Environmental Science & Technology

This document is confidential and is proprietary to the American Chemical Society and its authors. Do not
copy or disclose without written permission. If you have received this item in error, notify the sender and
delete all copies.

Comment on Van Metre and Mahler 2014: PAH

Concentrations in Lake Sediment Decline Following Ban on
Coal-Tar-Based Pavement Sealants in Austin, Texas

Journal: Environmental Science & Technology

Manuscript ID: es-2014-044408

Manuscript Type: Correspondence/Rebuttal

Date Submitted by the Author: 10-Sep-2014

Complete List of Authors: O'Reilly, Kirk; Exponent Inc.,

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 1 of 6 Environmental Science & Technology

Comment on Van Metre and Mahler 2014: PAH Concentrations in Lake Sediment
Decline Following Ban on Coal-Tar-Based Pavement Sealants in Austin, Texas

Kirk O'Reilly

This comment on Van Metre and Mahler 20141 continues an ongoing post-publication discussion
with the authors.2-7 Consistent with their prior papers,8-11 Van Metre and Mahler described
results in a way to promote a preconceived narrative instead of fully informing the reader. This
is demonstrated in part by the references being dominated by papers generated by a small group
of researchers12-14 who support their hypothesis concerning the role of refined tar pavement
sealers (RTS) as a source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in urban sediments while
ignoring the body of literature describing PAH sources.14-19 By not citing papers providing
independent analyses and those that that have raised questions about the authors claims,2-7, 20
the reader is not informed of the non-USGS data analyses and the findings that call aspects of
their work into question. Van Metre and Mahler also fail to discuss their role in advocating for
the product ban that their work evaluates,21 or that many of the sampling locations were adjacent
to an electrical power plant that closed soon after the ban22 an important fact that supports a
different causal analysis relating to the analytical findings in their work

For an article published in Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T),1 the limited amount
of data that even suggest support for the authors claim is surprising. The results of only two
sediment cores that contain pre- and post-ban samples are included. In one case, LBL-4, the
range of total PAH concentrations in the two post-ban samples is the same as that for the last
three pre-ban samples. In the other, LBL-1, the supposed decrease in PAH concentration began
prior to the RTS ban. Two samples from four other locations were also discussed. The post-ban
PAH concentrations were higher at one location and lower at the other three, but a trend cannot
be determined with only two data points from each location, collected 12 years apart.

A simple evaluation raises significant questions concerning the authors conclusions. If the ban
was the primary factor responsible for the change in measured PAH concentrations, one would
expect the PAH contribution from RTS to decrease while the mass contribution of other sources
remains about the same. Using the mean data presented in Table 7-S,1 there was a 69 percent
reduction in the mass contribution of non-RTS-related PAHs and a 55 percent reduction in the
mass contribution of RTS sources. Because there is no reason that the RTS ban would reduce
the contribution of non-RTS sources, this finding does not support the authors interpretation that
differences in measured PAHs concentrations are the result of the ban.

The authors present results from EPAs CMB model to support their claim but fail to inform the
reader of concerns that have been raised2-7 about their selection of input parameters and whether
the model has the ability to accurately characterize the multiple sources that make up urban
background. In 2010, Van Metre and Mahler11 reported modeling some 200 combinations of
PAH sources, and even though model outputs are highly sensitive to source inputs,5,23 they

1
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Environmental Science & Technology Page 2 of 6

discussed the details of only four runs that appear to supported their hypothesis. Repeated efforts
to obtain the full set of model results have failed.24 Having identified model conditions that
produce the authors desired output, it is not surprising that similar results were obtained when
the model was applied to sediments from the current study. As noted in prior critiques,4,7 the
results of principal component analysis indicate that the source profiles used by the authors as
CMB input were insufficient to properly model the contribution to sediment samples.

The RTS source profiles used by Van Metre and Mahler were developed by averaging the
analytical results of dust samples collected from parking lots that were assumed to be sealed with
RTS.11 To evaluate their interpretation of the results, I ran CMB using Van Metre and Mahlers
Model A11 but replacing the parking-lot dust profile with PAH profiles of samples from either
RTS test plots or fresh RTS obtained from Mahler et al (2004).9 As a negative control, I
included a CMB run without an RTS source profile . In each case, the Pearson correlation
between measured and modeled PAH concentrations was greater than 0.98, indicating that the
CMBs ability to fit the data was similar regardless of which RTS source profile was used (Table
1).

The critical finding is that RTS was indicated as a source only when the parking-lot dust PAH
profile was used as a model input, but not when data that unquestionably represented RTS were
used. The modeled source contribution of the fresh or test-plot RTS profiles was zero. Van
Metre and Mahler11 argued that using fresh RTS as a source profile was not appropriate, because
the material is known to weather in the environment. While this is true for RTS, it also true for
all the other source profiles used.4,16 Using a weathered profile for RTS and unweathered
profiles for the remaining sources is likely a major reason that Van Metre and Mahlers
application of CMB suggests an elevated RTS contribution to the typical weathered PAH profile
of urban sediments.4,5,7

Finally, Van Metre and Mahler fail to inform the reader about the questionable relationship of
politics and science in their work. Examples includes the authors hosting a news conference25
with a congressman when their article1 was first posted on ES&Ts website where the
congressmans stated goal was to use the published claims to push for a nationwide RTS ban.
Potential problems with supposedly neutral government scientists using their research to promote
personally favored policy have been raised by a number of authors.5,26,27

Acknowledgement

The author has received funding from the Pavement Coatings Technology Council. The
opinions are his own.

