Soil Odor as An Extra-Official Criterion for Qualifying Remediation Projects of Crude Oil-Contaminated Soil
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Selection of Soil and Crude Oil Samples, Experimental Cell Preparation, Simulation of Contamination and Remediation
2.2. Initial Characterization of Soil and Determination of Fertility Parameters
2.3. Critical Moisture Content
2.4. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
2.5. Earthworm Bioassays
2.6. Odor Perception Test
2.7. Ethics
3. Results
3.1. Characterization of Initial and Treated Soil Samples
3.2. Water Repellency
3.3. Critical Moisture Content
3.4. Field Capacity
3.5. Toxicity
3.6. Soil Odor Perception
3.7. Relationship between Smell, Soil Fertility and Toxicity
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al Ambiente (General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection); Diario Oficial de la Federación: México City, Mexico, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, R.H.; Álvarez-Ovando, A.; Castañón, N.G. Efecto de la concentración de hidrocarburos sobre la producción del pasto (Brachiaria humidicola) en Texistepec, Veracruz (Effect of hydrocarbon concentration on pasture production (Brachiaria humidicola) in Texistepec, Veracruz). Phyton Int. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 84, 222–232. [Google Scholar]
- Cuevas-Díaz, M.D.C.; Reyes Espinosa, G.; Hernández Ilizaliturri, C.A.; Cantú Mendoza, A. Métodos Ecotoxicológicos Para la Evaluación de Suelos Contaminados con Hidrocarburos (Ecotoxicological Methods for the Evaluation of Soils Contaminated with Hydrocarbons); Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE): México City, Mexico, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, R.H.; Zavala-Cruz, J.; Morales-García, F.A. Concentración residual de hidrocarburos en suelo del trópico. II: Afectación a la fertilidad y su recuperación (Residual concentration of hydrocarbons in tropic soil. II: Impairment of fertility and its recovery). Interciencia 2008, 33, 483–489. [Google Scholar]
- Domínguez-Rodríguez, V.I.; Adams, R.H.; Vargas-Almeida, M.; Zavala-Cruz, J.; Romero-Frasca, E. Fertility Deterioration in a Premeditated Petroleum-Contaminated Soil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De la Cruz Morales, L.A. Evaluación Integral y Sistemática de la Contaminación de un Suelo Acrisol con Petroleo Crudo. (Tesis de Licenciatura). Integral and Systematic Evaluation of Contamination in an Acrisol soil with Crude Petroleum. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, División Académica de Ciencias Biológicas, México City, Mexico, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Trujillo-Narcia, A.; Rivera-Cruz, M.C.; Lagunes-Espinoza, L.C.; Palma-López, D.J.; Soto-Sánchez, S.; Ramírez-Valverde, G. Efecto de la restauración de un fluvisol contaminado con petróleo crudo (Effect of the restoration of a fluvisol contaminated with crude oil). Rev. Int. Contam. Ambient. 2012, 28, 360–374. [Google Scholar]
- Discovery-Channel. Recuperación de Suelos, ¿Cómo Lo Resuelven? Documental film about the remediation of the 18 de Marzo oil refinery in Mexico City. Discovery Networks Latin America, 25 Noviembre 2007. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rl6fk40GnRc (accessed on 4 November 2018).
- Rodriguez-Gil, G. El poderoso sentido del olfato (The powerful sense of smell). Resources 2004, 11, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
- Toro Gómez, M.V. Métodos Para el Monitoreo de Olores Ofensivos (Methods for Monitoring Offensive Odors); Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana: Medellín, Colombia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Baena, S.; Hernández, L. Análisis de la Regulación Colombiana en Materia de Olores Ofensivos (Analysis of Colombian Regulation Regarding Offensive Odors); Universidad de Medellín: Medellín, Colombia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Iglesias-García, A.R. Contaminación Atmosférica por Olores: Unas Técnicas de Medida Avanzadas y una Legislación Específica Inexistente (Air Pollution by Odors: Advanced Measurement Techniques and Non-Existent Specific Legislation). Available online: http://blog.condorchem.com/pdf/ponencia_olors_conama9.pdf.2017 (accessed on 23 October 2018).
- Eltarkawe, M.A.; Miller, S.L. The impact of industrial odors on the subjective well-being of communities in Colorado. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eltarkawe, M.A.; Miller, S.L. Industrial odor source identification based on wind direction and social participation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ramos-Rincón, M.; Bermudez, A.; Rojas, T. Contaminación Odorífera: Causas, Efectos y Posibles Soluciones a una Contaminación Invisible (Odor Pollution: Causes, Effects and Possible Solutions to Invisible Pollution); RIAA: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Volume 9, p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Sáenz, L.E.; Zambrano, D.A.; Calvo, J.A. Percepción comunitaria de los olores generados por la planta de tratamiento de aguas residuales de El Roble-Puntarenas, Costa Rica (Community perception of odors generated by the El Roble-Puntarenas wastewater treatment plant, Costa Rica). Tecnol. Marcha 2016, 29, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noguera, K.; Olivero, J. Los rellenos sanitarios en Latinoamérica: Caso colombiano (Sanitary landfills in Latin America: Colombian case). Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. Exactas Físicas Nat. 2010, 34, 347–356. [Google Scholar]
- Sakawi, Z.; Sharifah, S.; Jaafar, O.; Mahmud, M. Community perception of odor pollution from the landfill. Res. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2011, 3, 142–145. [Google Scholar]
- Carolan, M.S. When good smells go bad: A sociohistorical understanding of agricultural odor pollution. Environ. Plan. A 2008, 40, 1235–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coma, J.; Bonet, J.; Companys, G.V. Producción ganadera y contaminación ambiental (Livestock production and environmental pollution). In XX Curso de Especialización FEDNA: Avances en Nutrición y Alimentación Animal; Fira de Barcelona: Barcelona, Spain, 2004; pp. 237–272. [Google Scholar]
- Zarra, T.; Naddeo, V.; Belgiorno, V. A novel tool for estimating the odour emissions of composting plants in air pollution management. Glob. Nest J. 2009, 11, 477–486. [Google Scholar]
- Murguía, W. Contaminación por olores: El nuevo reto ambiental (Odor pollution: The new environmental challenge). Gac. Ecológica Inst. Nac. Ecol. Secr. Medio Ambiente Recur. Nat. 2007, 82, 49–53. [Google Scholar]
- Palma-López, D.J.; Cisneros, D.J.; Moreno, C.; Rincón-Ramírez, J.A. Suelos de Tabasco: Su uso y Manejo Sustentable; Colegio de Postgraduados-ISPROTAB-FUPROTAB: Villahermosa, Mexico, 2007; Volume 195. [Google Scholar]
- Zavala-Cruz, J.; García-López, E. Suelo y Vegetación de la Cuenca Baja del Rio Tonalá, Tabasco; Publicación especial del Colegio de Postgraduados; Campus Tabasco H. Cárdenas: Tabasco, Mexico, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Salehi, M.H. Challenges of Soil Taxonomy and WRB in classifying soils: Some examples from Iranian soils. Phys. Geogr. Ser. 2018, 14, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy (Claves Para la Taxonomía de Suelos); Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agriculture Department: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; p. 360. [Google Scholar]
- Porta, J.; Lopez Acevedo, M.; Poch, R. Edafología: Uso y Protección de Suelos (Edaphology: Use and Protection of Soils), 3rd ed.; Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, R.H.; Guzmán-Osorio, F.J.; Zavala-Cruz, J. Water repellency in oil contaminated sandy and clayey soils. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 5, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morales-Bautista, C.M.; Adams, R.H.; Hernández-Barajas, J.R.; Lobato-García, C.E.; Torres-Torres, J.G. Characterization of fresh and weathered petroleum for potential impacts to soil fertility. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 2689–2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Guide for Use of the Petroleum Measurement Tables; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Guzmán-Osorio, F.; Adams, R.H.; Domínguez-Rodríguez, V.; Lobato-García, C.; Guerrero-Peña, A.; Barajas-Hernández, J.; Baltierra-Trejo, E. Alternative method for determining API degrees of petroleum in contaminated soil by FTIR. Egypt. J. Pet. 2020, 29, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marín-García, D.C.; Adams, R.H.; Hernández-Barajas, R. Effect of crude petroleum on water repellency in a clayey alluvial soil. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adams, R.H.; Domínguez Rodríguez, V.I.; Carrillo, L.V. Evaluation of microbial respiration and ecotoxicity in contaminated soils representative of the petroleumproducing region of southeastern Mexico. Terra Latinoam. 2002, 20, 253–265. [Google Scholar]
- Corona-Ramírez, L.; Iturbe-Argüelles, R. Atenuación natural en suelos contaminados con hidrocarburos (Natural attenuation in soils contaminated with hydrocarbons). Ing. Investig. Tecnol. 2005, 6, 119–126. [Google Scholar]
- Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-021-RECNAT-2000 Que Establece las Especificaciones de Fertilidad, Salinidad y Clasificación de Suelos. Estudios, Muestreo y Análisis; Diario Oficial: México City, Mexico, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Domínguez, R.I.; Aguilera, H. Metodología de Análisis Físico-Químicos de Suelos (Methodology for Phyisical-Chemical Analysis of Soils), 1st ed.; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Mexico City, Mexico, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Lal, R.; Shukla, M.K. Principles of Soil Physics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kirkham, M.B. Principles of Soil and Plant Water Relations; Elsevier Sciencie: San Diego, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Zavala-Cruz, J.; Gavi-Reyes, F.; Adams, R.H.; Ferrera-Cerrato, R.; Palma-López, D.J.; Vaquera-Huerta, H.; Domínguez-Ezquivel, J.M. Derrames de petróleo en suelos y adaptación de pastos tropicales en el Activo Cinco Presidentes, Tabasco, México (Oil spills in soils and adaptation of tropical pastures in the Active Five Presidents, Tabasco, Mexico). Terra Latinoam. 2005, 23, 293–302. [Google Scholar]
- Litvina, M.; Todoruk, T.R.; Langford, C.H. Composition and structure of agents responsible for development of water repellency in soils following oil contamination. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 2883–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dekker, L.W.; Jungerius, P.D. Water repellency in the dunes with special reference to the Netherlands. Catena Suppl. 1990, 18, 173–183. [Google Scholar]
- Dlapa, P.; Doerr, S.; Lichner, Ľ.; Šír, M.; Tesař, M.J.P. Soil, and Environment, Alleviation of soil water repellency: Effect of kaolinite and Ca-montmorillonite. Plant Soil Environ. 2004, 50, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guzmán-Osorio, F.J.; Adams, R.H. Mitigation of water repellency in the treatment of contaminated muds using the chemical–biological stabilization process. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 2071–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Method 428.1. Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Total Recoverable. Spectrophotometric Infrared; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1986; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Mayo-López, T.M.; Adams, R.H.; Domínguez-Rodríguez, V.I.; Guzmán-Osorio, F.J. Organic amendment optimization for treatment of hydrocarbon contaminated soil using the chemicalbiological stabilization process. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 7079–7085. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, R.H.; Guzmán-Osorio, F.J. Evaluation of land farming and chemico-biological stabilization for treatment of heavily contaminated sediments in a tropical environment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 5, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Domínguez-Rodríguez, V.I.; Adams, R.H.; Sánchez-Madrigal, F.; Pascual-Chablé, J.D.L.S.; Gómez-Cruz, R. Soil contact bioassay for rapid determination of acute toxicity with Eisenia foetida. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- OECD. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Earthworm, Acute Toxicity Tests. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals; OECD: Paris, France, 1984; Volume 207. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Sensory Analysis—General Guidance for the Design of Test Rooms. In Standard ISO 8589:2010/A1:2014; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sanz Castrodeza, E. Comparación de Metodologías Bidimensionales en Análisis Sensorial (Tesis de Maestría). Comparison of Two-Dimensional Methodologies in Sensory Analysis. Master’s Thesis, Universidad de Valladolid, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenierías Agrarias, Palencia, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lotufo, H.A.; Mamaní, A.R.; González, L.E.; Cravero Bruneri, A.P. Composición físico-química y evaluación sensorial de una pasta rellena fresca dietética con adición de fibra prebiótica (Physical-chemical composition and sensory evaluation of a fresh dietary stuffed pasta with the addition of prebiotic fiber). Diaeta Ciudad. Autónoma Buenos Aires 2015, 33, 31–37. [Google Scholar]
- Watts, B.M.; Ylimaki, G.L.; Jeffery, L.E.; Elías, L.G. Métodos Sensoriales Básicos Para la Evaluación de Alimentos (Basic Sensory Methods for Food Evaluation); CIID: Ottawa, ON, CA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-138-SEMARNAT/SSA1-2012 Que Establece los Límites Máximos Permisibles de Hidrocarburos en Suelos y las Especificaciones Para su Caracterización y Remediación; Diario Oficial de la Federación: México City, Mexico, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Jaramillo, J. Repelencia al agua en suelos: Una síntesis (Water repellency in soils: A synthesis). Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc 2006, 30, 215–232. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, R.H.; Cerecedo-López, R.A.; Alejandro-Álvarez, L.A.; Domínguez-Rodríguez, V.I.; Nieber, J.L. Treatment of water-repellent petroleum-contaminated soil from Bemidji, Minnesota, by alkaline desorption. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 13, 2249–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Álvarez-Coronel, G.; Domínguez-Rodríguez, V.I.; Adams, R.H.; Palma-López, D.J.; Zavala-Cruz, J. The role of soil clays in mitigating or exacerbating impacts to fertility in crude-oil contaminated sites. J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Synnott, A. Sociología del olor (Sociology of smell). Rev. Mex. Sociol. 2003, 65, 431–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Servicio Geológico Mexicano (SGM). Características del Petróleo (Oil Characteristics). 2017. Available online: https://www.sgm.gob.mx/Web/MuseoVirtual/Aplicaciones_geologicas/Caracteristicas-del-petroleo.html (accessed on 23 October 2018).
- Reguant-Alvarez, M.; Vilà-Baños, R.; Torrado-Fonseca, M. La relación entre dos variables según la escala de medición con SPSS (The relationship between two variables according to the measurement scale with SPSS). REIRE Rev. D’innovació Recer. Educ. 2018, 11, 45–60. [Google Scholar]
Sample | HTP (mg kg−1) | MED 10 (Molarity) | H.C. 5 s (%) | H.C. 60 s (%) | Observations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLMC-W/O F | 2996.91 | 2.11 | 13.89 | 8.94 | Probably not repellent in field conditions |
FLMC-WF | 3855.72 | 2.81 | 14.99 | 11.49 | |
FLHC-W/O F | 4335.04 | 3.46 | 17.08 | 13.61 | Probably not repellent in field conditions |
GLHC-W/O F | 3753.90 | 0.62 | 17.08 | 14.09 | Probably not repellent in field conditions |
GLHC-WF | 4033.87 | 2.00 | 18.04 | 14.45 |
Odor Intensity Does It Smell Like Crude Oil? | Acceptance Level for Odor Is It Pleasant or Unpleasant? | ||
---|---|---|---|
Criterion | Value | Criterion | Value |
Without odor | 1 | Very pleasant | 1 |
Slight odor (barely perceptible) | 2 | Medium pleasant | 2 |
Low odor | 3 | A little pleasant | 3 |
Medium odor | 4 | Neither pleasant nor unpleasant | 4 |
Odor a little strong | 5 | A little unpleasant | 5 |
Strong odor | 6 | Medium unpleasant | 6 |
Very strong odor | 7 | Very unpleasant | 7 |
Sample | Spearman’s Rho Correlations | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TPH | Field Capacity | Repellency (MED) | ||||
Intensity | Acceptance | Intensity | Acceptance | Intensity | Acceptance | |
FLMC-W/O F | 0.500 | −0.167 | 0.250 | 0.317 | 0.617 | 0.500 |
FLMC-WF | 0.217 | −0.133 | 0.617 | 0.467 | 0.330 | 0.317 |
FLHC-W/O F | 0.267 | 0.450 | −0.151 | −0.176 | 0.333 | 0.517 |
FLHC-WF | 0.333 | −0.083 | 0.276 | 0.042 | 0.800 * | 0.317 |
GLMC-W/O F | 0.360 | 0.092 | 0.326 | 0.025 | 0.122 | 0.021 |
GLMC-WF | 0.395 | 0.151 | 0.353 | 0.594 | −0.043 | −0.153 |
GLHC-W/O F | 0.377 | −0.008 | −0.105 | −0.088 | 0.201 | −0.134 |
GLHC-WF | 0.509 | 0.286 | −0.426 | −0.489 | 0.153 | −0.202 |
ARMC-W/O F | 0.619 | 0.285 | 0.276 | 0.460 | 0.569 | 0.251 |
ARMC-WF | 0.577 | 0.577 | 0.510 | 0.510 | 0.544 | 0.544 |
ARHC-W/O F | 0.467 | 0.460 | −0.159 | −0.391 | 0.250 | 0.209 |
ARHC-WF | 0.385 | 0.435 | −0.424 | −0.256 | 0.385 | 0.351 |
Sample | Soil Parameters | Odor | Is It Good to Plant? | False Positives | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Water Repellency | % Reduction in Field Capacity | Toxicity % Mortality | Intensity | Acceptance | Soil Parameters | Odor Perception | |||||||||||
Severity | Persistence | Value | Classifica-tion | Value | Classifica-tion | REP. | F.C. | TOX. | Intensity | Accept. | TOX. | FERT. | |||||
MED | Classify-cation | WDPT (s) | Classifi-cation | ||||||||||||||
FLMC-W/O F | 2.11 | Moderate | 209.50 | Strong | 38.35 | 0 | 2.36 | Slight–low | 2.73 | Medium Pleasant–A Little Pleasant | Yes * | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
FLMC-WF | 2.81 | Severe | >3,600 | Extreme | 43.54 | 0 | 2.56 | Slight–low | 3.00 | A Little Pleasant | Yes * | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
FLHC-W/O F | 3.46 | Very severe | 609.59 | Severe | 42.73 | 0 | 2.51 | Slight–low | 2.69 | Medium Pleasant–A Little Pleasant | Yes * | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
FLHC-WF | 3.76 | Very severe | >3,600 | Extreme | 28.30 | 0 | 2.58 | Slight–low | 2.78 | Medium Pleasant–A Little Pleasant | Yes * | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
Sample | Soil Parameters | Odor | Is It Good to Plant? | False positives | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Water Repellency | % Reduction in Field Capacity | Toxicity % Mortality | Intensity | Acceptance | Soil Parameters | Odor perception | |||||||||||
Severity | Persistence | Value | Classifica-tion | Value | Classifica-tion | REP. | F.C. | TOX. | Intensity | Accept. | TOX. | FERT. | |||||
MED | Classify-cation | WDPT (s) | Classifi-cation | ||||||||||||||
GLMC-W/O F | 0.00 | Not repellent | 12.83 | Slight | 56.03 | 0 | 2.02 | Slight–low | 2.33 | Medium Pleasant–A Little Pleasant | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | N.A. |
GLMC-WF | 0.00 | Not repellent | 25.33 | Slight | 51.35 | 0 | 2.02 | Slight–low | 2.30 | Medium Pleasant–A Little Pleasant | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | N.A. |
GLHC-W/O F | 0.62 | Low | 89.04 | Strong | 44.51 | 0 | 2.18 | Slight–low | 2.56 | Medium Pleasant–A Little Pleasant | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | N.A. |
GLHC-WF | 2.00 | Moderate | 246.76 | Strong | 39.46 | 0 | 2.27 | Slight–low | 2.60 | Medium Pleasant–A Little Pleasant | Yes * | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | N.A. |
Sample | Soil Parameters | Odor | Is It Good to Plant? | False Positives | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Water Repellency | % Reduction in Field Capacity | Toxicity % Mortality | Intensity | Acceptance | Soil Parameters | Odor Perception | |||||||||||
Severity | Persistence | Value | Classifica-tion | Value | Classification | REP. | F.C. | TOX. | Intensity | Accept. | TOX. | FERT. | |||||
MED | Classify-cation | WDPT (s) | Classifi-cation | ||||||||||||||
ARMC-W/O F | 5.34 | Very severe | >3600 | Extreme | 48.93 | 0 | 3.09 | Low–medium | 3.27 | A Little Pleasant– Neither Pleasant Nor Unpleasant | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
ARMC-WF | 5.12 | Very severe | >3600 | Extreme | 58.82 | 0 | 2.49 | Slight–low | 3.02 | A Little Pleasant– Neither Pleasant Nor Unpleasant | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
ARHC-W/O F | 5.46 | Very severe | >3600 | Extreme | 23.23 | 0 | 3.24 | Low–medium | 3.62 | A Little Pleasant– Neither Pleasant Nor Unpleasant | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
ARHC-WF | 5.34 | Very severe | >3600 | Extreme | 19.90 | 0 | 3.73 | Low–medium | 3.93 | A Little Pleasant– Neither Pleasant Nor Unpleasant | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |
© 2020 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
López-Aguilar, S.; Adams, R.H.; Domínguez-Rodríguez, V.I.; Gaspar-Génico, J.A.; Zavala-Cruz, J.; Hernández-Natarén, E. Soil Odor as An Extra-Official Criterion for Qualifying Remediation Projects of Crude Oil-Contaminated Soil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093213
López-Aguilar S, Adams RH, Domínguez-Rodríguez VI, Gaspar-Génico JA, Zavala-Cruz J, Hernández-Natarén E. Soil Odor as An Extra-Official Criterion for Qualifying Remediation Projects of Crude Oil-Contaminated Soil. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(9):3213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093213
Chicago/Turabian StyleLópez-Aguilar, Saúl, Randy H. Adams, Verónica Isidra Domínguez-Rodríguez, José A. Gaspar-Génico, Joel Zavala-Cruz, and Edith Hernández-Natarén. 2020. "Soil Odor as An Extra-Official Criterion for Qualifying Remediation Projects of Crude Oil-Contaminated Soil" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 9: 3213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093213