Volume 6, Issue 2 (June 2021)                   J Environ Health Sustain Dev 2021, 6(2): 1321-1329 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sadeghi M, Noroozi M. Carcinogenic and Non-carcinogenic Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Water Resources of North East of Iran in 2018. J Environ Health Sustain Dev 2021; 6 (2) :1321-1329
URL: http://jehsd.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-316-en.html
Carcinogenic and Non-carcinogenic Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Water Resources of North East of Iran in 2018
Mahdi Sadeghi * , Mina Noroozi
Food, Drug, Natural Products Health Research Center, Golestan University of Medical Science, Gorgan, Iran.
Keywords: Drinking Water, Heavy Metals, Risk Assessment, Iran.
Full-Text [PDF 768 kb]   (557 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (907 Views)
Full-Text:   (565 Views)
Carcinogenic and Non-carcinogenic Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Water Resources of North East of Iran in 2018
 
Mahdi Sadeghi 1*, Mina Noroozi 2
 
1 Food, Drug, Natural Products Health Research Center,  Golestan University of Medical Science, Gorgan, Iran.
2 Geochemistry, Faculty of Earth Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
 
A R T I C L E  I N F O   ABSTRACT
ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Introduction: Contamination of water with heavy metals has turned into a health concern, particularly in the developing countries. In this study, concentration of heavy metals and associated carcinogenic and non- carcinogenic risk was investigated in water samples collected from Gonbad-e Kavus, a high-risk area for cancer.
Materials and Methods: Samples were collected from Gorgan River, Golestan reservoir and wells around villages with high prevalence in 2018.Samples were analysed through inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. After determining the concentration of heavy metals in water samples from different sources, health risk assessment was carried out according to the Environmental Protection Agency. 
Results: Arsenic in samples 6-9 was higher than 10 µg/L, calcium and magnesium in sample 5 was higher than 200 mg/L and 150 mg/L respectively, and sodium in all samples was higher than 50 mg/L.  According to the findings, these concentrations were higher than the maximum allowed limit in most water samples. Hazard quotient (HQ) in samples 8 and 9 were associated with arsenic and health risk in sample 1 was related to antimony. Furthermore, since all samples contained high amounts of lithium, water from this area better should not be consumed by children older than one year.
Conclusion: Given the high rate of arsenic contamination, consumption of water in the study area could be health threatening for all individuals and is not recommended for children. This highlights the need for taking immediate actions to review the water treatment process and ensure safety of the drinking water in this area.
 
Article History:
Received: 12 February 2021
Accepted: 20 May 2021
 		  
 
*Corresponding Author:
Mahdi Sadeghi
Email:
dr-sadeghi@goums.ac.ir
Tel:
+981732456071
 		  
 
Keywords:
Drinking Water,
Heavy Metals,
Risk Assessment,
Iran.
Citation: Sadeghi M, Noroozi M. Carcinogenic and Non-carcinogenic Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in Water Resources of North East of Iran in 2018. J Environ Health Sustain Dev. 2021; 6(2): 1321-9.
 
