Projet

Soil Take Care SOE1/P4/F0023

Total

content As

Sample [As]

PT73 2043

PT74 254

PT79 63

PT80 50

PT81 70

PT84 47

PT85 236

PT88 31

PT90 16662

PT91 11792

PT92 43

Observation on soils after 20 years of Europe

• The European Water Framework Directive (October, 2000) defines a framework for the

management and protection of water by large river basin at European level. It plays a strategic and

founding role in water policy by setting ambitious objectives for the preservation and restoration of

the state of surface water (fresh water and coastal water) and groundwater.

• The European Air framework directive ( May, 2008) merges four directives and a decision of the

Council already in existence concerning in particular the assessment and management of ambient air

quality, the reciprocal exchange of information and data between Member States and limits for

certain pollutants in ambient air such as ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen (NO2) and sulfur (SO2)

dioxides, lead (Pb), benzene (C6H6) and carbon monoxide (CO).

• And for soils, the draft framework directive on soil protection is a draft European directive of the

European Parliament and of the Council proposed by the committee on 22 September 2006 (COM

(2006) 232 final) and adopted at first reading on 14 November 2007 by the MEPs, but not yet

definitively adopted….. WHY?

• Many soils in European countries show strong industrial

and / or agricultural contamination

• Many of these sites are orphan sites: the industrial

polluter has disappeared, and it is the European States

which must take care of pollution control.

•PROBLEM:

The cost of monitoring contamination and the cost of

decontamination is exhorbitant for villages, towns, regions

and member states…This is why many states do not

want this directive!

Monitoring all compartments (air, water, soil) at the same time!

Drastic reduction of the costs of :monitoring and remediation

To convince the political and financial authorities wealso want to show the impact on human health!

Last point: study the socio-economic impact of thecontamination and the measures taken for remediation

Solution proposed by the SOIL TAKE CARE project

Low cost toolsfor mapping and monitoring

Air Qualitymonitoring

• Sensor installation

Construction of our own active particle

sensor (price divided by a factor of 5) cost of Tillandsia Usnoïdes 2€

cost of « home made »

Owen gauge 50€ (an

order less expensive)

GNSS-Reflectometry

Acquisition done during 24h with

a sampling rate of 1s Cost very weak

Low elevation – large fresnel surface

High elevation - smaller Fresnel surface – more noise

• Chemical / mineralogical / isotopic

characterization

Observations SEM-EDX

atmospheric dust on and

in Tillandsias usneoides Owen gauges atmospheric dust analyzes

Metal concentration in lettuce leaves (mg/kg)

Monitoring Agricultural crop

BioRemediationBefore After

Transfer from soil to natural plants of the region

roots stems leaves

Réalisations

Géophysique – Tomographie électrique•Action 4 : …

Phase

Dépôts homogènes à t0 après quelques années de remédiation…

Forte concentration

Faible concentration

Phytostabilisation fixe les sols (moins de poussières)…

déplace le problème dans les eaux souterraines

pXRF mapping

-

Pb en ppm

n = 657 / min 14 / max 24000

Zn en ppm

Hazard Quotient

(Non cancer Risk):

Cancer risk:

Hazard

Index:

Total Cancer

Risk:

RfD = reference dose (mg kg-1 day-1)

SF = slope factor

*exposure not likely cause harmful effects

*probability that an individual will develop cancer if

exposed to a chemical for a lifetime

(L)ADD= Cmedium x IngR x EF x ED / PEF x BW x AT (LT)

Where:Cmedium= Concentration of contaminant in medium

(mg/kg)

IngR= Ingestion rate (m3/d)

EF= Exposure frequency (days/year)

ED= Exposure duration (years)

PEF= Particle emission factor (m3·kg-1)

BW= Body weight (kg)

AT= Averaging time (days)

LT= Lifetime exposure (days)

Average daily potential dose (mg/kg/day) (ADD) or

Lifetime average daily exposure (LADD)

HI >1 : Non-cancer adverse health effects could occur

TCR >10−4 : Unacceptable (Cancer Risk)

Total Cancer Risk

Adult Children

Avenque Amont 5,57E-07 4,01E-07

La Unión 2,16E-07 1,56E-07

Las Matildes 2,19E-07 1,58E-07

Avenque Aval 3,29E-07 2,37E-07

• Health Risks

Coktail effect evaluation

Socio-economic concerns

C. Gramagglia (IRSTEA)

Changes

2009 ~ start of the epidemiological investigation (2008)

Vague Pollution Knowledge … (they don’t want to know)Industrial experience as a shared identityLow willingness to know the impactsRest of loyalty for the industrialist (Vieille-Montagne paid for the football club, the theater, the school etc ... But it is closed since 1980)Assessment of remediation effortsthe feeling that the situation has ... improvedRegrets for past sociability

● Unanimity on the benefits due to thepolluting industry. A majority believe industriesand public authorities

Complainants have been marginalized!

2017 ~ a decade later

o Concerns about new sources of pollutiono Citizens are now asking questions about pollution and its

older impacts (economic, societal, health)o Growth of the will to know (soil, impact on water and air

is limited)oDistrust of the future of brownfieldsoFeeling of depression, helplessnessoWillingness to leave if a new facility is set upoIncrease in public complaints and protests

➢ This leads to a Polarization of local society

Those who are particularly affected are retirees, workers in the 1st (direct exploitation of natural resources) and 3rd

sectors (services, training) mainly... • Concerns are exacerbated when children are impacted• Residents seem more critical• the economic costs are more visible following studies such as soil take care and the remediation is now known!!• The cost of land has decreased by 30-40 percent.

Remediation cost, depending on its quality, varying between 3 Million to 30 Million