Literature DB >> 27666475

A decision analysis framework for estimating the potential hazards for drinking water resources of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.

Erin E Yost1, John Stanek1, Lyle D Burgoon2.   

Abstract

Despite growing concerns over the potential for hydraulic fracturing to impact drinking water resources, there are limited data available to identify chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids that may pose public health concerns. In an effort to explore these potential hazards, a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework was employed to analyze and rank selected subsets of these chemicals by integrating data on toxicity, frequency of use, and physicochemical properties that describe transport in water. Data used in this analysis were obtained from publicly available databases compiled by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of a larger study on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. Starting with nationwide hydraulic fracturing chemical usage data from EPA's analysis of the FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry 1.0, MCDAs were performed on chemicals that had either noncancer toxicity values (n=37) or cancer-specific toxicity values (n=10). The noncancer MCDA was then repeated for subsets of chemicals reported in three representative states (Texas, n=31; Pennsylvania, n=18; and North Dakota, n=20). Within each MCDA, chemicals received scores based on relative toxicity, relative frequency of use, and physicochemical properties (mobility in water, volatility, persistence). Results show a relative ranking of these chemicals based on hazard potential, and provide preliminary insight into chemicals that may be more likely than others to impact drinking water resources. Comparison of nationwide versus state-specific analyses indicates regional differences in the chemicals that may be of more concern to drinking water resources, although many chemicals were commonly used and received similar overall hazard rankings. Several chemicals highlighted by these MCDAs have been reported in groundwater near areas of hydraulic fracturing activity. This approach is intended as a preliminary analysis, and represents one possible method for integrating data to explore potential public health impacts. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Exposure assessment; Hazard evaluation; Hydraulic fracturing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27666475      PMCID: PMC5776703          DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  19 in total

Review 1.  Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends.

Authors:  Ivy B Huang; Jeffrey Keisler; Igor Linkov
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 7.963

Review 2.  A critical review of the risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in the United States.

Authors:  Avner Vengosh; Robert B Jackson; Nathaniel Warner; Thomas H Darrah; Andrew Kondash
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 9.028

3.  The role of toxicological science in meeting the challenges and opportunities of hydraulic fracturing.

Authors:  Bernard D Goldstein; Bryan W Brooks; Steven D Cohen; Alexander E Gates; Michael E Honeycutt; John B Morris; Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta; Trevor M Penning; John Snawder
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 4.849

4.  Water pollution risk associated with natural gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale.

Authors:  Daniel J Rozell; Sheldon J Reaven
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 4.000

5.  Impact to Underground Sources of Drinking Water and Domestic Wells from Production Well Stimulation and Completion Practices in the Pavillion, Wyoming, Field.

Authors:  Dominic C DiGiulio; Robert B Jackson
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 9.028

6.  A Comprehensive Analysis of Groundwater Quality in The Barnett Shale Region.

Authors:  Zacariah L Hildenbrand; Doug D Carlton; Brian E Fontenot; Jesse M Meik; Jayme L Walton; Josh T Taylor; Jonathan B Thacker; Stephanie Korlie; C Phillip Shelor; Drew Henderson; Akinde F Kadjo; Corey E Roelke; Paul F Hudak; Taylour Burton; Hanadi S Rifai; Kevin A Schug
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 9.028

7.  Groundwater protection and unconventional gas extraction: the critical need for field-based hydrogeological research.

Authors:  R E Jackson; A W Gorody; B Mayer; J W Roy; M C Ryan; D R Van Stempvoort
Journal:  Ground Water       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 2.671

Review 8.  A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials.

Authors:  Danail R Hristozov; Alex Zabeo; Christy Foran; Panagiotis Isigonis; Andrea Critto; Antonio Marcomini; Igor Linkov
Journal:  Nanotoxicology       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 5.913

Review 9.  Impact of shale gas development on regional water quality.

Authors:  R D Vidic; S L Brantley; J M Vandenbossche; D Yoxtheimer; J D Abad
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-05-17       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  A decision analytic approach to exposure-based chemical prioritization.

Authors:  Jade Mitchell; Nicolas Pabon; Zachary A Collier; Peter P Egeghy; Elaine Cohen-Hubal; Igor Linkov; Daniel A Vallero
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Critical evaluation of human health risks due to hydraulic fracturing in natural gas and petroleum production.

Authors:  Klaus-Michael Wollin; G Damm; H Foth; A Freyberger; T Gebel; A Mangerich; U Gundert-Remy; F Partosch; C Röhl; T Schupp; Jan G Hengstler
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2020-05-09       Impact factor: 5.153

2.  Environmental exposomics and lung cancer risk assessment in the Philadelphia metropolitan area using ZIP code-level hazard indices.

Authors:  Thomas P McKeon; Wei-Ting Hwang; Zhuoran Ding; Vicky Tam; Paul Wileyto; Karen Glanz; Trevor M Penning
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2021-02-21       Impact factor: 4.223

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.