![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
Abstract
The potential for use of alternatives to total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) for remediation purposes was examined specifically for JP‐4 fuel. The study objective was to determine the scientific basis for use of fuel constituents other than TPH in establishing soil cleanup standards at JP‐4‐contaminated sites. The general bases for TPH soil cleanup standards or goals were characterized. Problems with the use of TPH for cleanup included its lack of specificity (e.g., method‐, medium‐, and time‐from‐spill‐dependency) as well as the lack of toxicological relevance. JP‐4 fuel constituents (alkanes, BTEX [i.e., benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes], polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs, i.e., chrysene], and naphthalenes) were identified as potential TPH alternatives. A series of criteria were applied to assess the viability of the use of specific JP‐4 constituents as TPH alternatives, and to select the most appropriate alternative. Criteria included chemical fate and transport, toxicity, and regulatory standards for relevant media of concern. Consideration of these criteria ultimately resulted in selection of benzene as the JP‐4 indicator of choice. The potential for altering risk‐based benzene soil cleanup concentrations (preliminary remediation goals, PRGs) was examined, and encompassed the basis for the existing benzene cancer slope factor (SF) as well as the role of distributional analysis of exposure parameters (Monte Carlo) that might be employed at JP‐4 spill sites. Results and conclusions are presented, and the implications for fuels other than JP‐4 are also discussed.