Comparison of Health Risk Assessments of Heavy Metals and As in Sewage Sludge from Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) for Adults and Children in the Urban District of Taiyuan, China

Baoling Duan, Wuping Zhang, Haixia Zheng, Chunyan Wu, Qiang Zhang and Yushan Bu
Additional contact information
Baoling Duan: College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi 030801, China
Wuping Zhang: College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi 030801, China
Haixia Zheng: College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi 030801, China
Chunyan Wu: College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi 030801, China
Qiang Zhang: College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi 030801, China
Yushan Bu: College of Resources and Environment, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, Shanxi 030801, China

IJERPH, 2017, vol. 14, issue 10, 1-14

Abstract: Abstract : To compare the human health risk of heavy metals and As in sewage sludge between adults and children, samples were collected from five wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) located in the urban district of Taiyuan, the capital of Shanxi. Heavy metals and As in sewage sludge can be ranked according to the mean concentration in the following order: Cu > Cr > Zn > Pb > As > Hg > Cd. Compared with the concentration limit set by different countries, the heavy metals contents in sewage sludge were all within the standard limits, except for the content of As, which was higher than the threshold limit established by Canada. A health risk assessment recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was used to compare the non-cancer risk and cancer risk between adults and children. Based on the mean and 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) of the average daily dose (ADD), heavy metals and As can be ranked in the order of Cu > Cr > Zn > Pb > As > Hg > Cd for adults, and Cu > Cr > Zn > Pb > Hg > As > Cd for children. Moreover, results of ADD ingest and ADD inhale indicated that ingestion was the main pathway for heavy metals and As exposure for both adults and children, and the sum of ADD implied that the exposure to all heavy metals and As for children was 8.65 and 9.93 times higher, respectively, than that for adults according to the mean and 95% UCL. For the non-carcinogenic risk, according to the hazard quotient (HQ), the risk of Cu, Hg and Cr was higher than the risk of Zn and Pb. The hazard index (HI) for adults was 0.144 and 0.208 for the mean and 95% UCL, which was less than the limit value of 1; for children, the HI was 1.26 and 2.25, which is higher than the limit value of 1. This result indicated that children had non-carcinogenic risk, but adults did not. Furthermore, ingestion was the main pathway for non-carcinogenic risk exposure by the HQ ingest and HQ inhale . For the carcinogenic risk, Cd and As were classified as carcinogenic pollutants. The values of RISK for the mean and 95% UCL for adults and children all exceeded the limit value of 1 × 10 ?5 , which implied that adults and children had a carcinogenic risk, and this risk was higher for children than for adults. The results of RISK for As and Cd implied that As was the main pollutant for carcinogenic risk. Moreover, the results of RISK ingest and RISK inhale indicated that ingestion was the main pathway. Uncertainty analysis was performed, and the risk ranges of it were greater than certainty analysis, which implied that uncertainty analysis was more conservative than certainty analysis. A comparison of the non-carcinogenic risk and carcinogenic risk for adults and children indicated that children were more sensitive and vulnerable than adults when exposed to the same pollutant in the environment.

Keywords: heavy metals; human health risk; exposure assessment; non-carcinogenic risk; carcinogenic risk; uncertainty analysis; urban district of Taiyuan (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/10/1194/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/10/1194/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:10:p:1194-:d:114300

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().