Introduction
Heavy metals are one of the most important environmental pollutants. Widespread water pollution is a common challenge in the developing countries, which may be result in physical and biological changes as well as accumulation of toxic and harmful substances in water1-2. Contamination reduces the quality of water, so that it cannot be consumed by living creatures anymore. Contrary to some degradable contaminants such as agricultural wastes, heavy metals including cadmium, lead, and arsenic are non-biodegradable and could be health threatening3-5. Presence of heavy metals in the drinking waterand food can have adverse health effects on humans. One of the important results of heavy metals' sustainability in the environment is the entry of metals in the food chain6-8.Some heavy metals such as iron, manganese; cobalt, copper, and zinc are essential for plants and animals, but dangerous at high concentrations. However, certain heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, and lead are toxic even at very low concentrations9-11. Industrial wastewater, chemical fertilizers, solid waste leachate, and geological structures are known sources of heavy metals contamination in water systems6,12. Contamination of water with heavy metals can spread to different parts of the aquatic ecosystem, such as water, sediments, and plants. Groundwater is the main water source for drinking, agricultural, and industrial purposes. Almost one-third of the world's population uses groundwater to supply drinking water13.
Several risk assessments studies were conducted on contamination of water sources with heavy metals. Lee et al. assessed bioavailability of arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc in soil and performed chemical analysis for groundwater and stream water samples from abandoned mine areas (Dukeum, Dongil, Dongjung, Myungbong and Songchun mine areas). High values of cancer risk for As (1.16×10−5) were detected through soil ingestion pathways in the Songchun mine area and assessed through water exposure pathways in the all mines except Dukeum14.In China, Wang et al.analysed several water quality indices and performed risk assessment of heavy metals including iron, copper, manganese, zinc, arsenic, chromium, mercury, lead, and cadmium in community water sources. The highest rate of contamination was observed in reservoirs and river water caused by chromium and arsenic15.
In the northeast of Iran, Gonbad-e Kavusis a high-risk area for cancer. Northern Iran lies on the Asian belt with predominance of upper-gastrointestinal cancers.  The Golestan population-based cancer registry (GPCR) was established in Golestan province. Overall, 19807 new cancer cases were registered during the study period (2004-2013) with an average of 1981 cases per annum as well as  overall Age-Standardized Incidence Rates (ASR) of 175.0 and 142.4 in males and females, respectively16 .
Therefore, this study was aimed to determine the chemical properties and level of heavy metals in different water sources (surface and groundwater in high risk area, Fajr, Soltan Ali, and Aq Abad villages). Furthermore, the study targeted at assessing the risk factor, cancer and non-cancerous effects, as well as adverse threshold for men, women, and children.
Materials and Methods
The city of Gonbad-e-Kavus is located at 55° 18' longitude and 37° 17'min latitude in the northern and central parts of the Golestan Province (Figure 1). The soil of this area is mainly composed of volcanic plains. The geosciences of the Gonbad-e-KavusCity show that this area is marshy, habitable, abandoned, impassable, and there exists major faults.
Sampling was done based on hydro geological studies and from certain sampling stations suggested by the regional water authorities
(Figure 2).
 

Figure 1: Location of the study area and epidemiology of cancer in Gonbad-e Kavus
 

Figure 2: Location of water sampling stations in hydrographic network
 
In sampling, one sample was collected from well water located in Fajr village, three samples of drinking water were collected from all three villages( Fajr, Aq Abad, and Soltan Ali), and three samples of Gorgan River, which passes through these three villages were collected.The sample size for testing soluble/insoluble heavy metals was about 100 mL. The samples were stored immediately. Then, for preserve of sample, 1.5 mL of nitric acid (HNO3) added to sample and the pH is brought to less than two. For samples with a high buffer capacity, the amount of acid was increased (5 mL for buffer or alkaline samples)17. The samples were analysed via inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Followed by obtaining the heavy metals' concentrations, health risk assessment was carried out according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)18.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Chemical Safety Program, risk assessment is a process for estimating the risk to an organism, system or population10. In order to assess the risk of a Hazard quotient (HQ) < 1 risk, no significant toxicity should be observed and if HQ > 1, the probability of a potential hazard is calculated as follows:
HQ = ADD / RfdEq (1)
ADD (mg/kg-d) is equal to the mean daily dose and RfD (mg / kg-d) is equal to the reference dose(18).
ADD = (Cm.CR) / BW Eq(2)
Cm is the concentration of element measured in water and CR is the average daily water consumption (3 liters per day). The body weight (BW) of consumers is 78 kg for men, 65 kg for women, and 14.5 kg for children19. The water consumption limit in the area was calculated using the following equations:
CRlim = (RfD.BW) / Cm Eq(3)
CRlim = (ARL.BW) /Cm.CFS) Eq(4)
CRlim is the highest daily intake limit and CFS is the steady incidence of cancer. The amount of ARL is constant and equal to 10-5.
Ethical Issue
This study was conducted with approval of Golestan University of Medical Sciences. Research Ethics Code was IR.GOUMS.REC.1398.034.
Results
In order to determine water contamination levels, the concentration of elements and heavy metals in water samples was compared with the existing standards set by the WHO20 and the US Environmental Protection Agency21 (Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1: Chemical parameters of the water quality in the study area compared with the global
standards and guidelines
Sample Water source Cl(mg/L) pH TDS(mg/L) Na(mg/L) Mg(mg/L) K(mg/L) Ca(mg/L)
1 Groundwater 2.9 7.5 566 74 28.9 1.93 83.6
2 Groundwater 3.1 7.9 620 59.9 26 1.65 76.5
3 Groundwater 8 8.1 1103 77.9 38.6 2.66 96.6
4 Surface 33 7.48 3209 62.5 25.4 3.26 77.7
5 Surface 4.9 7.61 872 1300 328.9 9.82 202.5
6 Groundwater 53 7.21 4981 130.1 24.6 1.77 61.9
7 Groundwater 21 7.34 2826 224.1 27.9 2.05 52.6
8 Surface 2.5 7.7 533 464.1 111.2 5.78 115.4
9 Surface 3.1 7.76 564 228.6 80.5 8.14 66.2
Mean - 14.61 7.62 1697.1 291.24 76.8 4.11 92.55
SD - 17.81 0.27 1599.08 400.06 99.27 3.06 45.29
US.EPA - 250 6.5-8.5 500 60-90
WHO - 250 6.5 1500 50 150 12 200
 
