4.5 Article

Physicochemical water quality of Karabel, calti, and Tohma brooks and blood biochemical parameters of Barbus plebejus fish: assessment of heavy metal concentrations for potential health risks

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-021-09549-2

关键词

Water quality; Fish quality; Heavy metal; Human health; Risk assessment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared the physical quality parameters of water samples from three brooks in Sivas province with the blood biochemical parameters of Barbus plebejus fish. It was found that some blood biochemical parameters were significantly affected by fluctuations in chemical pollution levels. However, all heavy metal concentrations were below international standards, indicating good water quality in the brooks.
The present study aims to comparatively examine the physical quality parameters of water samples taken from Karabel, calti, and Tohma brooks in Sivas province and the blood biochemical parameters of blood samples of Barbus plebejus fish obtained from these waters. In periods when chemical pollution in water increased and decreased, it was determined that GLU and UA among blood biochemical parameters were significantly affected. Moreover, the potential risk levels of lead (Pb), copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), and ferrous (Fe) for human health were compared to the international standards. Metal (Fe, Pb, Cu, and Cd) concentrations in the water were determined using atomic absorption spectrophotometer. The highest HQ(ingestion) values of Cd were found in Brook calti, which were 0.0018 for adults and 0.1980 for children. THQ upper limit set by the United States Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) is < 1. It was determined that HQ(ingestion), HQ(dermal), and THQ values of all the heavy metals were much lower than this limit. It was concluded that water quality parameters of samples taken from Karabel, calti, and Tohma brooks on monthly basis for 12 months were not higher than the limits and the water qualities of brooks were determined to be good.

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

4.5
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