Transcript

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 236 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2017, pp. 236–251 Article ID: IJCIET_08_02_026 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2 ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316 © IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

POTENTIAL HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SOIL AND AIR HEAVY METAL CONTAMINATION

IN BAGHDAD CITY Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi

Assistant Professor, Environmental Engineering Department, Engineering College, Babylon University, Iraq

ABSTRACT This paper was submitted an Environmental Risk Assessment process which is based on

four steps defined by both National Academy of Science and the EPA. These are: Hazard Identification, Exposure Assessment, Toxicity Assessment, and Risk Characterization. It was taken into account two environmental media (Soil and Air). At first the concentration of some heavy metal (Cd, Cr, Zn, Ni and Pb) was collected from previous studied conducted in soil media at three locations (Residential area, Industrial area and Commercial area)in Urban Soil within Baghdad City. For air media the lead concentration was taken from previous studied conducted at two locations (Residential area, Industrial area) in Baghdad city. Also It was taken into account one environmental soil media. The average concentration of heavy metal (Cd, Ni and Pb) was collected from previous studied conducted in Baghdad soil media and different towns samples of environmental soil media. Based on these test results and data gathered, the potential human health risk assessment based on EPA model was used to calculate different types of Intake through (ingestion, dermal) for soil media and (ingestion, dermal and inhalation) for air media, noncarcinogen Hazard Index (HI) and carcinogen Risk (R) resulted from these exposure routes was also calculated.

The results of the risk assessment indicated that the highest risks for individual element for both adults and children. Cumulative hazard quotient index (THI) for the study area showed that the adults and children population were seriously at the risk of chronic non-carcinogenic health problem. Key words: Risk-based assessment, Heavy metal, Soil & Air remediation techniques, Baghdad City. Cite this Article: Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi, Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal Contamination in Baghdad City. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 236–251. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2

1. INTRODUCTION The importance of environmental realities of the Baghdad city a vital fact because this city is the capital and occupy a large area of Iraq as well as a population of over five million, and most industrial and commercial activities stationed as well as agricultural activity. the pollution rates increased in the

Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 237 [email protected]

soil of the Baghdad city because of overlapping set of factors increase the population of the city and the consequent environmental problems resulting from the depletion of natural resources and increasing waste of factories, landfills and increase the number of vehicles and other factors that lead to the introduction of many pollutants into the soil. These problems have increased the risks of environmental balance and ecosystem constituted a breach of the city [4].

Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) which defined as a tool used to evaluate the risks due to fate and transport of chemical in an environment which leads to harmful effects of receptors. ERA includes examinations of risk caused by natural events (flooding, extreme, weather events, etc.), technology, practice, processes, products, agents (chemical, biological, radiological, etc.) and adversely affect posed by industrial activities [5]. In this thesis risk assessment concerns with human health which defined as the process to estimate the nature and probability of adverse health effects in humans, who may be exposed to chemicals in contaminated environmental media, exist or potential[6].

Environmental Risk Assessments typically fall into one of two areas: Human health risk assessment

Ecological risk assessment Risk assessment addresses human health concerns and ecological risk assessment addresses

environmental media and organisms. This study deals with human health risk assessment.

2. AIM OF THE STUDY Create a database for including heavy metals concentration in environmental soil and Air media at

contaminated sites in Baghdad City.

Create a database for including heavy metals concentration in environmental Iraq soil(Baghdad City) with other data from different towns, (mean)

Calculate and assess human health risks associated with these contaminants from three exposure routes(ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation) by using (ERA) tool.

Comprise between Environmental Risk Assessments for heavy metals in Iraq (Baghdad city) soil with world soil.

3. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

3.1. Hazard Identification Hazard identification includes identifying those sources that cause damage to receptors, especially human, living organisms, and ecosystem. This stage usually focuses on the most dangerous chemicals (which are classified as hazardous chemicals on humans and sorted according to toxicity carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic) [9].

