2014
DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1506
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Parsing pyrogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Forensic chemistry, receptor models, and source control policy

Abstract: A realistic understanding of contaminant sources is required to set appropriate control policy. Forensic chemical methods can be powerful tools in source characterization and identification, but they require a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach. Atmospheric receptor models, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)'s chemical mass balance (CMB), are increasingly being used to evaluate sources of pyrogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments. This paper describes the assumptions u… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
(79 reference statements)
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In an article reporting work funded by the Pavement Coatings Technology Council (PCTC) recently published in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM), O'Reilly et al () state “Over the last few years, [US Geological Survey (USGS) scientists] Van Metre and Mahler have been advocating bans [of refined tar‐based pavement sealant, RTS] in testimony to local, state, and federal entities.” The statement is based on observations made by O'Reilly and colleagues at hearings they attended to testify about the findings of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) forensic evaluations of data concerning RTS. In a letter to the editor of IEAM , Dr. Jared Bales, Acting Associate Director of Water, USGS, wrote that the statement is “inaccurate and misrepresents the facts” because the testimony in question was subject to USGS internal review procedures.…”
Section: Dear Sirmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In an article reporting work funded by the Pavement Coatings Technology Council (PCTC) recently published in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM), O'Reilly et al () state “Over the last few years, [US Geological Survey (USGS) scientists] Van Metre and Mahler have been advocating bans [of refined tar‐based pavement sealant, RTS] in testimony to local, state, and federal entities.” The statement is based on observations made by O'Reilly and colleagues at hearings they attended to testify about the findings of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) forensic evaluations of data concerning RTS. In a letter to the editor of IEAM , Dr. Jared Bales, Acting Associate Director of Water, USGS, wrote that the statement is “inaccurate and misrepresents the facts” because the testimony in question was subject to USGS internal review procedures.…”
Section: Dear Sirmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Case Study article by O'Reilly et al (hereinafter “Case Study authors”), published in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (O'Reilly et al ) and funded by the Pavement Coatings Technology Council, includes a lengthy critique of US Geological Survey (USGS) research on environmental contamination associated with coal‐tar‐based pavement sealant. Coal‐tar‐based pavement sealant, a black liquid that is sprayed or painted on asphalt pavement, typically is 15% to 35% by weight coal tar or low‐ or high‐temperature coal‐tar pitch (CAS nos.…”
Section: Disclaimermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The US Geological Survey (USGS) believes that the following statement in O'Reilly et al () is inaccurate and misrepresents the facts: “Over the last few years, [USGS scientists] Van Metre and Mahler have been advocating bans in testimony to local, state, and federal entities.”…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%