| Literature DB >> 28098817 |
Ching-Ping Liang1, Yi-Chi Chien2, Cheng-Shin Jang3, Ching-Fang Chen4, Jui-Sheng Chen5.
Abstract
Chronic arsenic (As) exposure continues to be a public health problem of major concern worldwide, affecting hundreds of millions of people. A long-term groundwater quality survey has revealed that 20% of the groundwater in southern Taiwan's Pingtung Plain is clearly contaminated with a measured As concentration in excess of the maximum level of 10 µg/L recommended by the World Health Organization. The situation is further complicated by the fact that more than half of the inhabitants in this area continue to use groundwater for drinking. Efforts to assess the health risk associated with the ingestion of As from the contaminated drinking water are required in order to determine the priorities for health risk management. The conventional approach to conducting a human health risk assessment may be insufficient for this purpose, so this study adopts a geostatistical Kriging method to perform a spatial analysis of the health risk associated with ingesting As through drinking groundwater in the Pingtung Plain. The health risk is assessed based on the hazard quotient (HQ) and target cancer risk (TR) established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The results show that most areas where the HQ exceeds 1 are in the southwestern part of the study area. In addition, the high-population density townships of Daliao, Linyuan, Donggang, Linbian, Jiadong, and Fangliao presently have exceedingly high TR values that are two orders of magnitude higher than the acceptable standard. Thus, the use of groundwater for drinking in these townships should be strictly avoided. A map that delineates areas with high TR values and high population densities is provided. The findings broaden the scope of the spatial analysis of human health risk and provide a basis for improving the decision-making process.Entities:
Keywords: Kriging method; arsenic; hazard quotient; health risk; spatial analysis; target risk
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28098817 PMCID: PMC5295332 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14010081
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Land use in the study area.
Figure 2Population densities of townships in the study area.
Figure 3Hydrogeological profile of the study area.
Parameters used in the health risk model.
| Parameter (Unit) | Parameter Characteristics |
|---|---|
| ED (year) | 30 |
| EF (day) | 365 |
| IR (L/day) | 1.43 |
| BW (kg) | 64.6 |
| AT (day) | 79.0 × 365 = 28,835 |
| RfD (mg/kg/day) | 3 × 104 [ |
| CSF (mg/kg/day)−1 | 1.50 [ |
| C (μg/kg) | From groundwater quality monitoring data of Taiwan WRA |
Statistics regarding measured concentrations of As at the monitoring wells (µg/L).
| Statistics | As Concentration (µg/L) |
|---|---|
| Well number | 132 |
| Average | 18.1 |
| Median | 0.9 |
| Std. Deviation | 65.2 |
| Skewness | 5.8 |
| Minimum | <0.1 |
| Maximum | 544.0 |
| Percentiles | |
| 50th | 0.9 |
| 60th | 2.1 |
| 70th | 4.6 |
| 80th | 9.6 |
| 80.26th | 10.0 |
| 90th | 24.8 |
Figure 4Measured arsenic concentration at the monitoring wells established by Taiwan’s WRA.
Figure 5Spatial distribution of arsenic concentrations mapped using the geostatistical method.
Figure 6Spatial distribution of estimated hazard quotient (HQ) with HQ values >1 indicated in red.
Figure 7Spatial distribution of estimated target cancer risk (TR). The TR values are classified as <10−6, 10−6–10−5, 10−5–10−4 and >10−4.
Area percentage (%) of target cancer risk exceeding 10−5 and 10−4 in individual townships on the Pingtung Plain.
| Township | Population Density | Population | Area Percentage of TRs > 10−5 | Area Percentage of TRs > 10−4 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Person/km2) | (Person) | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | |
| Pingtong | 3133.17 | 203,866 | 100.0% | 87.4% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Linyuan | 2182.87 | 70,476 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 34.0% | 42.6% | 0.0% |
| Donggang | 1638.03 | 48,262 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 13.6% | 93.2% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
| Daliao | 1565.19 | 111,191 | 85.7% | 85.7% | 85.7% | 85.7% | 34.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Chaozhou | 1289.98 | 54,738 | 100.0% | 71.7% | 30.0% | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Linbian | 1231.17 | 19,235 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 55.2% | 89.7% | 96.6% | 0.0% |
| Sinyuan | 957.74 | 36,692 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 65.2% | 30.3% | 54.6% | 0.0% |
| Wandan | 906.33 | 52,085 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 96.6% | 100.0% | 5.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Changzih | 762.90 | 30,429 | 53.7% | 43.3% | 94.0% | 70.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Linluo | 695.76 | 11,313 | 100.0% | 42.3% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Neipu | 685.94 | 56,148 | 56.8% | 45.5% | 92.1% | 23.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Jiadong | 653.46 | 20,247 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 62.5% | 35.4% | 39.6% | 0.0% |
| Dashu | 644.81 | 43,190 | 98.2% | 40.0% | 96.4% | 100.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Zhutian | 609.46 | 17,719 | 100.0% | 92.3% | 57.7% | 82.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Nanzhou | 581.23 | 11,026 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 3.0% | 48.5% | 72.7% | 0.0% |
| Jiouru | 527.67 | 22,172 | 83.1% | 49.4% | 71.4% | 84.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Kanding | 523.70 | 16,374 | 97.6% | 97.6% | 90.5% | 90.5% | 7.1% | 7.1% | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Fangliao | 441.36 | 25,482 | 98.7% | 75.3% | 98.7% | 98.7% | 42.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 14.3% |
| Yanpu | 413.82 | 26,629 | 27.9% | 87.3% | 26.6% | 30.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Cishan | 402.70 | 38,100 | 30.7% | 59.1% | 1.1% | 11.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Ligang | 389.06 | 26,814 | 52.1% | 18.8% | 7.3% | 26.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Wanluan | 344.43 | 20,918 | 55.7% | 88.6% | 67.1% | 2.9% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Meinong | 343.73 | 41,258 | 60.7% | 77.4% | 64.3% | 29.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Gaoshu | 283.08 | 25,520 | 5.5% | 75.2% | 61.5% | 71.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Xinpi | 173.39 | 10,232 | 98.8% | 41.2% | 83.5% | 81.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.4% | 0.0% |
| Average | 855.23 | 41,604.64 | 80.21% | 75.12% | 76.98% | 72.38% | 15.60% | 13.53% | 17.67% | 0.57% |
Figure 8Zonal risk calculated based on target cancer risk (TR) and population density.
Figure 9Fishpond locations in the study area.