3.2. Exposure Assessment Exposure assessment defined as the estimation of the magnitude, frequency, duration, and route of exposure. The purpose of exposure assessment is the estimation of the contaminant concentrations and dosages to the populations at risk. More specifically, the primary tasks in exposure assessments include:

Identifying potentially exposed populations,

Identifying potential exposure pathways,

Estimating exposure concentrations, and

Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal Contamination in Baghdad City

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 238 [email protected]

Estimating chemical intakes [7]. For estimation of Intake, EPA recommends the use of exposure data normalizedfortime andbody

weight, which is formulated into an equation for intake (I), the general equation for chemical in take is:

=( )( )( )

( )( ) (1)

Where: I = intake (the amount of chemical at the exchange boundary) (mg/kg-day). C = the average exposure concentration over the period (e.g., mg/L for water or mg/m3for air and mg/kg for soil).| CR= contact rate, the amount of contaminated medium contacted per unit time (L/day or m3/day or mg/day). EFD = exposure frequency and duration, a variable that describes how long and how often exposure occurs. The EFD is usually divided into two terms: EF - exposure frequency (days/year). ED = exposure duration (years). BW = the average body mass over the exposure period (kg). AT = averaging time; the period over which the exposure is averaged (days).

Basic formulas and values used for the calculation of ingestion and dermal of soil and ingestion, dermal and inhalation of air are presented in Table (1&2).

Table 1 Contaminated media and corresponding routes of exposure [10].

Routes of exposure

Media

Ingestion, Dermal contact Soil Ingestion, Dermal contact, Inhalation of airborne chemicals Air

Table 2 Basic formulas used for calculation of intake for environmental media and exposure route [10].

Equation Exposure route

Environmental media

=( )( )( )( )( )( )

( )( ) Ingestion

Soil =

( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )( )

dermal

=( )( )( )( )

( )( ) Ingestion Air

=( )( )( )( )( )( )( )

( )( ) dermal

=( )( )( )( )( )

( )( ) inhalation

Where: ABS= absorption factor for soil contaminant, unit less AD= absorbed dose, mg/kg.d AF= soil-to-skin Adherence Factor, mg/c m2 .event.

Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 239 [email protected]

AT= averaging time, d BW= body weight, kg CA= contaminant concentration in air, mgm3 CDI= chronic daily intake, mg/kg.d CF= volumetric conversion factor for water= 1L/1.000 cm3 = conversion factor for soil = 10-6 kg/mg CR= contact rate, L/h CS= chemical concentration in soil, mg/kg CW= chemical concentration in water, mg/L ED= exposure duration, y EF= exposure frequency, d/y or events/y ET= exposure time, h/d or h/event EV = Event Frequency (events/day). FI= fraction ingested, unit less IR= ingestion rate, L/d or mg soil/d or kg/meal = inhalation rate, m3/h PC= chemical-specific dermal permeability constant, cm/h SA= skin surface area, cm2.

4. EXPOSURE PARAMETERS

4.1. Soil Media IR=200mg/day (child) and 100mg/day (adult) [7] CF=0.000001kg/mg FI=1[8]. EF=350 days/year [Residential], 250 days/year [Industrial, Commercial][7] ED=30 years (adult)[Residential], 25 years (adult)[Industrial, Commercial]and 6 years (child) [7]

BW= (70kg for adult) and (15 kg for child) [10] AT= (365*30) for adult and (365*6) for child. [7] SA=5700 cm2 (adult) [Residential], 3300(adult) [Industrial, Commercial][11,12]. SA=2800 cm2 (child) [Residential], NA cm2(child) [Industrial, Commercial][11,12]. AF=0.07mg/cm2(adult)[Residential],0.2mg/cm2(adult)[Industrial,Commercial][11,12] AF=0.2mg/cm2(child)[Residential],NAmg/cm2(child)[Industrial,Commercial][11,12]. EV=1 event/d [3] ABS = 0.001(adult), 0.03(child) [12,13].

4.2. Air Media IR=20m3/day (adult) and 5m3/day (child) [7]. ET=24 hour/day [7]. ED=70 year (carcinogen) [7]. AT=70*365[7].

The other parameter is the same used in previous items.

Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal Contamination in Baghdad City

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 240 [email protected]

4.3. Toxicity Assessment Toxicity assessment expresses the acquisition and evaluation of Toxicity data for each contaminant and then evaluated. This evaluation includes toxic carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic substances, In this method, (RfDs) and (SFs) used for determining non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic toxicity respectively. Almost all toxicity assessments make use of available data such as the list of reference doses and slope factors; therefore, toxicity assessment often includes obtaining tabular RfDs and SF information related chemicals to which receptors are exposed as shown in Table3.From this quantitative dose response relationship, toxicity values (e.g., reference doses and slope factors) are derived that can be used to estimate the incidence or potential for adverse effects as a function of human exposure to the agent. These toxicity values are used in the risk characterization step to estimate the likelihood of adverse effects occurring in humans at different exposure levels [14].

Table 3 Oral and Inhalation Slope Factors and RfDs[7].

Inhalation SF (kg.day/mg)

Inhalation RfD (mg/kg.day)

Oral SF (kg.day/mg)

Oral RfD (mg/kg.day)

Compound

6.1 0.0005 Cadmium 41 0.005 Chromium 0.3 Zinc 0.02 Nickle

0.085 0.006 Lead For evaluating Dermal Exposure, Oral RfDs converted to Dermal RfDs By multiplying with

gastrointestinal absorption fraction (ABSGI), Oral SF can be converted to Dermal SF by dividing the Oral SF by the ABSGI.

When ABSGI values are not available, USEPA recommends the following defaults for ABSGI: 80% for volatile organics; 50% for semi-volatile organics and nonvolatile organics; and 20% for inorganic [8].

4.4. Risk Characterization Risk characterization defined as the calculation of riskforbothnoncarcinogens and carcinogens for allreceptors that maybeexposed to hazardouswastes. Some of the general requirements include calculating risk for all of the exposure routes to hazardous chemicals (ingestion and inhalation and dermal) for both noncarcinogens and carcinogens. Thel non-carcinogenicriskl is calculatedl as Hazard Index (HI), which is thel ratio of the daily intake to the referenceldosel (RfDl)[7].

= (2)

Where: HI = hazard index (dimensionless). I = intake (mg/kg.day). RfD = reference dose (mg/kg.day).

Hazard Index <1.0 provides acceptable risk; however, the cumulative acceptable risk for all contaminants and routes of exposure must be <1.0. If the hazard index is <1.0, the receptors are exposed to concentrations that do not present a hazard. In such cases, detoxification and other mechanisms allow the receptor exposure to the contaminant with no toxic effects. Note that the quantitative value obtained for the HI is not a value of risk; that is, it does not provide a value for the probability of harm as the result of exposure. Instead, the hazard index quantifies the absence of effects from exposure to noncarcinogens [7]. To account HI for multiple substances in one way,

Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 241 [email protected]

EPA sums the hazard indexes for each constituent as follow:

Hazard Index T = ∑ HI For multiple pathways:

Hazard Index T = ∑ HI

Where: i=the compound and j= pathways [13]. The carcinogenic risk may be defined as the chronic daily intake dose (developed in the exposure

assessment) multiplied by the carcinogenic slope factor (selected by the toxicity assessment).The product is a real term: the probability of excess lifetime cancer from exposure to this chemical. The computation is as follows:

Risk = CDI × SF (3) Where: Risk = the probability of carcinogenic risk (dimensionless). CDI = chronic daily intake (mg/kg.day). SF = carcinogen slope factor (kg.day/mg)[14]. In a like manner, the risk for multiple substances and pathways is estimated as:

Risk = risk

Where: i=the compound and j= pathways [14].

5. MATERIALS AND METHODS

5.1. Soil Media Samples Were collected environmental data and information on soil contaminants in the city of Baghdad from the previous studies. Selected stations located on different parts of the city of Baghdad for the purpose of collecting samples of soil, plants have been distributed on a regular basis so as to cover most areas of the city, with a focus on the type of each area as commercial, industrial or residential, as shown in Table4.

Table 4 Samples of heavy metal in the soil of Baghdadcity[ 1].

