4.7 Article

Cumulative human health risk analysis of trihalomethanes exposure in drinking water systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 321, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115949

关键词

Drinking water; NOM; THMs; Risk exposure; Human health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effect of gastrointestinal absorption factor on human health risk assessment and found that dissolved organic carbon in water is the main parameter influencing the formation of trihalomethanes (THMs). The results showed that the observed human health risk due to THMs in the two drinking water treatment plants were below the recommended levels by the US EPA, and there were seasonal disparities in risk estimation.
Chlorinated compounds on reaction with natural organic substances present in water leads to the formation of trihalomethanes (THMs), a major type of disinfection by-products (DBPs). Trihalomethanes (THMs) are the most widely investigated DBPs in drinking water systems because of their carcinogenic potential and subsequent adverse effects on human health. This study investigated the effect of gastro-intestinal absorption factor on human health risk assessment. Monitoring and analysis of water quality parameters and THMs levels in drinking water treatment plants revealed that the average values (306.5 mu g/L) exceeded the recommended US EPA guidelines of 80 mu g/L. Spearman rank (rho) correlation coefficient indicated that dissolved organic carbon is the major parameter influencing THMs formation. Monte Carlo simulations base risk assessment study was conducted for three different exposure pathways. The observed human health risk exposure effects due to THMs were below the recommended USEPA level (1.0 x 10(-6)) for both the drinking water treatment plants. Seasonal disparity on risk estimation analysis revealed higher risk in summer season followed by autumn which is principally due to high concentration of THMs in summers.

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