Arsenic in the Pirkanmaa Region, Southern Finland: from Identification Through to Risk Assessment to Risk Management
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Geoscience for Society 125th Anniversary Volume Edited by Keijo Nenonen and Pekka A. Nurmi Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 49, 213–227, 2011 ARSENIC IN THE PIRKANMAA REGION, SOUTHERN FINLAND: FROM IDENTIFICATION THROUGH TO RISK ASSESSMENT TO RISK MANAGEMENT by Timo Ruskeeniemi1)*, Birgitta Backman1)), Kirsti Loukola-Ruskeeniemi1), Jaana Sorvari2), Heli Lehtinen1), Eija Schultz2), Ritva Mäkelä-Kurtto3), Esko Rossi4), Kati Vaajasaari5) and Ämer Bilaletdin6) Ruskeeniemi, T., Backman, B., Loukola-Ruskeeniemi, K., Sorvari, J., Lehtinen, H., Schultz, E., Mäkelä-Kurtto, R., Rossi, E., Vaajasaari, K. & Bilaletdin, Ä. 2011. Arsenic in the Pirkanmaa region, southern Finland: From identification through to risk assessment to risk management. Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 49, 213–227, 5 figures. The RAMAS Project investigated the occurrence of arsenic in the Tampere region (Pirkanmaa), assessed the potentially arising health and ecological risks at the regional scale, and presented recommendations for preventive and remediation actions. The three-year project (2004–2007) received financial support from the EU LIFE Environ- ment programme. The implementing partners were the Geological Survey of Finland, Helsinki University of Technology, the Pirkanmaa Regional Environment Centre, the Finnish Environment Institute, Agrifood Research Finland, Esko Rossi Oy and Kemira Kemwater. The project mapped the areas where natural arsenic concentrations are elevated in bedrock, the soil cover or in groundwater and surface waters. Arsenic contents in ar- able land, crops, and in some wild berries and mushrooms were analysed. Correspond- ingly, the most important potential anthropogenic sources were located and evaluated. Concerning the human health risk, potable water from drilled wells was determined to be the main exposure route. The exposure for arsenic was demonstrated in a bio- monitoring study. Arsenic concentrations in urine were clearly elevated among those households using arsenic-bearing well water. An epidemiological survey revealed that certain cancer types linked to arsenic are statistically more frequent in those areas where the health limit value for arsenic (10µg/l) in well waters is commonly exceeded. Many of the local municipalities have made major efforts to extend the public water supply network to those areas suffering from elevated arsenic concentrations. Arsenic is not a problem in arable lands, and its uptake by plants also seems to be very low. However, it is less appreciated that both the till cover and bedrock in the region may locally contain naturally high arsenic concentrations. The most important anthropogenic arsenic sources in the region include a few wood treatment plants that have utilized copper-chromium-arsenic solutions in their produc- tion, and closed sulphide mine sites. The environmental and ecological risks related to the various arsenic sources were evaluated and the most urgent needs for remedia- tion measures were identified. Preventive decisions already made during the planning phases of land use activities are the most effective risk management measure both in terms of health and ecological risks. The RAMAS project has published several reports and risk area maps, which can be downloaded from the project’s website: www.gsf.fi /projects/ramas. 213 Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 49 Timo Ruskeeniemi, Birgitta Backman, Kirsti Loukola-Ruskeeniemi, Jaana Sorvari, Heli Lehtinen et al. Keywords (GeoRef Thesaurus, AGI): environmental geology, arsenic, background level, bedrock, soils, ground water, surface water, human activity, risk assessment, risk management, Pirkanmaa, Finland 1) Geological Survey of Finland, P.O. Box 96, FI-02151 Espoo, Finland 2) Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140, FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland 3) MTT Agrifood Research Finland, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland 4) Esko Rossi Oy, Kuokkasenmutka 4, FI-40520 Jyväskylä, Finland 5) Reachlaw Ltd., Keilaranta 15, FI-02150 Espoo, Finland 6) Pirkanmaa Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, P.O. Box 297, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland * E-mail: [email protected] 214 Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 49 Arsenic in the Pirkanmaa region, southern Finland: From identification through to risk assessment to risk management ARSENIC IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Arsenic (As) is a natural component of bedrock. It countries followed this recommendation, including ranks twentieth in abundance among the elements the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in the Earth’s crust. The abundance of arsenic in the (STM 1994a, 