As shown in table 1, the mean concentrations (as mg/L) of the chemical parameters were as follows: Cl (14.61 ± 17.81), pH (7.62 ± 0.27), TDS (1607.1 ± 1599.1), Na (291.24 ± 400), Mg (76.8 ± 99.27), K (4.11 ± 3.06), and Ca (92.55 ± 45.29). The results indicated that the mean concentrations of the chemical parameters various area varied significantly. The mean concentrations of TDS and Na were higher than the permissible limit values.Calcium in sample 5 was higher than 200 mg/L, magnesium in sample 5 was higher than 150 mg/L, and sodium in all samples was higher than 50 mg/L, showing that these concentrations were higher than the maximum allowed limit in most water samples.

 
Table 2: Concentration (µg/L) of heavy metals in the water samples and its comparison with the global standards
As Zn Sb Se Sc Rb Li Mo Cs Ba Sample
2.75 93.61 1.60 2.15 2.36 < 1 17.30 0.49 < 0.1 87.44 1
2.88 20.04 1.57 2.77 2.12 < 1 12.73 0.36 < 0.1 61.22 2
2.47 < 1 1.02 2.66 2.75 1.63 19.56 2.84 < 0.1 89.77 3
3.18 < 1 0.84 2.36 1.38 < 1 12.13 0.48 < 0.1 93.10 4
7.29 < 1 < 1 7.47 < 1 1.55 86.68 9.47 0.28 51.29 5
12.87 < 1 3.02 14.82 3.02 1.28 19.60 3.91 0.29 55.47 6
13.4 488.09 3.42 13.13 3.42 1.55 25.07 2.31 0.36 94.77 7
18.2 < 1 3.20 8.61 3.20 1.20 40.20 0.08 < 0.1 70.20 8
18.17 3.17 1.08 10.49 1.08 1.94 39.36 2.79 0.49 105.05 9
9.02 151.23 1.97 7.16 2.42 1.53 30.29 2.53 0.36 78.70 Mean
6.70 227.98 1.07 4.94 0.85 0.26 23.52 2.94 0.10 19.45 SD
10 5000 6 5 40 - 700 - - 2000 US.EPA
10 5000 20 5 50 - - 70 - 700 WHO
 
As shown in table 2, the mean of heavy metals concentrations (as µg/L) were as follows: Ba (78.70 ± 19.45), Cs (0.36 ± 0.1), Mo (2.53 ± 2.94), Li (30.29 ± 23.52), Ro (1.53 ± 0.26), Sc (2.42 ± 0.85), Se (7.16 ± 4.94), Sb (1.97 ± 1.07), Zn (151.23 ± 227.98), and As (9.02 ± 6.7). The results indicated that the mean concentrations of the heavy metals varied significantly in various sampling areas. The mean concentrations of Se were higher than the permissible limit values.
Arsenic in samples 6-9 was higher than 10 µg/L, indicating that these concentrations were higher than the maximum allowed limit in most water samples.
Arsenic level exceeded themaximum allowable limit in water samples6 to 9 (Table 2). Concentrations of calcium and magnesium were also higher than the standard limit in several samples (Table 1). The concentration of sodium ion was higher than the global standard limit in most samples. In one sample, magnesium and calcium levels exceeded the global standard level. Results of the risk assessment for arsenic, lithium, and antimony are shown in tables 3 to 5.
Table 3: Arsenic risk assessment and maximum contaminant level for water resources in Gonbad-e Kavus, Iran
Non carcinogenic effect Carcinogenic effect ADD HQ As
(µg/L)		 Sample
Female Male Children Female Male Children Female Male Children Female Male Children    
97.5 117 21.75 0.21 0.26 0.048 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 2.75 1
97.5 117 21.75 0.21 0.26 0.048 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 2.88 2
97.5 117 21.75 0.21 0.26 0.048 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005 2.47 3
97.5 78 14.5 0.14 0.17 0.032 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.0001 0.0001 0.0006 3.18 4
65 33.42 6.21 0.061 0.07 0.013 0.1 0.06 0.33 0.0003 0.0002 0.001 7.29 5
16.25 19.5 3.62 0.036 0.043 0.008 0.2 0.13 0.66 0.0006 0.0004 0.002 12.87 6
15 18 3.34 0.03 0.04 0.007 0.2 0.16 0.66 0.0006 0.0005 0.002 13.14 7
10.8 13 2.41 0.024 0.028 0.005 0.26 0.26 1.25 0.0008 0.0007 0.003 18.2 8
10.8 13 2.41 0.024 0.028 0.005 0.26 0.26 1.25 0.0008 0.0007 0.003 18.17 9
 

