4.7 Article

Human health risk assessment based on trace metals in suspended air particulates, surface dust, and floor dust from e-waste recycling workshops in Hong Kong, China

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 3813-3825

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-2372-8

Keywords

Electronic waste; Tracemetal; Dust; Risk assessment; Occupational safety and health; Hong Kong

Funding

  1. Public Policy Research Grant [HKBU 2001-PPR-5]
  2. Research Grants Council of Hong Kong

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated health risks exerted on electronic waste (e-waste) recycling workers exposed to cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), mercury (Hg), and zinc (Zn) in Hong Kong. E-waste recycling workshops were classified into eight working areas: 1 = office, 2 = repair, 3 = dismantling, 4 = storage, 5 = desoldering, 6 = loading, 7 = cable shredding, and 8 = chemical waste. The aforementioned metal concentrations were analyzed in suspended air particulates, surface dust and floor dust collected from the above study areas in five workshops. Elevated Pb levels were measured in dismantling and desoldering areas (582 and 486 mu g/100 cm(2) in surface and 3,610 and 19,172 mg/kg in floor dust, respectively). Blood lead levels of 10 and 39.5 mu g/dl were estimated using United States Environmental Protection Agency's Adult Lead Model as a result of exposure to the floor dust from these two areas. Human health risk assessments were conducted to evaluate cancer and noncancer risks resulting from exposure to floor dust through the combined pathways of ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation. Findings indicated that workers may be exposed to cancer risks above the acceptable range at 147 in a million at the 95th percentile in the dismantling area. Workers should be informed of associated risks to safeguard their 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