4.7 Article

Incorporating bioaccessibility into human health risk assessments of heavy metals in urban park soils

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 424, Issue -, Pages 88-96

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.053

Keywords

Metal contamination; Human health risk assessments; Oral bioaccessibility; Exposure pathways; Land use type; Urban park soil

Funding

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-YW-Q02-02, A0815]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2009DFB90120]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40871244, 21007065]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Contaminants in urban soils can directly pose significant human health risks through oral ingestion, particle inhalation, and dermal contact, especially for children in public parks. Both non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks of heavy metals (Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn) were characterized in 40 surface soils (exposed lawns) from 14 urban parks in Xiamen, China. Results based on total metal concentrations may overestimate the actual risks in comparison with oral bioaccessibility assessment that were estimated by a simplified physiologically based extraction test (SBET). After considering the soil-specific bioaccessibility (Cd> Cu> Pb> Mn> Zn > Co similar to-Ni > Cr), the non-cancer hazard of Pb to children via oral ingestion should be a consideration though its Hazard Index (HI) was below one. The overall cancer risks to adults still exceeded the target value 10(-6), mainly contributed by Cr (93.8%) and Pb (6.19%) via dermal contact (683%) and oral ingestion (30.4%). To produce a more realistic estimation for human health risks of metal contamination in urban soils, a framework combining land use type and bioaccessibility is recommended and thereby should be applied for the derivation of risk-based, site-specific soil guidelines. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available