RESUMO
The current regulatory site investigation employs the J&E model to predict vapor intrusion risk. However, the J&E model assumes that the source concentration is constant for a given exposure period, which is not consistent with the actual site source under depletion. In this study, we compared the differences between the J&E model (constant source), SD source depletion model, and RBCA source depletion model for predicting indoor concentration variation as well as the risk levels during the exposure period with a case study in Beijing. The results showed that the source and indoor air concentrations predicted by the SD and RBCA models showed exponential decreases, whereas those predicted by the J&E model maintained high concentrations throughout the exposure period, which greatly overestimated the risk. The RBCA predicted source depletion at the fastest rate, but the predicted indoor air concentrations were still lower than those of the SD model, which was related to the fact that the RBCA did not consider the effect of buildings on source depletion and did not follow mass conservation. Further, the sensitivity analysis showed that the pressure difference (dP) had the greatest influence on the source concentration in the SD model. For the calculated carcinogenic risk and hazard quotients, the J&E constant source model, the SD source depletion model, and the RBCA source depletion model were ranked in descending order. The results indicated that in general the J&E model was too conservative, the RBCA model may have underestimated risk, and the SD model was more suitable for quantifying vapor intrusion risk in reality.