ArticleVadose zone journal : VZJ2016
Comparison between PVI2D and Abreu-Johnson's Model for Petroleum Vapor Intrusion Assessment.
Article in Vadose zone journal : VZJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, we have developed a two-dimensional analytical petroleum vapor intrusion model, PVI2D (petroleum vapor intrusion, two-dimensional), which can help users to easily visualize soil gas concentration profiles and indoor concentrations as a function of site-specific conditions such as source strength and depth, reaction rate constant, soil characteristics, and building features. In this study, we made a full comparison of the results returned by PVI2D and those obtained using Abreu and Johnson's three-dimensional numerical model (AJM). These comparisons, examined as a function of the source strength, source depth, and reaction rate constant, show that PVI2D can provide similar soil gas concentration profiles and source-to-indoor air attenuation factors (within one order of magnitude difference) as those by the AJM. The differences between the two models can be ascribed to some simplifying assumptions used in PVI2D and to some numerical limitations of the AJM in simulating strictly piecewise aerobic biodegradation and no-flux boundary conditions. Overall, the obtained results show that for cases involving homogenous source and soil, PVI2D can represent a valid alternative to more rigorous three-dimensional numerical models.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.