 
Table 4: Lithium risk assessment and maximum concentration level for water resources in Gonbad-e Kavus, Iran
Non carcinogenic effect ADD HQ Li(µg/L) Sample
Female Male Children Female Male Children Female Male Children    
7.64 9.17 1.7 0.0007 0.0006 0.003 0.35 0.3 1.5 17.3 1
10.8 13 2.41 0.0005 0.0004 0.002 0.25 0.2 1 12.73 2
6.8 8.2 1.52 0.0008 0.0007 0.003 0.4 0.35 1.5 19.65 3
10.8 13 2.41 0.0005 0.0004 0.002 0.25 0.2 1 12.13 4
1.5 1.81 0.33 0.003 0.003 0.017 1.5 1.5 8.5 86.68 5
6.8 8.21 1.52 0.0008 0.0007 0.003 0.4 0.35 1.5 19.6 6
5.2 6.24 1.16 0.001 0.0009 0.005 0.5 0.45 2.5 25.07 7
3.25 3.9 0.72 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.5 0.5 4 40.2 8
3.33 4 0.74 0.0018 0.001 0.008 0.9 0.5 4 39.36 9
 
Table 5: Antimony risk assessment and maximum concentration level for water resources in Gonbad-e Kavus, Iran
Non carcinogenic effect ADD HQ Sb(µg/L) Sample
Female Male Children Female Male Children Female Male Children    
16.25 19.5 3.6 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.25 0.25 0.75 1.6 1
17.33 20.8 3.8 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.25 0.25 0.75 1.57 2
26 31.2 5.8 0.00004 0.00007 0.0002 0.1 0.17 0.5 1.02 3
32.5 39 7.25 0.00003 0.00003 0.0001 0.075 0.075 0.25 0.4 4
288.8 346 64.4 0.000004 0.000003 0.00001 0.01 0.075 0.025 < 0.1 5
288.8 346 64.4 0.000004 0.000003 0.00001 0.01 0.075 0.025 < 0.1 6
43.3 52 9.6 0.00002 0.00002 0.0001 0.05 0.05 0.25 0.69 7
26 31.2 5.8 0.00004 0.00007 0.0002 0.1 0.175 0.5 1.03 8
13 15.2 2.9 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.25 0.25 1 2.08 9
 
