4.7 Article

Environmental, ecological and health risks of trace metals in sediments of a large reservoir on the Euphrates River (Turkey)

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 187, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109664

Keywords

Trace metal pollution; Freshwater reservoir; Sediment quality guidelines; Multivariate statistical methods; Sediment contamination indices; Ecological and health risk assessment

Funding

  1. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey [114Y018]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The contents of trace metals (Cd, As, Pb, Cr, Cu, Zn, Ni, Co, Mn and Fe) in sediment samples from eleven sampling sites in The Keban Dam Reservoir, which is Turkeys second biggest reservoir, were examined to evaluate spatial distribution, possible sources, contamination status and environmental, ecological and health risks of these metals. The results indicated that enrichment factor, geoaccumulation index and contamination factor values were higher at sampling sites receiving industrial and domestic wastewater discharges. Only Cr and Ni concentrations exceeded their corresponding probable effect concentrations in 47.7% and 93.2% of the samples. Ecological risk factor and ecological risk index values at all sites were < 40 and < 150, respectively, indicating low ecological risk in the reservoir. Cluster, correlation and factor analyses suggested that Cr and Ni originated from mixed sources of lithogenic and anthropogenic origins, while other metals mainly originated from natural sources. For children and adults, hazard quotient value of each metal from ingestion and dermal contact pathways did not exceed 1. Carcinogenic risk (CR) values of arsenic from these two exposure pathways and total CR value were within the range of acceptable risks. Thus, in terms of recreational uses, the reservoir is considered to be safe for human health.

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