4.7 Article

Screening and health risk of organic micropollutants in rural groundwater of Liaodong Peninsula, China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 218, 期 -, 页码 739-748

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.07.070

关键词

Organic micropollutants; Groundwater; Health risk assessment; Carcinogenic risk; Noncarcinogenic risk

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI of Japan [23404002]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21477016]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT15-TD09]
  4. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT_13R05]
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23404002] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Groundwater serves as a main drinking water source for rural residents in China. However, little is known regarding the pollution of organic micropollutants in groundwater that may pose health risks. In this study, more than 1300 organic micropollutants were screened in the groundwater samples collected from 13 drinking water wells distributed across five rural regions of Liaodong Peninsula in China. A total of 80 organic micropollutants including 12 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 11 alkanes, 9 pesticides, 7 substituted phenols, 7 perfluoroalkyl acids, 6 heterocyclic compounds, 5 alcohols, 5 phthalic acid esters, 5 pharmaceutical and personal care products, 3 ketones, 2 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 2 alkylbenzenes and 2 chlorinated benzenes were detected, with their total concentration of 32-1.5 x 10(4) ng/L. Noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks of a part of pollutants were assessed. Exposure through skin absorption and oral ingestion was considered in the assessment. Generally the risks are within the acceptable limits, except for that the carcinogenic risk at two sites in Jinzhou is higher than 10(-6). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report on health risks of groundwater micropollutants in China. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据