HQ in samples 8 and 9 was associated to arsenic and was related to antimony in sample 1. Given the lithium rate of above 1, using drinking water from this area is not recommended for all individuals, especially for children.
Discussion
Heavy metals constitute a very heterogeneous class of elements considerably varied in their chemical properties and biological functions. Increasing concerns exist about the potential deleterious impacts of these metals in many countries because they not only affect the productivity of ecosystems, but also impact on plants, animals, and human beings22. In this study, due to the normality of the data, Spearman method was used to determine the correlation coefficient between the data, at the confidence level of ρ > 0.01 and r > 0.8.Positive and strong correlation (r = 0.9) of lithium with strontium (ρ = 0.01) indicated a common original and geochemical behavior among these elements. These two elements are among the alkaline elements of the periodic table and are abundant in water. Positive and very strong correlation (r > 0.8) was found between scandium and antimony (ρ > 0.01). These two elements are not from the same geochemical source and do not show similar geochemical behaviors, only their ion radius is almost close to each other. A positive and very strong correlation (r > 0.7) was observed between selenium and cesium (ρ > 0.01), where cesium is a very active alkali metal that can compete with non-metal selenium. They do not have the same origin and geochemical behavior, also selenium has a very strong positive correlation (r > 0.7) with arsenic (ρ > 0.05), which indicates its common origin and geochemical behavior similar to these elements. These two elements are in a row of the periodic table and have the same electron arrangement and ionic radius. In most reports, arsenic was studied with selenium, perhaps due to the geochemical behavior of the two elements. Positive correlation (r > 0.6) of cesium with rubidium (ρ > 0.05) indicates their common origin and similar geochemical behavior because these two elements are in a group of the periodic table and both are alkali. Given the carcinogenic effects of arsenic, consumption of water in Gonbad-e Kavus could be health threatening and is not recommended for children due to arsenic’s non-carcinogenic effects on this age group. Similar to our findings, Bamuwamye et al. reported that concentrations of lead and arsenic in drinking water of Kampala region in Uganda exceeded the global limits23. Elumalaiet al. conducted a risk assessment of heavy metals in groundwater and used pollution indicators by multivariate statistical methods in South Africa24. They concluded that most of these waters are of good quality, but 15% are inappropriate for drinking. Moreover, hazard assessment in other heavy metals showed that groundwater was not suitable for drinking and the risk was high in all groups, including the older age group24. In the risk assessment of non-carcinogenic metals including lead, zinc, and chromium in drinking water sources in Hamedan (Iran), concentration of lead exceeded the WHO and Institute for Industrial Research Standardization limits in 46.41% of the drinking water samples. In addition, 39.02% of the samples contained a concentration higher than the EPA standard, while none of the samples had a sectional risk for children and adults. Although the level of chromium and zinc was lower than the standard limit, they showed risk in groups of less than one month and one to three months because of their high pathogenicity potential; so, the concentrations below the standard cannot be a guarantee of a lack of risk25. In a study by Lim HS et al., the concentration of cadmium and zinc in most water streams used for drinking water around the mining area was higher than the national limit but the HQ index.  All heavy metals in drinking water were reported at the acceptablelevel26. Chromium, copper, cobalt, and manganese were permitted in the North Sea region of northern Pakistan in 2011 according to the EPA and WHO standards. Concentrations of cadmium, nickel, Lead, and zinc were 17%, 2%, 29%, and 6% higher than the normal level, respectively. The assessment of hazards quotient and risk indicator indicated that it is harmless to humans27. Momot et al. evaluated the health risk of metal in the middle of the Russian region; the risk assessment of metallic agents for carcinogenic diseases was 3.95 × 10-3 and 0.98 × 103 for non-cardiovascular diseases28. This result can be justified by the geological conditions of the region, most of which are limestone and dolomite, and most water resources are salty. We believe that both geogenic and anthropogenic factors are responsible for the contamination of water sources with various heavy metals in Gonbad-e-Kavus.
Conclusion
Analytical findings demonstrated that water resources of Gonbad-e-Kavushad high concentrations of As, Li, and Sb respectively. Given the hazards and health effects associated with arsenic, consumption of water in this area may be health threatening for all individuals and is not recommended for children. Further assessment of water quality indices and reconsideration of water treatment process are necessary to ensure safety of drinking water in the study area.
Due to the geochemical situation of the region and the high level of some elements such as arsenic, selenium, etc., water resources treatment as well as residents' education about the causes of cancer are recommended.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the residents and official of Fajr, Aq Abad, and Soltan Ali villages in Gonbad-e-Kavus County for their cooperation in the study.
Funding
This study was supported by the Deputy of Research and Technology and Food, Drug, Natural Products Health Research Centre (Grant: 17-110412) at Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Iran.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no
competing interest regarding publication of this study.
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work for commercial use.
 
