4.8 Review

Chlorination disinfection by-products, public health risk tradeoffs and me

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 43, Issue 8, Pages 2057-2092

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.02.011

Keywords

Risk assessment; Risk management; Drinking water safety; Cancer; Carcinogens; Adverse reproductive effects; Disinfection by-products; Environmental epidemiology; Environmental toxicology

Funding

  1. National Collaborating Centre on Environmental Health
  2. Canadian Water Network
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since 1974 when trihalomethanes (THMs) were first reported as disinfection by-products (DBPs) in drinking water, there has been an enormous research effort directed at understanding how DBPs are formed in the chlorination or chloramination. of drinking water, how these chlorination DBPs can be minimized and whether they pose a public health risk, mainly in the form of cancer or adverse reproductive outcomes. Driven by continuing analytical advances, the original DBPs, the THMs, have been expanded to include over 600 DBPs that have now been reported in drinking water. The historical risk assessment context which presumed cancer could be mainly attributed to exposure to environmental carcinogens played a major role in defining regulatory responses to chlorination DBPs; which, in turn, strongly influenced the DBP research agenda. There are now more than 30 years of drinking water quality, treatment and health effects research, including more than 60 epidemiology studies on human populations, directed at the chlorination DBP issue. These provide considerable scope to reflect on what we know now, how our understanding has changed, what those changes mean for public health risk management overall and where we should look to better understand and manage this issue in the future. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available