MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2019590739 · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6592.2008.01212.x

GWMR Focus Issue on Vapor Intrusion

2009· article· en· W2019590739 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueGroundwater Monitoring & Remediation · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueUrban Stormwater Management Solutions
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntrusionIntrusion detection systemPolitical scienceBusinessComputer securityComputer scienceGeologyGeochemistry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The timing of this GWMR special focus issue roughly coincides with the 20th anniversary of the emergence of soil vapor intrusion to indoor air as an exposure pathway of concern for human health risks at sites with contaminated soil and ground water. In 1988, the Indoor Radon Abatement Act was promulgated and chlorinated solvent vapor intrusion was identified in the Hillside School in Needham, Massachusetts. At about the same time, the Johnson and Ettinger screening-level model was being developed to assess vapor intrusion risks at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. In general, however, this pathway was seldom assessed until vapor intrusion cases in Colorado in the late 1990s gained attention in the press and raised the issue to national prominence. There are now about two dozen state-level guidance documents, a few federal guidance documents, and multiple documents from private companies or nongovernment organizations. Internationally, there is interest in vapor intrusion in several other countries (Canada, UK, EU, and Australia, to name a few). There are significant differences between jurisdictions in approaches, methods, policies, and screening levels (by up to several orders of magnitude). This indicates the limits of our collective understanding of the topic because the laws of physics, building ventilation practices, and human toxicology do not vary much between states or countries. The development of a simple recipe for assessing vapor intrusion has been elusive; regulatory agencies generally would like an assessment approach that minimizes false negatives (falsely concluding that vapor intrusion poses no significant risk), whereas responsible parties generally would like an approach that is practicable and minimizes both false negatives and false positives (falsely concluding that vapor intrusion does pose an unacceptable risk). Assessments can be challenging because typical indoor air concentrations in residences not affected by vapor intrusion approach risk-based target concentrations for several common chemicals. Considering all the attention paid to the vapor intrusion pathway, there has been very little funding for relevant pure or applied research in the past decade. For example, the Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988 allocated about $15 million/year of research and technical assistance funding. Recently, federal funding has been extended to a few studies of VOC vapor intrusion through the Environmental Security Technology Certification program (ESTCP) and the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), although in much smaller amounts. Industry-funded programs have been few and small and largely led by the American Petroleum Institute and its member companies. As a result, much of what has been learned in the past decade has been based on studies conducted on an ad hoc basis with limited resources. Also, much of what has been learned has been shared in conference proceedings, or other non-peer-reviewed literature. This was a stimulus for this focus issue, which started about a year ago with an invitation sent to a large number of individuals active in this field, but with few or no publications in archival journals. The articles in this issue intentionally span a range of topics, including regulatory and public perspectives as well as traditional archival peer-review papers on sampling methods, empirical data variability, mathematical modeling, background concentrations, biodegradation of petroleum compounds, and more. We are grateful to the dozens of authors and coauthors as well as the dozens of peer reviewers for devoting their time to share the information contained herein. Schedule and space constraints prevented some papers from being published in this issue, and they will appear in coming issues. It will be interesting to see how the assessment and management of this exposure pathway progress. We need to develop and demonstrate the use of new data collection methods leading to confident characterization of long-term average exposures, because it is difficult to practicably reduce the uncertainty inherent in current point-in-time and point-in-space sampling methods given the spatial and temporal variations seen at research sites. In addition, we need improved techniques to discriminate between subsurface and indoor sources of indoor air contaminants, and improved predictive capabilities to address future-use scenarios at sites without buildings currently present or buildings where access for monitoring is denied. There are also several policy-related issues to consider, like those leading to screening levels that vary by several orders of magnitude, data sufficiency for reliable assessment, and relations with owners and occupants of potentially affected properties. There are significant challenges to overcome before we can screen and assess VOC vapor intrusion confidently and cost-effectively at all sites; in the meanwhile, there is an amazing opportunity for creative solutions to the current challenges. The readership of GWMR will no doubt be significant contributors to these solutions. We hope you enjoy this issue and look forward to future articles on this challenging and important topic.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,592
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,233
Écart entre enseignants0,220 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle