Environ Geochem Health
DOI 10.1007/s10653-007-9101-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Human health risk assessment of explosives and heavy
metals at a military gunnery range
Hyerim Ryu Æ Joon Kyoung Han Æ Jae Woong Jung Æ
Bumhan Bae Æ Kyoungphile Nam

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract In this research, a risk assessment was
undertaken in order to develop the remediation and
management strategy of a contaminated gunnery site,
where a nearby flood controlling reservoir is under
construction. Six chemicals, including explosives and
heavy metals, posing potential risk to environmental
and human health, were targeted in this study. A site-
specific conceptual site model was constructed, based
on effective, reasonable exposure pathways, to avoid
any overestimation of the risk. Also, conservative
default values were adapted to prevent underestima-
tion of the risk when site-specific values were not
available. The risks posed by the six contaminants
were calculated using the API’s Decision Support
System for Exposure and Risk Assessment, with
several assumptions. In the crater-formed-area (Ac),
the non-carcinogenic risks (i.e., HI values) of tri-
nitro-toluene (TNT) and Cd were slightly larger than
1, but for RDX (Royal Demolition Explosives) was
over 50. The total non-carcinogenic risk of the whole
gunnery range was calculated to be 62.5, which was a
H. Ryu  J. K. Han  J. W. Jung  K. Nam (&)
Department of Civil, Urban and Geosystem Engineering,
Seoul National University, 151-744 Seoul,
Republic of Korea
e-mail: kpnam@snu.ac.kr
B. Bae
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Kyungwon University, 461-701, Seongnam,
Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
significantly high value. The carcinogenicity of Cd
was estimated to be about 10
3, while that for Pb was
about 5 · 10
4, which greatly exceeded the generally
acceptable carcinogenic risk level of 10
4–10
6. It
was concluded from the risk assessment that there is
an immediate need for remediation of both carcino-
gens and non-carcinogens before construction of the
reservoir. However, for a more accurate risk assess-
ment, further specific estimations of the changes in
environmental conditions due to the construction of
the reservoir will be required; and more over, the
effects of the pollutants to the ecosystem will also
need to be evaluated.
Keywords Explosives  Heavy metals  Military
gunnery range  Risk assessment
Introduction
Risk refers to the realistic hazard of a chemical of
interest in a specific environmental medium and,
thus, can be considered as functions of exposure and
availability to the acceptors (Alexander 1995).
Because a risk assessment focuses on the quantitative
evaluation of adverse effects to potential receptors,
the outcome can provide effective and scientific
evidence in the decision making step for environ-
mental management. Therefore, performing a risk
assessment on pollutants in contaminated territories
has become an essential procedure for managing
123

hazardous substances and developing remediation
strategies (Khan and Husain 2001; MacDonald 2000;
McGraph et al. 2004).
Similar to areas polluted by industrial activities, on
maneuver sites, explosive compounds, including 2, 4,
6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), hexahydro-1, 3, 5-trinitro-1,
3, 5-triazine (Royal Demolition Explosive, RDX) and
octahydro-1, 3, 5, 7-tetranitro, 1, 3, 5, 7-tetrazocine
(High Melting Explosive, HMX), as well as heavy
metals, are likely to contaminate soil and surface
water, and can also leach into groundwater (Best
et al. 1999). TNT is one of the most widely used
explosive compounds. RDX is an explosive chemical,
which has found widespread application in detona-
tors, grenades and bombs as well as a variety of other
military ordnance. HMX, a more powerful explosive
than TNT, is used as a trigger mechanism for atomic
weapons, a component in plastic explosives and in
rocket fuels (ATSDR 1997; USEPA 1998). The
importance of these explosive compounds as envi-
ronmental contaminants is related to their wide use
on military sites and potential adverse effects to
human and other ecological receptors. Many
researchers studying the acute and chronic toxicities
of these compounds have reported their toxicity via
the oral route to mammals, birds, amphibians and
reptilians (Johnson and McAtee 2000; Salice and
Holdsworth 2001; USACHPPM 2001). Despite the
danger, no environmental regulations for these
explosives as pollutants have been established in
many countries, including Korea. This makes the risk
assessment of explosives and related heavy metals in
military gunnery ranges even more crucial.
The aim of this research was to assess the risks
posed at the target site by three explosive contam-
inants (i.e., TNT, RDX and HMX) and three heavy
metals (i.e., Cd, Cu and Pb) in order to develop
subsequent remediation practice and management
strategy. The risk assessment was performed in
conjunction with the environmental impact assess-
ment for a reservoir construction nearby the gunnery
range.
Site characterization
The military gunnery range under consideration is
located in Y-gun of Gyeonggi-do province, Korea,
and has been operated by the Korean Army for over
123
Environ Geochem Health
20 years. The total population at Y-gun is 17,974
while those in towns W and G, which are directly
adjacent to the gunnery range, are 1,459 and 4,569,
respectively. The main economical activities of the
inhabitants in the area are farming, breeding cattle
and deer, and fishing. Most of the inhabitants are
supplied with tap water from the nearby water supply
facility. However, it has been reported that some
residents, including the workers at the reservoir
construction site, are directly using and drinking
surface water. Additionally, it is planned that a
portion of the considered area to be submerged when
the flood controlling reservoir construction is com-
pleted (KOWACO and MOCT 2005).
In this research, the site was divided into four
zones according to the type of usage and the
concentration of existing pollutants (Fig. 1). Zones
of A (40,487.5 m2) and B (3,700 m2) were the
reported impact zones of the gunnery range. How-
ever, a particular region in zone A, where craters
had formed at the earth surface due to severe
bombing, was separately considered as zone Ac
(6,014.5 m2). Zone C (50,403 m2) is not geograph-
ically included in the gunnery range, but from a
survey was also found to be contaminated by
leaching events, and, therefore, was considered to
have significant influence on the risk calculation due
to the planned submersion of this area when the
reservoir construction was completed. The soil at the
target site was surveyed and found to be composed
mainly of silty clay, which was always slightly wet
on the surface due to insufficient drainage. The
temperature and precipitation data for this site was
provided from the local observatory.
Concentration data of various contaminants in the
target area were obtained during an environmental
impact assessment for the reservoir construction.
According to these data, the concentrations of copper
and lead were estimated to be higher than the environ-
ment standards (KOWACO and MOCT 2005).
Cadmium, however, was detected at a relatively low
level, but was also considered a potential hazard due to
its high distribution coefficient to crops. So far, there
has been no investigation on explosive chemicals, due
to the absence of legal environmental regulations,
despite their toxicity. Three heavy metals (Cd, Cu and
Pb) and three explosives (TNT, RDX and HMX) were
finally selected for the present risk assessment; an
additional investigation was conducted to obtain
Environ Geochem Health

Fig. 1 Zoning of the study

site

detailed information of their concentrations in surface
soil, deep soil, groundwater and surface water at each
zone. The number of sampling points for soil samples at
Ac, A, B and C were 7, 29, 10 and 28, respectively;
whereas, groundwater and surface water sampling was
conducted at eight and six different points, respectively
(Bae and Kim 2006). The average concentrations of the
six contaminants in each zone are shown in Table 1.
The environment standards for Cd, Cu and Pb in Korea
are 1.5, 50 and 100 mg/kg soil, respectively, with the
concentrations of Cu and Pb on the site being relatively
high, especially for Cu in zone Ac, which exceeds the
standards.
The physicochemical properties and toxicities of
the six target compounds are presented in Table 2.
The properties of the heavy metals were obtained
from the Physical Properties Database (PHYSPROP)
of Syracuse Research Corporation (Syracuse Re-
search Corporation 2005) and those of the explosive
compounds were from USACHPPM (Johnson and
McAtee 2000; Salice and Holdsworth 2001; US-
ACHPPM 2001). Both heavy metals and explosives
were estimated to possibly leach into the groundwater
and surface water due to their high water solubility.
However, mass transfer into the air was considered
less important due to their low vapor pressures and

Table 1 Concentrations of the target pollutants in soil, groundwater and surface water
Environmental media Heavy metals Explosives

Cd Cu Pb TNT RDX HMX

1
Soil (mg kg ) A 0.131 9.74 16.9 0.00340 0.722 0.295
Ac 0.220 83.0 13.9 0.0580 13.4 0.470
B 0.0735 3.12 3.48 0.00306 0.265 0.0743
C 0.117 5.78 5.77 ND1 0.00203 0.0165
Groundwater (mg l
1) 0.00157 0.00729 ND1 ND1 ND1 ND1

1 1 1 1 1
Surface water (mg l ) ND 0.00950 ND ND ND ND1
1
ND: Not detected

123
 Table 2 Physicochemical properties and toxicities of the target pollutants
Property Unit Heavy metals Explosives

123
Cadmium Copper Lead TNT RDX HMX

Molecular formula – Cd Cu Pb C7H5N3O6 C3H6N6O6 C4H8N8O8

1
Molecular weight g mol 112.40 63.55 207.20 227.13 222.26 296.16
Melting point 8C 321 1083 327.5 80.1 205–206 276–280
Density g cm
3 8.64 ND1 11.3 1.654 1.82 1.9
Water solubility mg l
1 123,000@ 258C 421,000@ 258C 9,580@ 258C 130@ 208C 38.4@ 20–258C 5–6.63@ 20–258
Vapor pressure mmHg 4.14 · 10
9@ 4.24 · 10
9@ 3.02 · 10
9@ 1.99 · 10
4@ 4.0 · 10
9@ 3.33 · 10
14@
258C 258C 258C 208C 208C 208C
Henry’s law constant atm m3 mol
1 0.0308@ 258C 0.0245@ 258C 0.0245@ 258C 4.57 · 10
7@ 1.2 · 10
5 2.60 · 10
15@
208C 258C
Organic carbon distribution – – – 14.33 300 6.918 3.4674
coefficient
Soil distribution coefficient – 37 2.47 ND1 ND1 ND1 ND1
2
Dispersion coefficient in air4 cm s
1 ND1 ND1 ND1 0.064 0.074 0.063
4 2
1 1 1
Dispersion coefficient in water cm s ND ND ND1 6.71 · 10
6 7.15 · 10
6 6.02 · 10
6
Carcinogen Class (IRIS) – B1 D B2 C C D
Oral reference dose mg kg
1 day
1 0.0005 0.0375 0.00045 0.0005 0.003 0.05
Inhalation reference dose mg kg
1 day
1 ND1 ND1 ND1 ND1 ND1 ND1
Oral slope factor kg day mg
1 NA2 NA2 0.03916 NA2 NA2 NA2
Inhalation slope factor kg day mg
1 6.3 NA2 0.03916 NA2 NA2 NA2
1
ND: No data
2
NA: Not applicable
3
Organic carbon distribution coefficient of lead was estimated with PcKoc presented by US EPA
4
Bae 2002
5
RfD of copper and lead were derived from the level identified as safe for drinking water
6
The Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University 1995
Environ Geochem Health
Environ Geochem Health
Henry’s law constants compared to their water
solubilities. All of the materials of interest, especially
cadmium and lead which are known as possible
carcinogen when contacted through ingestion or
inhalation, are toxic to human.
Conceptual site model
The conceptual site model (CSM) is a tool that
evolves with the progression of site work as data gaps
are filled. The development of the CSM should be
viewed as a process throughout the whole duration of
a project; from the initial characterization to the final
response action, with recurring reviews until project
closeout. It can help to focus on both general
regulatory and more site-specific project objectives.
An effective CSM needs facility, physical, release,
land use and exposure and ecological profiles (US-
ACE 2003). The risk assessment in this research
focused on the inhabitants who will reside near the
gunnery range after completion of the reservoir
construction, but no information is currently available
to specifically predict the demographics of the area.
Thus, it was assumed that every risk receptors will
inhabit the target site, and their farming and stock-
breeding activities will also occur in the site, in order
to avoid underestimation of the risks.
A CSM was constructed to consider the site-
specific exposure pathways of the contaminants
Fig. 2 Conceptual site
model for the gunnery range
(Fig. 2). For the worst-case-scenarios, all of the
effective pathways, including minor and potential
exposure pathways, were considered without any
weighting factors. The general assumptions were as
follows: firstly, heavy metals and explosives are
released from the gunnery range to various environ-
mental media. They then reach the receptors, either
directly or indirectly, through the food chain or
human action. Inhalation of surface soil indicates the
inhalation of contaminated soil particles, which can
be estimated using the Cowherd particulate emissions
model. Exposure to contaminated surface water
includes contact with both irrigation and domestic
waters. Food chain pathways include ingestion of
vegetables, crops, meats and fish.
Risk calculations
The gunnery range has been in operation at this site
for a sufficient duration (i.e., over 20 years), and
therefore, the distribution of contaminants was
assumed to have reached equilibrium. Thus, the
measured data of the contaminant concentrations in
each environmental medium were able to be directly
used for risk calculations. In addition, chemical and
biological degradation of the contaminants were
assumed to be negligible.
When conducting the risk assessment of the target
site, only exposure pathways concluded to be
123
 Environ Geochem Health

Table 3 Parameters and values used for API’s DSS

Properties Unit Zone

Ac A B C

Jury model Effective porosity – 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.3

Water content (v/v) 0.19 0.223 0.231 0.3
Soil bulk density g cm
3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Thickness of incorporation m 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Thickness of incorporation m 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Boundary layer thickness cm 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Unsaturated zone depth m 5 20 20 0.001
Fraction organic carbon – 0.034 0.058 0.082 0.054
Infiltration cm year
1 30 30 30 30
Length m 242.31 484.62 68.64 266.30
Width m 51.92 173.08 68.64 266.30
AT123D model Aquifer width and depth – infinite infinite infinite infinite
Hydraulic conductivity m year
1 12.906 12.906 12.906 12.906
Hydraulic gradient m m
1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Longitudinal dispersivity – 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Transverse dispersivity – 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Vertical dispersivity – 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
Box model Average wind speed m s
1 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Source area m2 6014.5 40487.5 3700 50403
Mixing height m 2 2 2 2
Mixing width m 77.55 201.22 60.83 224.51

1
Cowherd particulate emissions model Frequency of disturbance day month 30 30 30 –
Fastest wind speed m s
1 4.3 4.3 4.3 –
Erosion threshold wind speed m s
1 1 1 1 –
Fraction of area with vegetative cover – 0.99 0.99 0.99 –
PE index – 100 100 100 –

Table 4 Main exposure parameters and factors

Category Unit Submitted value References

Average body weight of a Korean adult Kg 65 Institute of Environmental Research, Yonsei University
2001
Daily air inhalation of Korean m3/day 20 Institute of Environmental Research, Yonsei University
1995
Daily water ingestion of Korean l/day 2 Institute of Environmental Research, Yonsei University
1995
Daily soil ingestion kg/day 2.1 · 10
5 API 1999
Average body surface area cm2 15326 Institute of Environmental Research, Yonsei University
of a Korean adult 1995
Dermal contact coefficient mg/cm2 1 API 1999
Skin permeability to – 0.001 USEPA 2000a
inorganic substances

123
Environ Geochem Health

effective and reasonable were considered, to avoid HI: Hazard index HQ: Hazard quotient C: Con-
any overestimation of the risk; however, at the same centration of contaminants RC: Receptor charac-
time, conservative default values for site-specific teristic EC: Exposure characteristic i: Individual
properties of each selected pathways were also exposure routes RfD: Reference dose SF: Slope
adapted to prevent any underestimation. The carcin- factor
ogenic and non-carcinogenic risks of the six contam-
The risk-calculating equation consists of three
inants were calculated using the API’s Decision
elements; the contaminant concentrations, the recep-
Support System for Exposure and Risk Assessment
tor and exposure characteristics, and the reference
(API 1999). Table 3 shows the site-specific properties
dose or slope factor. The RC and EC values vary with
used in contaminant transport models. Most of the
respect to the exposure situation and receptor activ-
coefficients concerned with human exposure routes
ities, which includes factors, such as the exposure
were obtained from previous studies (Institute for
frequency, exposure duration, daily intake rate, daily
Environmental Research, Yonsei University 1995,
inhalation rate, absorption factor, skin surface area,
2001), which are particularly suited to Koreans
body weight of receptors and averaging time, and
(Table 4). Skin permeability values of the contami-
so on.
nants were calculated using Dermwin, as presented in
The hazard index (HI) is a measure that refers to
the USEPA (USEPA 2000a). (Table 4)
the non-carcinogenic risk, and is computed by
The risks posed by the exposure of chemicals
summing the hazard quotient (HQ), which is the
through the food chain were separately calculated by
value of the daily intake divided by the reference
integrating data from previous studies (Bae 2002). As
dose of a particular pathway and chemical. The slope
no ingestion data suited to Koreans were available,
factor is an upper-bound estimate of a chemical’s
the U.S. standards were adopted in this study. Food
probability of causing cancer over a 70-year lifetime,
ingestion was considered via four different pathways:
which is also referred to as the cancer potency factor.
by fruit & vegetables, by grains, by meat and by fish.
The reference dose is an estimated maximum level of
The ingestion rates of each category of food to human
daily exposure of a chemical to humans that can arise
were calculated by multiplying the existing concen-
from any deleterious effects during life time. These
tration of the contaminants in the environmental
values are identical for each substance, and can be
media with the uptake coefficient of the food
obtained by laboratory tests or from references. The
considered, Pathway-exposure factors (PEFs) and
slope factors used in this study were obtained from
the Human Ingestion Factor. The PEF values and
the U.S. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System
transfer coefficient of chemicals are listed in Tables 7
(IRIS) database (USEPA 2005), which is widely
and 8, respectively. The oral risks were calculated by
regarded as a reliable source. However, the slope
considering all four pathways for exposure to the six
factors of lead, not available from the IRIS database,
chemicals. However, for Cu and Pb, the valid
were adapted from the values estimated by the
pathway to humans was assumed to be only through
Institute of Environmental Research, Yonsei Univer-
the ingestion of fish due to lack of data of plant
sity (IERY), using a multistage model in the TOX-
uptake from soils.
RISK package (Institute for Environmental Research,
The general numeric expressions for calculating
Yonsei University 1995).
the risk of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic
contaminants are as follows:
Results and discussion
X
n
Non
carcinogenicRisk ¼ HI ¼ HQ
I¼1 Based on the CSM (Fig. 2), the hazard quotient (HQ)
X
n
½C  ½RC&EC of each pollutant was calculated for each exposure
I
¼ pathway and route in zones A, Ac, B and C to
I¼1
½RfD
estimate the non-carcinogenic risk. The results are
X
n listed in Table 7, and a pollutant can be regarded safe
CarcinogenicRisk ¼ ½C  ½RC&ECI  ½SF or acceptable when the HQ is less than 1. The
I¼1 calculated results show that the values varied widely

123
 Environ Geochem Health

Table 5 Calculated hazard quotients and hazard indices of the target pollutants
Soil Food chain Water Hazard
Index
Soil dust Surface soil Vegetable Crop Meat Fish Drinking Shower

Inhalation Dermal Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Dermal Inhalation
contact contact

A Cd 0.356 0.003 10
3 NA1 0.575 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 0.934
1
3 1 1
3 2 2 2
Cu NA 0.013 10 NA NA 10 NE NE NE NA1 0.013
Pb NA1 0.198 0.002 NA1 NA1 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 0.200
TNT NA1  10
3 10
3 0.047 0.034 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 0.081
RDX NA1 0.012 10
3 1.669 1.198 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 2.879
1
3
3
3 2 2 2 1
HMX NA  10  10 0.021 0.024 10 NE NE NE NA 0.150
Total 4.257
Ac Cd 0.23 0.021  10
3 NA1 0.964 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 1.216
1 1 1
3 2 2 2
Cu NA 0.108 0.001 NA NA 10 NE NE NE NA1 0.109
Pb NA1 0.163 0.002 NA1 NA1 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 0.165
TNT NA1 0.006 10
3 0.803 0.577 0.002 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 1.388
1
3 2 2 2 1
RDX NA 0.214 0.002 30.877 22.175 10 NE NE NE NA 53.269
HMX NA1 10
3 10
3 0.033 0.089 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 0.123
Total 56.270
B Cd 0.06 0.007 10
3 NA1 0.323 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 0.390
Cu NA1 0.004 10
3 NA1 NA1 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 0.004
1
3 1 1
3 2 2 2 1
Pb NA 0.041 10 NA NA 10 NE NE NE NA 0.041
TNT NA1 10
3 10
3 0.042 0.030 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 0.073
RDX NA1 0.004 10
3 0.611 0.439 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 1.055
HMX NA1 10
3 10
3 0.005 0.004 10
3 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 0.009
Total 1.572
2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
C Cd NE NE NE NA NE NE NE NE NE NE NR3
Cu NA1 NE2 NE2 NA1 NA1 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 NR3
Pb NA1 NE2 NE2 NA1 NA1 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 NR3
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
TNT NA NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NA NR3
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
RDX NA NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NA NR3
HMX NA1 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NA1 NR3
Total NR3
1 1
3 2
3
GW Cd – – – NA NA 10 NE 0.099 10 0.416 0.515
Cu – – – NA1 NA1 10
3 NE2 0.006 10
3 NA1 0.006
Total 0.521
SW Cu – – – NA1 NA1 10
3 10
3 0.008 10
3 NA1 0.008
HI of the total gunnery range 62.628
1
NA: Not applicable (No reference dose or pathway-exposure factor)
2
NE: Applicable but non-effective exposure pathway
3
NR: No Risk (either for no available data or for non-effective pathways or both)

throughout the areas and with respect to pollutants. concentrations of Cu, Pb and RDX. Particularly, the
The hazard index, the summation of HQ values, non-carcinogenic risk of RDX has an extremely high
indicates the total risk of the area. The HI value was value, 53.3. In contrast to the cases of Cu and Pb,
largest in the area designated as Ac, due to very high where the RfD values for inhalation and human

123
 Environ Geochem Health

Table 6 Carcinogenic risks by cadmium and lead at the target site

Soil Food chain Water Carcinogenic risk

Soil dust Surface soil Vegetables Crops Meats Fish Drinking Shower

Inhalation Dermal contact Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Dermal contact Inhalation

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A Cd 4.81 · 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NE2 4.81 · 10
4
Pb 3.85 · 10
4 1.36 · 10
5 1.39 · 10
7 NE2 NE2 1.07 · 10
9 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 3.99 · 10
4

4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Ac Cd 3.11 · 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NE 3.11 · 10
4

4
5
7 2 2
10 2 2 2 2
Pb 1.22 · 10 1.12 · 10 1.15 · 10 NE NE 8.80 · 10 NE NE NE NE 1.33 · 10
4

5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
B Cd 8.16 · 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NE 8.16 · 10
5

5
6
8 2 2
10 2 2 2 2
Pb 2.39 · 10 2.80 · 10 2.87 · 10 NE NE 2.20 · 10 NE NE NE NE 2.67 · 10
5
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
C Cd NE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NE NR3
Pb NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NE2 NR3
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4
GW Cd NE NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.62 · 10 5.62 · 10
4
1
NA: Not applicable (No reference dose or pathway-exposure factor)
2
NE: Applicable, but a non-effective exposure pathway
3
NR: No carcinogenic risk (or acceptable risk)

123

Table 7 Formula for calculating pathway-exposure factors (PEFs) through ingestion
Soil (kg/kg-day)
Water
Fruit and vegetables 1.1 · 10
3 · Ksp
Grain 7.9 · 10
4 · Ksp
Meat [0.012 + (0.038 · Ksp)] · Bt
Fish

6
Soil 1.5 · 10
Ksp: Soil/Plant distribution coefficient
Bt: Meat/diet biotransfer factor in cattle
BCF:Bioconcentration factor in fish
Table 8 Transfer coefficients of chemicals between different media
Soil/plant distribution coefficient (Ksp) Meat/diet biotransfer factor in cattle (Bt)
Cd 2.78 2.14E-08
Cu 0 6.76E-09
Pb 0 1.35E-07
HMX 3.2 3.40E-08
RDX 6.3 1.90E-07
TNT 6.3 7.20E-05
toxicity factor through digesting farmed crops are not
well known, the soil-plant distribution rate of RDX
was relatively high, having a similar value, 6.3, to
that of HMX. Therefore, for all the areas, with the
exception of zone C, the extents of exposure via
vegetables and crops were very high and the HI
values for RDX were over 1. The non-carcinogenic
risks of TNT and Cd had values slightly larger than 1
in zone Ac. For RDX, the calculated non-carcino-
genic risk was over 50 in zone Ac, and greater than 1
in every zone, with the exception of zone C.
However, in zone C, which is contaminated by
chemicals leaching from the gunnery range and
planned to be submerged after the completion of
the reservoir construction, leaching of contaminants
from the soil to surface or underground water was not
included in the assumption; thus, the exposure
pathways were considered invalid and the risk to be
negligible. For HMX, Pb and Cu, the risks were
under 1 in every area, so were assumed to possess no
significant risks. The calculated non-carcinogenic
risk of the total gunnery range was found to have a
significantly high value, 62.6, implying an extremely
123
Environ Geochem Health
Drinking water (L/kg-day) Surface water (L/kg-day)
0.034
0.14 · Bt
3.2 · 10
4 · BCF
Bioconcentration factor in fish (BCF)
3.162
3.162
3.162
0.5
5
10
hazardous situation. The resultant HI was simply the
summation of HQ values. However, the possibility
exists for interactions between different chemicals.
Those interactions may alter the actual risk, leading
to the requirement for a new approach to estimate the
risk for chemical mixtures (USEPA 2000b). There-
fore, further consideration of the interactions between
chemicals may be needed to improve the accuracy of
the current assessment.
Of the six target chemicals, carcinogenicity values
have only been reported for Cd and Pb. Cadmium is
classified as a group B1 substance (probable carcinogen
and have evidence for effect on human) by the US EPA
and is reported to show carcinogenic effects when
inhaled (USEPA 2005). Lead is classified as a group B2
substance, exhibiting a possibility of cancer when
ingested or inhaled. These exposure routes were
considered to be invalid for the carcinogenicity;
therefore, were not included in the risk calculations.
High levels of Cd and Pb were detected in every divided
area of the target site, and Cd was also found in the
groundwater. The carcinogenicities of Cd and Pb in the
site were estimated to be about 10
3 and 5 · 10
4,
Environ Geochem Health
respectively (Tables 5 and 6), which greatly exceed the
generally acceptable risk level of 10
4–10
6.
The results from the risk assessment suggest that
an immediate remediation practice for both carcino-
gens and non-carcinogens are required before the
construction of the reservoir. However, for a more
accurate risk assessment, further specific estimations
will be required on condition shifts after the con-
struction of the reservoir is completed. Moreover, the
effects of the pollutants to the ecosystem will also
need to be evaluated.
Acknowledgements This research was sponsored by the
KOSEF through the Advanced Environmental and
Biotechnology Research Center (AEBRC) at POSTECH. An
additional financial support was also made by the Basic
Research Program of the Korea Science & Engineering
Foundation (Grant No. R01-2006-000-10136-0). The authors
would also like to thank the Research Institute of Engineering
Science, Seoul National University, for their technical
assistance.
References
Alexander, M. (1995). How toxic are toxic chemicals in soil?
