4.8 Article

Health risk assessment of emissions of dioxins and furans from a municipal waste incinerator: comparison with other emission sources

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 481-489

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2003.10.001

关键词

health risks; municipal solid waste incinerator; dioxins and furans; emissions; air dispersion; soils; herbage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to calculate the incremental lifetime-risk to dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs) for the population living in the surroundings of a municipal solid waste incinerator (MSWI), as well as to establish the potential reduction on human health risks as: a consequence of the adaptation to the EU legislation on pollutant emissions from the MSWI stack. Analytical and modelled results were obtained. PCDD/F concentrations in environmental media were determined by means of a simple-compartment-multimedia model (air-soil-vegetation model). Predicted and measured PCDD/F concentrations in soils and vegetation were compared, and the effects of MSWI emissions in the environmental media were determined. Human health risks due to PCDD/F emissions from the MSWI were also estimated based on I-TEQ measured and modelled in various environmental media. Cancer risks due to PCDD/F emissions of the plant were 1.07E - 07 and 3.08E - 09, before and after installation of the clean air system, respectively. On the other hand, cancer risks, due to other PCDD/F emission sources in the area were 5.54E - 06 and 1.86E - 06. Total PCDD/F cancer risks (including those from diet) for the population living in the vicinity of the MSWI were 1.3E - 04 and 4.25E - 05, respectively (67.6% of reduction)- Hazard ratio for total PCDD/F exposure (including diet) decreased during the last 5 years from 1.16 to 0.38. The above data show that other emission sources of PCDD/Fs also have a notable environmental impact on the area under direct influence of the MSWI. (C) 2003 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

4.8
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