The use of measured volatile organic chemical (VOC) concentrations in indoor air to evaluate vapor intrusion is complicated by (i) indoor sources of the same VOCs and (ii) temporal variability in vapor intrusion. This study evaluated the efficacy of utilizing induced negative and positive building pressure conditions during a vapor intrusion investigation program to provide an improved understanding of the potential for vapor intrusion. Pressure control was achieved in five of six buildings where the investigation program was tested. For these five buildings, the induced pressure differences were sufficient to control the flow of soil gas through the building foundation. A comparison of VOC concentrations in indoor air measured during the negative and positive pressure test conditions was sufficient to determine whether vapor intrusion was the primary source of VOCs in indoor air at these buildings. The study results indicate that sampling under controlled building pressure can help minimize ambiguity caused by both indoor sources of VOCs and temporal variability in vapor intrusion.

Distinguishing between vapor intrusion and indoor sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is a significant challenge in conventional vapor intrusion assessments. For this research project, the authors developed a step-by-step protocol to streamline building-specific investigations by using on-site gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis and building pressure manipulation to determine the source of VOCs in indoor air during a 1-day field investigation. Protocol validation included implementation in industrial buildings and testing alongside conventional methods. The new protocol compares favorably to conventional approaches, yielding more definitive results in less time. This article presents three case studies which illustrate application of the protocol.

A large number of states have issued guidance addressing the vapor intrusion pathway making it difficult to keep up with various policies and requirements. We have compiled and reviewed guidance from 35 states, half of which have issued documents within the last three years. A comparison of policies among states shows reasonable consistency in some areas-for example, 20 of 23 states that provide an exclusion distance for subsurface sources of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) use a distance of 100 feet. However, more commonly, the policy decisions vary widely. Among states, indoor air screening concentrations for the same VOC vary by more than 2,000 times and subsurface screening concentrations vary by more than 2,000,000 times. These wide discrepancies suggest a need for communication and consensus building in order to increase consistency in the management of the vapor intrusion pathway. O

The role of sewer lines as preferential pathways for vapor intrusion is poorly understood. Although the importance of sewer lines for volatile organic compound (VOC) transport has been documented at a small number of sites with vapor intrusion, sewer lines are not routinely sampled during most vapor intrusion investigations. We have used a tracer study and VOC concentration measurements to evaluate the role of the combined sanitary/storm sewer line in VOC transport at the USEPA vapor intrusion research duplex in Indianapolis, Indiana. The results from the tracer study demonstrated gas migration from the sewer main line into the duplex. The migration pathway appears to be complex and may include leakage from the sewer lateral at a location below the building foundation. Vapor samples collected from the sewer line demonstrated the presence of tetrachloroethene (PCE) and chloroform in the sewer main in front of the duplex and at multiple sample locations within the sewer line upstream of the duplex. These test results combined with results from the prior multi-year study of the duplex indicate that the sewer line plays an important role in transport of VOCs from the subsurface source to the immediate vicinity of the duplex building envelope.

We made 74 closely spaced (< 2 km apart) heat flow measurements around and over two salt structures on the Texas continental slope, Gulf of Mexico. The values outlined the shape of the heat flow anomalies over both structures. Based on a preceding high resolution seismic survey, we interpreted these structures to be a cylindrical plug and a salt tongue extending from the crest of a wall‐shaped feeder. The heat flow observations clearly reflect differences between the two features and are consistent with the prior structural interpretation. The values over the salt plug are nearly all greater than 70 mW/m². The measurements over the salt tongue have a sharp heat flow peak of 90 mW/m² associated with the presumed feeder and rather uniform values around 60 mW/m² over the remainder. The variation of heat flow over both structures is smooth and shows no apparent scatter. Heat flow values off these features are uniformly low, around 30 mW/m². Thermal effects from bottom water temperature fluctuation, slope sedimentation, diapiric movement of the salt body, and pore fluid migration appear unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the observations. However, thickness variations of a highly conductive salt body can easily account for the heat flow anomalies. We suggest that modeling of the conductive anomaly should provide substantial constraints on the bottom geometry of the salt.