Environmental Science and Technology, 29, 2713–2717.
American Petroleum Institute (API). (1999). API’s Decision
Support System for Exposure and Risk Assessment Version
2.0. Washington, DC: Health and Environmental Sciences
Department
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
(1997). Toxicological Profile for HMX. Atlanta, GA: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services
Bae, B. H. (2002). Research on prediction and remediation of
water quality of Hantan river dam by accurate inspection
of existing heavy metals and explosive chemicals in Da-
rakdae gunnery range, KOWACO.
Bae, B. H., & Kim, M. K. (2006). Distribution and transport of
contaminants (heavy metals and explosives) in military
gunnery range in Korea, Proceedings of 2006 Autumn
Conference of Korean Society of Soil and Groundwater
Environment (pp. 53–56). Daejeon, Korea: KAIST.
Best, E., Sprecher, S., Larson, S., Fredrickson, H., & Bader, D.
(1999). Environmental behavior of explosives in ground-
water from the Milan Army Ammunition Plant in aquatic
and wetland plant treatments. Removal, mass balances,
and fate in groundwater of TNT and RDX. Chemosphere,
38, 3383–3396
Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University.
(1995). Environmental Impact Assessment and Manage-
ment: EIA and Management for Water Pollutants. Korea:
Ministry of Environment
Institute for Environmental Research, Yonsei University.
(2001). Environmental Impact Assessment and Manage-
ment: Development of Integrated Risk Assessment and
System for Environmental Pollutants. Korea: Ministry of
Environment
Johnson, M. S., & McAtee, M. J. (2000). Wildlife Toxicity
Assessment for 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene, U.S. Army Center
for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (US-
ACHPPM) Project Number 39-EJ-1138–00, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD
Khan, F. I., & Husain, T. (2001). Risk-based monitored natural
attenuation – a case study. Journal of Hazardous Mate-
rials, B85, 243–272
Korea Water Resources Corporation (KOWACO), Ministry of
Construction & Transportation of Korea (MOCT). (2005).
Environmental Impact Assessment on Gunnam flood
control reservoir construction site (draft), Ministry of
Construction & Transportation of Korea (MOCT), Korea.
MacDonald, J. A. (2000). Evaluating natural attenuation for
groundwater cleanup. Environmental Science and Tech-
nology, 34, 346A–353
McGraph, D., Zhang, C. S., & Carton, O. (2004). Geostatistical
analyses and hazard assessment on soil lead in Silver-
mines, area Ireland. Environmental Pollution, 127,
239–248
Salice, C.J., & Holdsworth, G. (2001). Wildlife Toxicity
Assessment for 1,3,5-Trinitrohexahydro-1,3,5-Triazine
(RDX), U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and
Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM), Project Number
39-EJ1138-01B, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC).(2005). The Physical
Properties Database (PHYSPROP) 2005 November
updated, http://www.syrres.com/esc/physprop.htm
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2003). Conceptual
site models for ordnance and explosives and hazardous,
toxic, and radioactive waste projects.
US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medi-
cine (USACHPPM). (2001). Wildlife Toxicity Assess-
ment for HMX, Project Number 39-EJ-1138–01E,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1998).
Health advisory for octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro, 1,3,5,7-
tetrazocine (HMX), PB90-273525, Prepared by the Office
of Drinking Water, Washington, DC, for the U.S. Army
Medical research and Development Command, Fort
Detrick, Frederick, MD.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2000a).
Dermwin v1.43, Estimation Program Interface (EPI)
Suite, Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2000b).
Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Washington DC: Risk
Assessment Forum.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2005). Inte-
grated Risk Information System (IRIS) Database for Risk
Assessment 2005 updated, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC.
123