessing the evidence. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 576, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for 1,3-Butadiene; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012.
- Brown, D.R.; Lewis, C.; Weinberger, B.I. Human exposure to unconventional natural gas development: A public health demonstration of periodic high exposure to chemical mixtures in ambient air. J. Environ. Sci. Health. A Tox Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 2015, 50, 460–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene (btex). Available online: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/ip05.html (accessed on 1 January 2018).
Reference | Description | Distance from Closest OG Site (ft) | Operation Type/Phase | Year(s) of Data Collection | Total Individual Samples Collected | Sample Collection Duration | Sampling Frequency and Duration | Time of Day | Season |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Denver-Julesburg Basin | |||||||||
CDPHE (Platteville) 6 [17] | air monitoring in oil and gas region with active development | 950 4 | Various | 2011–2017 | 369 | 3-h integrated | Weekly for 365 days | 6–9 a.m. | All |
CDPHE (Erie) [21] | site specific air monitoring | 850–1650 3 | Completion | 2012 | 36 | 3-h integrated | Every 3 days for 30 days then daily for 16 days | 6–9 a.m. | Summer |
FRAPPE WAS 7 [20] | site specific air monitoring | >500 4 | Various | 2014 | 55 | 1-min grab sample | Once | Daytime | Summer |
Gilman et al. 1 [13] | site specific air monitoring | 984 3 | Production | 2011 | 544 | 5-min integrated | Every 30 min for 19 days | 24-h | Winter |
Halliday et al. 1 [22] | air monitoring in oil and gas region with active development | 1550 4 | Drilling, hydraulic fracturing | 2014 | 28,009 | 1-s per minute | 23 days | 24-h | Summer |
Helmig et al. [15] | air monitoring in region adjacent to active development | 1470–2050 feet 5 | Unknown 5 | 2014 | 47 | 3-day integrated | Every 6–10 days for 86 days | 24-h | Summer |
Swarthout et al. 1 [19] | air monitoring in oil and gas region with active development | 984 3 | Production | 2011 | 550 | 1-min grab sample 2 | Hourly for 23 days | 24-h | Spring |
Thompson et al. 1 [16] | air monitoring in oil and gas region with active development | 350–1400 3 | Production | 2013 | 30 | 5-min grab samples, 3-h integrated, 24-h integrated | Random sampling over 77 days | 24-h | Spring |
Piceance Basin | |||||||||
Colborn et al. 1 [14] | Site specific air monitoring | 3700 3 | Drilling/production | 2010/2011 | 48 | 24-h integrated | Weekly for 365 days | 24-h | All |
Garfield Cty. (Bell-Melton) [18] | air monitoring in oil and gas region with active development | 500–800 3 | Various | 2008–2015 | 390 | 24-h integrated | Weekly for 365 days | 24-h | All |
Garfield Cty. (Battlement Mesa) [18] | air monitoring in oil and gas region with active development | 500–800 3 | Various | 2010–2015 | 323 | 24-h integrated | Weekly for 365 days | 24-h | All |
Tier | Source | Health Guidance Value |
---|---|---|
Tier I | U.S. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) | Chronic: Reference Concentration (RfC) Cancer: Inhalation Unit Risk (IUR) |
Tier II | Center for Disease Control—Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry | Acute & Chronic: Minimal Risk Level (MRL) |
Tier III | US EPA Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTV’s) | Chronic: PPRTV |
Tier IV | California EPA (Cal EPA) | Acute and Chronic: Reference Exposure Level (REL) Cancer: Inhalation Unit Risk (IUR) |
Tier V | Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) | Short & Long-Term: Air Monitoring Comparison Value (AMCV) |
Tier VI | Surrogate approach | Not applicable |
Substance | Range of Mean Air Concentrations | Maximum Air Concentration | Acute HGV | Chronic HGV | Acute HQ | Chronic HQ | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene | 4.00 × 10−3 | 3.50 × 10−2 | 1.72 × 10−1 | 3000 5 | 12 1 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 1.80 × 10−2 | 1.90 × 10−1 | 2.90 × 100 | 3000 5 | 12 1 | <0.01 | 0.02 |