Regulatory requirements for the evaluation of vapor intrusion vary significantly among states. For site owners and responsible parties that have sites in different regulatory jurisdictions, one challenge is to know and understand how the requirements or expectations for vapor intrusion differ from one jurisdiction to the next. Differences in requirements can make it difficult to manage sites in a consistent manner across jurisdictions. Eklund, Folkes, et al. (2007, February, Environmental Manager, 10–14) published an overview of state guidance for vapor intrusion in 2007 that provided a detailed summary of pathway screening values and other key vapor intrusion policies. An update by Eklund, Beckley, et al. (2012, Remediation, 22, 7–20) was published in 2012, which expanded the evaluation to additional states. Since that time, numerous states have substantially revised their guidance and some states that did not have vapor intrusion‐specific guidance have issued new guidance. This article provides an update to the 2012 study. For each state, the review includes tabulations of the types of screening values included (e.g., groundwater, soil, soil gas, indoor air) and the screening values for selected chemicals that commonly drive vapor intrusion investigations (i.e., trichloroethylene [TCE], tetrachloroethylene, and benzene) along with other compounds of potential interest. In addition, for each state, the article summarizes a number of key policy decisions that are important for the investigation of vapor intrusion including: distance screening criteria, default subsurface to indoor air attenuation factors, mitigation criteria, and policies for evaluation of short‐term TCE exposure.

At sites impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs), vapor intrusion (VI) is the pathway with the greatest potential to result in actual human exposure. Since sites with VI were first widely publicized in late 1990s, the scientific understanding of VI has evolved considerably. The VI conceptual model has been extended beyond relatively simple scenarios to include nuances, such as biological and hydrogeological factors that may limit the potential for VI and alternative pathways, such as preferential pathways and direct building contact/infiltration that may enhance VI in some cases. Regulatory guidance documents typically recommend initial concentration-or distance-based screening to evaluate whether VI may be a concern, followed by a multiple-lines-of-evidence (MLE) investigation approach for sites that do not screen out. These recommendations for detailed evaluation of VI currently focus on monitoring of VOC concentrations in groundwater, soil gas, and indoor air and can be supplemented by other lines of evidence. In this Critical Review, we summarize key elements important to VI site characterization, provide the status and current understanding, and highlight data interpretation challenges, as well as innovative tools developed to help overcome the challenges. Although there have been significant advances in the understanding of VI in the past 20 years, limitations and knowledge gaps in screening, investigation methods, and modeling approaches still exist. Potential areas for further research include improved initial screening methods that account for the site-specific role of barriers, improved understanding of preferential pathways, and systematic study of buildings and infrastructure other than single-family residences.

“Random” variability in groundwater monitoring data sets reduces the ability to identify long‐term concentration trends. This, in turn, increases the time and cost required to evaluate the effectiveness of natural attenuation and other groundwater remedies. To better understand the factors influencing variability in groundwater monitoring results, we have analyzed three large groundwater monitoring data sets. For the three data sets, the long‐term trend in contaminant concentration in each well accounted for an average of 30% to 40% of the overall variation in contaminant concentration. Understanding the causes of the remaining variability would support the development of improved groundwater monitoring methods. All three data sets show large differences in the temporal monitoring records between individual wells (e.g., coefficient of variation for monitoring results from individual wells ranges from 0.08 to 4.6) indicating that well and aquifer factors are more important contributors to variability than sample collection and analysis factors. However, the depth to groundwater (R2 = 0.020) and distance between water level and screened interval (R2 = 0.049) accounted for only a portion of the differences in variability between wells and other aquifer characteristics evaluated and were not correlated with the observed variability in monitoring results. Unidentified factors were apparently much more important contributors to variability than these factors. The monitoring data sets exhibited two distinct timescales for variability: Time‐independent variability that was apparent even when wells were re‐sampled within a few days and a long‐term variability likely associated with the long‐term concentration trend. The observation of time‐independent variability suggests that frequent monitoring of contaminated monitoring wells serves primarily to characterize sources of variability unrelated to the long‐term trend of primary interest.