1994b). In 2007, threshold and guide- continental crust is generally given as 1.5–2 ppm line values for arsenic in soil were defined (Gov- (NRC 1977, Reimann & Caritat 1998). Thus, it is ernment Decree 214/2007). The threshold value for relatively scarce. Nevertheless, it occurs as a major assessing the arsenic contamination of the soil and constituent in more than 200 minerals (NRC 1977, the need for remediation is 5 mg/kg. If the natural Smedley & Kinniburgh 2002). Of these minerals, background value demonstrated for an area is high- arsenopyrite (FeAsS) is by far the most common. er than this, it is applied instead. Soil is regarded as Geological processes have dispersed arsenic to contaminated if the guideline values of 50 mg/kg locations where it is more susceptible to dissolu- (residential areas etc.) or 100 mg/kg (industrial ar- tion and transport to the biosphere, such as water- eas, parks etc.) are exceeded. The guideline values conducting fractures in bedrock and the soil cover. are based on either ecological or health risks. Human activities have also released arsenic into the Since the 1980s, geochemical mapping con- environment, generating contaminated areas with ducted in Finland has revealed several areas with occasionally very high arsenic concentrations. elevated arsenic concentrations in bedrock and soil Arsenic is a redox sensitive element, which (Koljonen et al. 1992, Loukola-Ruskeeniemi & La- means that it may be present in a variety of redox hermo 2004). One widespread arsenic anomaly is states. located in a densely populated area in the southern The common oxidation states are –3, 0, +3 and part of the country, in the Tampere region (Figure +5 (CRC 1986). Under oxidising conditions, the 1). When the analytical methods for water analy- predominant form of arsenic in water and soil is the sis improved in the early 1990s, excess arsenic was oxidised form, arsenate (As5+), while under more re- also detected from bedrock groundwater. Combined ducing conditions, arsenite (As3+) may be the domi- with the reported adverse health effects arising from nant arsenic species (e.g. Cullen & Reimer 1989). rather low arsenic concentrations, municipalities At a near neutral pH, which is common for ground- and health authorities were motivated to launch a waters, arsenate is present as negatively charged number of studies in this region (e.g. Backman et al. - 2- oxyions, H2AsO4 or HAsO4 , whereas arsenite re- 1994, Kurttio et al. 1998, 1999, Carlson et al. 2002, mains in the form of uncharged H3AsO3 until the pH Vaajasaari et al. 2002). is raised to 9. The geochemical properties of these There has been considerable interest in arsenic dissolved arsenic forms differ, and this combined from other perspectives, as well. Numerous po- with the prevailing conditions in the water-rock/soil tential anthropogenic sources of arsenic have been system has significant implications for the behav- identified in the Pirkanmaa region, such as wood iour of arsenic in the environment. impregnation plants, power plants, mines, landfill Naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water has sites and other waste treatment plants (Blinikka been identified as a global problem since the 1980s 2004, Melanen et al. 1999, Register of Contaminat- (Dhar et al. 1997, Battacharya et al. 2007). In South ed Land Areas). In this context, the local authorities and South East Asia, at least 50 million people ex- have monitored arsenic, for instance, in fresh waters posed to arsenic suffer from cancer and other ar- and sewage around suspected contaminated areas. senic-related diseases. Wide areas in South America Earlier studies have been site- or target-specific and the US have been reported to contain an excess without any wider consideration of the impact on of arsenic in groundwater. In most areas of Central the whole community or the environment. Further- and Western Europe, arsenic concentrations in sub- more, the existing information is spread between soil are elevated (Salminen et al. 2005). This is also numerous files and registers and is not readily ac- reflected in the quality of groundwaters. cessible to users. This was the starting point and In the early 1990s, some alarming findings were acted as the promoter for the integrated arsenic published, mainly from Taiwan and Bangladesh, project proposal “Risk assessment and risk manage- concerning the health effects of arsenic. As a con- ment procedure for arsenic in the Tampere Region” sequence of these findings, the WHO recommended (RAMAS), submitted to the EU LIFE Environment that the human health-based limit value for arsenic programme. The proposal was successful and the in drinking water should be reduced from 50 µg/l to project was implemented in 2004–2007. 10 µg/l (WHO 1993). National authorities in many 215 Geological Survey of Finland, Special Paper 49 Timo Ruskeeniemi, Birgitta Backman, Kirsti Loukola-Ruskeeniemi, Jaana Sorvari, Heli