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene | 6.00 × 10−3 | 5.36 × 10−2 | 2.44 × 10−1 | 3000 5 | 12 1 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
1-Butene | 1.29 × 10−2 | 9.12 × 10−1 | 5.92 × 100 | 27,000 5 | 2300 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
1-Pentene | 8.00 × 10−3 | 6.81 × 10−1 | 1.47 × 100 | 12,000 5 | 560 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane | 8.00 × 10−3 | 4.40 × 10−2 | 3.38 × 100 | 4100 5 | 124 3 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
2,3,4-Trimethylpentane | 8.00 × 10−3 | 5.30 × 10−2 | 3.84 × 10−1 | 4100 5 | 124 3 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
2,3-Dimethylpentane | 3.10 × 10−2 | 3.15 × 10−1 | 1.26 × 100 | 8200 5 | 2200 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
2,4-Dimethylpentane | 2.40 × 10−2 | 2.00 × 10−1 | 1.34 × 100 | 8200 5 | 2200 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
2-Methylheptane | 3.40 × 10−2 | 3.00 × 10−1 | 1.54 × 100 | 4100 5 | 390 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
2-Methylhexane | 2.12 × 10−1 | 5.00 × 100 | 2.94 × 101 | 8200 5 | 2200 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
2-Methylpentane | 3.60 × 10−1 | 3.69 × 100 | 2.89 × 101 | 1600 5 | 57 5 | 0.02 | 0.06 |
3-Methylheptane | 2.40 × 10−2 | 1.79 × 10−1 | 1.04 × 100 | 4100 5 | 390 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
3-Methylhexane | 9.80 × 10−2 | 9.05 × 10−1 | 3.96 × 100 | 8200 5 | 2200 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
3-Methylpentane | 2.45 × 10−1 | 1.96 × 100 | 1.52 × 101 | 1600 5 | 57 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Benzene | 1.86 × 10−1 | 9.58 × 10−1 | 8.67 × 100 | 9 2 | 9 1 | 0.95 | 0.11 |
Butene (cis-2-) | 8.00 × 10−3 | 2.32 × 10−1 | 1.52 × 100 | 15,000 5 | 690 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Butene (trans-2-) | 9.00 × 10−3 | 2.55 × 10−1 | 1.67 × 100 | 15,000 5 | 690 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Cyclohexane | 1.43 × 10−1 | 2.09 × 100 | 3.05 × 101 | 1000 5 | 1744 1 | 0.03 | <0.01 |
Cyclopentane | 8.80 × 10−2 | 1.13 × 100 | 2.02 × 101 | 5900 5 | 120 3 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Dimethylcyclohexane(cis-13-) | 2.70 × 10−2 | 2.70 × 10−2 | 1.00 × 10−1 | 4000 6 | 400 6 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Dimethylcyclohexane(trans-12-) | 7.00 × 10−3 | 7.00 × 10−3 | 3.00 × 10−2 | 4000 6 | 400 6 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Dimethylcyclohexane(trans-13-) | 4.00 × 10−3 | 4.00 × 10−3 | 1.00 × 10−2 | 4000 6 | 400 6 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Ethane | 12.2 × 100 | 1.39 × 102 | 1.06 × 103 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Ethylbenzene | 1.50 × 10−2 | 6.70 × 10−1 | 2.09 × 101 | 20,000 5 | 230 1 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Ethylcyclohexane | 1.40 × 10−2 | 1.40 × 10−2 | 5.00 × 10−2 | 4000 6 | 400 6 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Ethylene | 4.34 × 10−1 | 1.12 × 101 | 7.50 × 101 | 25,000 5 | 2500 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Isobutane | 2.10 × 100 | 2.19 × 101 | 1.72 × 102 | 33,000 5 | 10,000 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Isopentane | 1.60 × 10−2 | 1.80 × 101 | 1.39 × 102 | 8100 3 | 8000 5 | 0.02 | <0.01 |
Isoprene | 4.00 × 10−3 | 1.38 × 10−1 | 1.36 × 100 | 48 2 | 42 2 | 0.03 | <0.01 |
Isopropylbenzene | 2.00 × 10−3 | 1.70 × 10−2 | 3.00 × 10−1 | 510 5 | 81 1 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
m-Diethylbenzene | 4.00 × 10−3 | 4.70 × 10−2 | 2.38 × 10−1 | 450 5 | 46 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Methanol | 4.66 × 100 | 1.83 × 101 | 4.10 × 101 | 270,000 1 | 15,300 1 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Methylcyclohexane | 1.43 × 10−1 | 1.74 × 100 | 1.63 × 101 | 4000 5 | 400 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Methylcyclopentane | 2.63 × 10−1 | 1.78 × 100 | 1.83 × 101 | 750 5 | 75 5 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
m-Ethyltoluene | 1.00 × 10−2 | 8.65 × 10−2 | 3.31 × 10−1 | 250 5 | 25 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
m/p-Xylene | 7.40 × 10−2 | 6.57 × 10−1 | 4.99 × 101 | 1700 5 | 23 1 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
n-Butane | 2.22 × 100 | 5.17 × 101 | 3.88 × 102 | 92,000 5 | 10,000 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
n-Decane | 1.00 × 10−2 | 5.75 × 10−1 | 2.58 × 101 | 1750 5 | 175 5 | 0.02 | <0.01 |
n-Heptane | 1.34 × 10−1 | 1.38 × 100 | 1.58 × 101 | 8200 5 | 2200 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
n-Hexane | 5.07 × 10−1 | 4.12 × 100 | 4.46 × 101 | 1600 5 | 199 1 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
n-Nonane | 1.90 × 10−2 | 3.25 × 100 | 1.49 × 101 | 3000 5 | 3.8 3 | <0.01 | 0.84 |
n-Octane | 5.20 × 10−2 | 4.67 × 10−1 | 3.73 × 100 | 4100 5 | 124 3 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
n-Pentane | 1.05 × 100 | 1.75 × 101 | 1.60 × 102 | 68,000 5 | 8000 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
n-Propylbenzene | 4.00 × 10−3 | 3.24 × 10−2 | 1.44 × 10−1 | 510 5 | 51 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
n-Undecane | 1.30 × 10−2 | 7.67 × 10−1 | 3.98 × 101 | 550 | 55 | 0.07 | <0.01 |
o-Ethyltoluene | 3.00 × 10−3 | 4.49 × 10−2 | 2.92 × 10−1 | 250 5 | 25 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
o-Xylene | 2.30 × 10−2 | 1.68 × 10−1 | 1.65 × 10 1 | 1700 5 | 23 1 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
p-Diethylbenzene | 8.00 × 10−3 | 3.00 × 10−1 | 2.90 × 100 | 450 5 | 46 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Pentene (cis-2-) | 7.00 × 10−3 | 7.80 × 10−2 | 4.88 × 10−1 | 12,000 5 | 560 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Pentene (trans-2-) | 8.00 × 10−3 | 1.34 × 10−1 | 9.34 × 10−1 | 12,000 5 | 560 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
p-Ethyltoluene | 5.00 × 10−3 | 5.55 × 10−2 | 2.56 × 10−1 | 250 5 | 25 5 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Propane | 5.21 × 100 | 1.05 × 102 | 7.23 × 102 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Propylene | 1.04 × 10−1 | 1.61 × 101 | 5.46 × 101 | NL 7 | 1744 4 | NA | <0.01 |
Styrene | 5.00 × 10−3 | 3.63 × 10−1 | 3.09 × 100 | 500 2 | 235 1 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
Toluene | 1.90 × 10−1 | 5.49 × 100 | 2.10 × 101 | 2000 2 | 1328 1 | 0.01 | <0.01 |
Substance | Highest Mean Concentration (µg/m3) | IUR (Source) | Excess Cancer Risk |
---|---|---|---|
Benzene | 4.6 | 2.2 × 10−6–7.8 × 10−6 (U.S. EPA) 1 | 1.0 × 10−5–3.6 × 10−5 |
Ethylbenzene | 2.9 | 2.5 × 10−6 (CalEPA) | 7.3 × 10−6 |
Aggregate Risk | 4.3 × 10−5 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
McMullin, T.S.; Bamber, A.M.; Bon, D.; Vigil, D.I.; Van Dyke, M. Exposures and Health Risks from Volatile Organic Compounds in Communities Located near Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities in Colorado (U.S.A.). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071500
McMullin TS, Bamber AM, Bon D, Vigil DI, Van Dyke M. Exposures and Health Risks from Volatile Organic Compounds in Communities Located near Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities in Colorado (U.S.A.). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(7):1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071500
Chicago/Turabian StyleMcMullin, Tami S., Alison M. Bamber, Daniel Bon, Daniel I. Vigil, and Michael Van Dyke. 2018. "Exposures and Health Risks from Volatile Organic Compounds in Communities Located near Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities in Colorado (U.S.A.)" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 7: 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071500
APA StyleMcMullin, T. S., Bamber, A. M., Bon, D., Vigil, D. I., & Van Dyke, M. (2018). Exposures and Health Risks from Volatile Organic Compounds in Communities Located near Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities in Colorado (U.S.A.). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071500