4.7 Article

Human health risk assessment of elevated and variable iron and manganese intake with arsenic-safe groundwater in Jashore, Bangladesh

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62187-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Jashore University of Science and Technology
  2. The World Academy of Science (TWAS) under the COMSTECH-TWAS Joint Research Grants Programme [13-371 RG/ENG/AS_C, UNISCO FR: 3240279207]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Groundwater through hand-operated tubewell (a type of water well) tapping is the main source of drinking water in Bangladesh. This study investigated iron and manganese concentration in groundwater across Jashore district-one of the worst arsenic contaminated area in Bangladesh. One working tubewell that had been tested previously for arsenic and marked safe (green) was selected from each unions of the district. Results revealed that approximately 73% and 87% of groundwater samples exceeded the limits for iron and manganese in Bangladesh drinking water, respectively. Additionally, spatial distribution of iron and manganese indicate that only 5% of the total surface area of groundwater is covered by safe level of iron and manganese. Human health risk due to ingestion of iron and manganese through drinking water was evaluated using hazard quotients (HQ) for adults and children. The result of the health risk assessment revealed that the non-carcinogenic health risks due to ingestion of iron (HQ up to 1.446 for adults and 0.590 for children) and manganese (HQ up to 2.459 for adults and 1.004 for children) contaminated groundwater are much higher among adults than children. On the basis of occurrences, spatial distribution and health risk assessment results, the area can be categorized as a high-risk zone for iron and manganese-related problems and needs special attention in order to protect public health of local residents.

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