2
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 3 of 6 Environmental Science & Technology

References

1. Van Metre, P. C.; Mahler, B. J. PAH concentrations in lake sediment decline following
ban on coal-tar-based pavement sealants in Austin, Texas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014,
48, 7222-7228.

2. OReilly, K. T. Article title misstates the role of pavement sealers. Environ. Poll. 2014,
191, 260261.

3. OReilly, K.; Pietari, J.; Boehm, P. Comment on PAHs Underfoot: Contaminated Dust
from Coal-Tar Sealcoated Pavement is Widespread in the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2011, 45, 31853186.

4. OReilly, K.; Pietari, J.; Boehm, P. A forensic assessment of coal tar sealants as a source
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban sediments. Environ. Forensics 2012, 13,
185196.

5. O'Reilly, K. T.; Pietari, J.; Boehm, P. D. Parsing pyrogenic polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons: Forensic chemistry, receptor models, and source control policy. Integr.
Environ. Assess. Manag. 2014, 10, 279285.

6. O'Reilly, K. T.; Pietari, J.; Boehm, P. D. Authors reply. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag.
2014, 10, 325326.

7. O'Reilly, K. T.; Pietari, J.; Boehm, P. D. Authors reply to Van Metre and Mahler (2014).
Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2014, DOI:10.1002/ieam.1556.

8. Van Metre, P. C.; Mahler, B. J. Response to comment on PAHs Underfoot:

Contaminated Dust from Coal-Tar Sealcoated Pavement is Widespread in the U.S.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 31873188.

9. Mahler, B. J.; Van Metre, P. C.; Bashara, T. J.; Wilson, J. T.; Johns, D. A. Parking lot
sealcoat: An unrecognized source of urban polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 55605566.

10. Van Metre, P. C.; Mahler, B. J.; Wilson, J. T. PAHs underfoot: Contaminated dust from
coal-tar sealcoated pavement is widespread in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2009, 43 (1), 2025.

11. Van Metre, P.C.; Mahler, B. J. Contribution of PAHs from coaltar pavement sealcoat
and other sources to 40 U.S. lakes. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2010, 409, 334344.

12. Crane, J. L. Source apportionment and distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,

risk considerations, and management implications for urban stormwater pond sediments
in Minnesota, USA. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2014, 66, 176200.

3
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Environmental Science & Technology Page 4 of 6

13. Pavlowsky, R. T. Coal-tar pavement sealant use and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
contamination in urban stream sediments. Phys. Geogr. 2013, 34, 392415.

14. Scoggins, M.; McClintock, N. M.; Gosselink, L.; Bryer, P. Occurrence of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons below coal tar sealed parking lots and effects on benthic
macroinvertebrate communities. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2007, 26, 693706.

15. Costa, H. J.; Sauer, T. C. Forensic approaches and consideration in identifying PAH
background. Environ. Forensics. 2005, 6, 916.

16. Boehm, P. D. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In: Environmental forensicsA

contaminant-specific approach; Morrison, R, Murphy, B., Eds.; Elsevier: New York
2006.

17. Lima, A. L. C.; Farrington, J. W.; Reddy, C. M. Combustion-derived polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons in the environmentA review. Environ. Forensics 2005, 6 ,109131.

18. Stout, S. A.; Uhler, A. D.; Emsbo-Mattingly, S. D. Comparative evaluation of

background anthropogenic hydrocarbons in surficial sediments from nine urban
waterways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 29872994.

19. Van Metre, P. C.; Mahler, B. J.; Furlong, E. T. Urban sprawl leaves its PAH signature.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 40644070.

20. DeMott, R. P.; Gauthier, T. D. Comment on Parking lot sealcoat: An unrecognized

source of urban polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40,
36573658.

21. Scheibal, S. Industries hear city's findings on pollution. Austin Amer. Statesman 2005,
July 19.

22. Mottola, D. Holly power plant to close. Austin Chronicle 2007, July 13.

23. O'Reilly, K. T.; Ahn, S.; Pietari, J.; Boehm, P. D. Use of receptor models to evaluate
sources of PAHs in sediments. Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2014,
DOI:10.1080/10406638.2014.907817

24. Pavement Coating Technology Council v. United States Geological Survey. Complaint
for Injunctive Relief, DDC Case 1:14-cv-01200-KBJ, Washington, DC, 2014.

25. Price, A. Researchers find carcinogen dropoff in Lady Bird Lake following ban. Austin
Amer. Statesman 2014, June 24.

26. Lackey, R. T. Science, scientists and policy advocacy. Cons. Biol. 2007, 21, 1217.

4
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 5 of 6 Environmental Science & Technology

27. Mills, T. J. Policy advocacy by scientists risks science credibility and may be unethical.
Northwest Sci. 2000, 74,165168.

5
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
 Environmental Science & Technology Page 6 of 6

Table 1: The average CMB modeled source contributions for four model runs. The non-RTS
source profiles11 were kept constant, while the RTS source profile was changed for each run.

Average CMB Modeled Contribution

(%)
Model vs
Reference Measured
RTS Source for the RTS Correlation RTS Vehicle, Coal,
Profile profile [r] Source tunnel Pinewood average Fuel oil
Lot Dust 11 0.99 82 13 5 0.6 0.0
RTS Test Plot 9 0.98 0.0 42 57 1.0 0.0
Fresh RTS 9 0.98 0.0 42 57 1.0 0.0
No RTS -- 0.98 -- 48 51 1.2 0.0

6
ACS Paragon Plus Environment