References
  1. Amuda O, Giwa A, Bello I. Removal of heavy metal from industrial wastewater using modified activated coconut shell carbon. Biochem Eng J. 2007;36(2):174-81.
  2. Zafarzadeha A, Sadeghia M, Golbini-Mofradc A, et al. Removal of lead by activated carbon and citrus coal from drinking water. Desalin Water Treat. 2018;105:282-6.
  3. Bailey SE, Olin TJ, Bricka RM, et al. A review of potentially low-cost sorbents for heavy metals. Water Res. 1999;33(11):2469-79.
  4. Kaur L, Gadgil K, Sharma S. Role of pH in the accumulation of lead and nickel by common duckweed (Lemna minor). Int J Bioassays. 2012;1(12):191-5.
  5. Babel S, Kurniawan TA. Low-cost adsorbents for heavy metals uptake from contaminated water: a review. J Hazard Mater. 2003;97(1): 219-43.
  6. Barakat M. New trends in removing heavy metals from industrial wastewater. Arab J Chem. 2011;4(4):361-77.
  7. Sadeghi M, Noroozi M, Kargar F, et al. Heavy metal concentration of wheat cultured in golestan province, Iran and its health risk assessment.Journal of EnvironmentalHealth and Sustainable Development. 2020;5(2):993-1000.
  8. Sadeghi M, Noroozi M, Kargar F, et al. Investigating the effect of some heavy metal elements of agricultural soil on esophageal cancer. Int J EnvHealth Eng. 2020;9(1):11.
  9. Nadal M, Schuhmacher M, Domingo J. Metal pollution of soils and vegetation in an area with petrochemical industry. Sci Total Environ. 2004;321(1-3):59-69.
  10. Nicolau R, Galera-Cunha A, Lucas Y. Transfer of nutrients and labile metals from the continent to the sea by a small Mediterranean river. Chemosphere. 2006;63(3):469-76.
  11. Ochieng E, Lalah J, Wandiga S. Analysis of heavy metals in water and surface sediment in five rift valley lakes in Kenya for assessment of recent increase in anthropogenic activities. BullEnviron Contam Toxicol. 2007;79(5):570-6.
  12. Rezaie E, Sadeghi M, Khoramabadi GS. Removal of organic materials and hexavalent chromium from landfill leachate using a combination of electrochemical and photocatalytic processes. Desalin Water Treat. 2017;85:264-70.
  13. Nickson R, McArthur J, Shrestha B, et al. Arsenic and other drinking water quality issues, Muzaffargarh District, Pakistan. J Appl Geochem. 2005;20(1):55-68.
  14. Lee Sw, Lee BT, Kim JY, et al. Human risk assessment for heavy metals and as contamination in the abandoned metal mine areas, Korea. Environ Mmonit Assess. 2006;119(1-3):233-44.
  15. Wang R, Xu Q, Zhang X, et al. Health risk assessment of heavy metals in typical township water sources in Dongjiang River Basin. Huan jing ke xue Huanjing kexue. 2012;33(9):3083-8.
  16. Roshandel G, Semnani S, Fazel A, et al. Building cancer registries in a lower resource setting: The 10-year experience of Golestan, Northern Iran. Cancer Epidemiol. 2018;52:128-33.
  17. Federation WE, Association APH. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association (APHA). Washington DC; 2005.
  18. EPA. Guidelines for exposure assessment, Washington DC: US.Environmental Protection Agency;1992.
  19. Phan K, Sthiannopkao S, Kim K-W, et al. Health risk assessment of inorganic arsenic intake of Cambodia residents through groundwater drinking pathway. Water Res. 2010;44(19):5777-88.
  20. WHO G. Guidelines for drinking-water quality. World Health Organization. 2011 Apr 16;216:303-4.
  21. Drinking water standards and health advisories. United States Environmental Protection Agency; 2012.
  22. Karimi A, Naghizadeh A, Biglari H, et al. Assessment of human health risks and pollution index for heavy metals in farmlands irrigated by effluents of stabilization ponds. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020;27:1-11.
  23. Bamuwamye M, Ogwok P, Tumuhairwe V. Cancer and non-cancer risks associated with heavy metal exposures from street foods: Evaluation of roasted meats in an urban setting. Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health. 2015;3(2):24-30.
  24. Elumalai V, Brindha K, Lakshmanan E. Human exposure risk assessment due to heavy metals in groundwater by pollution index and multivariate statistical methods: a case study from South Africa. Water. 2017;9(4):234.
  25. Farokhneshat F, Rahmani AR, Samadi MT, et al. Non-Carcinogenic Risk Assessment of Heavy Metal of Lead, Chro-mium and Zinc in Drinking Water Supplies of Hamadan in Winter 2015. Avicenna Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2016;23(1):25-33.
  26. Lim HS, Lee JS, Chon HT, et al. Heavy metal contamination and health risk assessment in the vicinity of the abandoned Songcheon Au–Ag mine in Korea. J Geochem Explor. 2008;96(2-3):223-30.
  27. Muhammad S, Shah MT, Khan S. Health risk assessment of heavy metals and their source apportionment in drinking water of Kohistan region, northern Pakistan. Microchem J. 2011;98(2):334-43.
  28. Momot O, Synzynys B. Toxic aluminium and heavy metals in groundwater of middle Russia: health risk assessment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2005;2(2):214-8.

 
Type of Study: Original articles | Subject: General
Received: 2021/02/12 | Accepted: 2021/05/20 | Published: 2021/06/30
Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2015 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Environmental Health and Sustainable Development

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb