4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Health risk assessment of phthalate esters (PAEs) in drinking water sources of China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 3620-3630

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-3615-z

关键词

Phthalate esters; Health risk assessment; Carcinogenic risk; Non-carcinogenic risk; Drinking water

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phthalate esters (PAEs) with endocrine disruption effects and carcinogenicity are widely detected in water environment. Occurrences of PAEs in source water and removal efficiencies of PAEs by drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) in China were surveyed from publications in the last 10 years. Concentration of diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) in source water with median value of 1.3 mu g/L was higher than that of dimethyl phthalate (DMP), diethyl phthalate (DEP), and di-n-butyl phthalate (DnBP). If the removal efficiencies of DEHP and DnBP reached 60 and 90 %, respectively, the calculated PAE concentration in drinking water can generally meet Standards for Drinking Water Quality in China. The health risks of PAEs, including non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks via the water source-DWTP-oral ingestion/dermal permeation pathway, were evaluated with Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis under certain removal efficiencies from 0 to 95 %. The carcinogenic risk of DEHP was lower than the upper acceptable carcinogenic risk level (10(-4)), while the probability of DEHP's carcinogenic risk between lower (10(-6)) and upper (10(-4)) acceptable carcinogenic risk level decreased from about 21.2 to 0.4 % through increasing DEHP removal efficiency from 0 to 95 %. The non-carcinogenic risk of DEHP was higher than that of DEP and DnBP. In all cases, the total non-carcinogenic risk of DEP, DnBP, and DEHP was lower than 1, indicating that there would be unlikely incremental non-carcinogenic risk to humans. Both carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic risk of PAEs in drinking water to female were a little higher than those to male.

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