4.7 Article

Environmental health risk posed by contamination of the individual water wells

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 208, 期 -, 页码 247-256

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.182

关键词

Drinking water; Environmental health risk; Health hazard; Water pollution; Water well

资金

  1. Institute of Environmental Engineering of the Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the results of analyzes of water samples taken from individual water wells intended for supplying households in non-urbanized areas with low population and infrastructure density. Relatively high concentrations of harmful pollutants were found in ground waters of the examined spots located in the suburban areas which may increase the risk of health incidents in exposed populations. Based on long-term measurements carried out in individual spots and toxicological data, the individual health risks related to carcinogenic effects in humans were assessed, resulting from direct ingestion of such water and from dermal contact. Non-carcinogenic hazard levels were determined, as well. In this work a novel approach to health risk assessment was proposed. It consists of determining the risks that range between minimum and possible maximum values. In the case of limited traceability of a pollutant the maximum and minimum risk values were derived from the limit of quantification (LOQ). Thus, for the minimum risk, zero concentration was applied, while for calculation of the maximum risk, LOQ was used as the possible highest pollutant content in water. The calculations proved that using untreated water for consumption and bathing is likely to cause an increase of both mutagenic and toxic risk in humans concerned. Depending on the site, the calculated non-carcinogenic hazard level expressed by the hazard index HI ranges between 0.6 and 3.6 while the excess lifetime cancer risk ELCR is of the order of 10(-4). (C) 2018 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