4.7 Article

Bioaccessibility and health risk assessment of arsenic in arsenic-enriched soils, Central India

期刊

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
卷 92, 期 -, 页码 252-257

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2013.02.016

关键词

Bioaccessibility; SBET; Carcinogenic risk; Hazard index

资金

  1. National Science Council of Taiwan [NSC 100-2116-M-006-009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Incidental soil ingestion is expected to be a significant exposure route to arsenic for children because of the potentially high arsenic contents found in certain soils. Therefore, it is prudent to get information on oral bioaccessibility of arsenic following incidental soil ingestion and its relevance in health risk assessment for future remediation strategies. Soil samples were collected from eight villages of Ambagarh Chauki block, Chhattisgarh, Central India. The soils from seven villages had total arsenic content more than the background level of 10 mg kg(-1) (ranged from 16 to 417 mg kg(-1)), whereas the total arsenic content of soil from Hauditola was 7 mg kg(-1). Bioaccessible arsenic assessed by the simplified bioaccessibility extraction test (SBET) ranged from 5.7 to 46.3%. Arsenic bioaccessibility was significantly influenced by clay content (R-2=0.53, p<0.05, n=8), TOC (R-2=0.50, p<0.05, n=8), Fe content (R-2=0.47, p<0.05, n=8) and soil pH (R-2=0.75, p<0.01, n=8). Risk assessment of the study sites showed that hazard index of arsenic under incidental soil ingestion was below 1 in all the study sites, except Kaudikasa. However, carcinogenic risk probability for arsenic to children from the villages Meregaon, Thailitola, Joratarai and Kaudikasa was below acceptable level (< 1 x 10(-4)), suggesting potential health risk for children from these sites could not be overlooked. With high carcinogenic risk value (3.8E-05) and HI index (> 1) for arsenic in soils of Kaudikasa, attention should be paid for development of remediation measure. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. 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