4.5 Article

Contamination Level, Source Identification and Risk Assessment of Potentially Toxic Elements (PTEs) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Street Dust of an Important Commercial Center in Iran

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 62, 期 4, 页码 803-818

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-018-1079-5

关键词

Street dust; Potentially toxic elements (PTEs); Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); Bandar Abbas; health risk assessment

资金

  1. Shiraz University Research Committee and medical geology research center of Shiraz University
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Superfund Research Program [2 P42 ES04940]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [P42ES004940] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The geochemical nature and health hazards of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the street dust of Bandar Abbas, Iran, are investigated in this study based on 27 street dust samples. Mean concentrations of Cu, Pb, Zn, As, Sb, and Hg revealed elevated concentrations as compared to the world soil average. Calculated enrichment factors (EFs) indicated that there is very high contamination in dust particles owing to anthropogenic emissions. Two main sources of PTEs are traffic emissions (Cu, Pb, Zn, Co, Mn, Fe, As, Cd, Sb, and Hg) and resuspended soil particles (Al, Ti, Ni, and Cr). Statistical analysis shows that Al, Mn, Ni, Ti, Cr, Fe, and Co are geogenic, whereas PAHs are mainly derived from traffic emissions. Values of incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR), as derived from a modified model of the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), indicate that Bandar Abbas residents are potentially exposed to high cancer risk, especially via dust ingestion and dermal contact, whereas the level of hazard index (HI), hazard quotients (HQ), and cancer risk associated with exposure to the elements in street dust fall lower than threshold values representative of health risks.

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