Contaminants Concentration(mg/kg) Mean

Locations of samples

Environmen-tal media Pb Ni Zn Cr Cd

87.06 86.76 51.24 23.09 0.29 Roadside soil Residential area

Soil

94.90 80.42 46.51 26.46 0.23 Open area soil 90.98 83.59 48.88 24.77 0.26 All soils 156.14 80.82 94.92 32.69 0.94 Roadside soil Industrial

area

131.68 88.63 86.72 35.24 0.93 Open area soil 143.91 84.73 90.82 33.96 0.93 All soils 110.30 72.76 68.88 24.21 0.45 Roadside soil Commercial

area 103.81 76.85 60.09 28.27 0.40 Open area soil 107.06 74.81 64.49 26.24 0.43 All soils

Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal Contamination in Baghdad City

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 242 [email protected]

5.2. Air Media Samples Table (5 & 6) shows the concentration of lead in air was taken from previous studies conducted in Baghdad city as a trial for evaluation of lead in air from variable source at different type of stations as follow:

A study evaluated air lead concentration in air-borne dust samples in Baghdad city as a result of the industrial expansion and population increase and increasing number of cars at different locations in industrial, residential region. Also study taken into account on the concentration of lead in streets-dust samples in Baghdad city air.

5.3. Concentration of Lead in Baghdad City Air

Table 5 Lead concentration (ppm) in air-borne dust samples in Baghdad city air [2].

Lead Concentratio

n

Sample weight (gm)

Sampling height(m)

District name

Locations of samples

Environment-al

media 61 0.35 6 Bunouk

Residential area

Air Air-borne dust

29 0.98 Ground Adhamiya 22 0.78 3 Adhamiya 15 0.37 6 Adhamiya 35 1.05 Ground Mansour 28 0.88 3 Mansour 18 0.50 6 Mansour 46 0.68 6 Al-Atibaa 14 0.55 6 Saydia 35 0.40 6 Doura 85 0.47 6 Waziria Industrial area

Table 6 Lead concentration (ppm) in streets-dust samples in Baghdad city air [2].

Lead Concentration District name Locations of samples

Environmental media

42 Shaab

Residential area are

Air streets-dust

51 Al-Sadir 47 Washash 38 Mansour 24 Al-Atibaa 95 Waziria

Industrial area 211 Shaikh Umar 170 Shaikh Maarouf

5.4. Heavy Metals in Baghdad City Soil with World Soil The environmental data of the concentrations of trace elements in soils and areas of Baghdad, compared with the determinants of global concentrations in the soilwas taken from previous studies [4], Table7 show summarize the comparison between the concentrations of trace elements in the soil of the city of Baghdad with Bas soils in the world.

Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 243 [email protected]

Table 7 Comparison between heavy metal in Baghdad city soil with world soil.

Reference

Pb Ni Zn Cd Country

[1] 113.98 81.04 68.06 0.54 Baghdad

[4]

480 52 2200 12 USA 700 80 3000 - England 180 51 1567 6.7 Sweden

6. RESULTS Example of calculation of ingestion intake and non carcinogen HI of water (Cadmium -adult) by using average value of concentration at Residential land use in Baghdad city by using suitable equation and assumption.

I =(CS)(IR)(CF)(FI)(EF)(ED)

(BW)(AT)

= (0.26mg/kg)(100mg/day)(0.000001kg/mg)(1)(350day/y)(30y) / (70 kg) (10950 day) =3.56164×10-4 mg/kg.day HI=I/RfD =3.56164×10-4 /0.0005=0.71232

By the same manner for each contaminants, exposure route and environmental media, the following result were obtained. Indicators, abbreviations and units for parameters used were shown in Table8.

Table 8 Indicators, Abbreviations and Units for parameter

Indicators Abbreviations Units

Ingestion Intake Iing mg/kg.day Absorbed dose from dermal contact Ider mg/kg.day Inhalation Intake Iinh mg/kg.day Hazard Index for ingestion HIing ------- Hazard Index for dermal contact HIder ------- Hazard Index for Inhalation HIinh ------- Risk from ingestion Ring ------- Risk from dermal contact Rder ------- Risk from Inhalation Rinh ------- Reference Dose RfD mg/kg.day Slop Factor SF kg.day/mg Concentration Conc. mg/kg for soil , mg/m3 for air Total noncarcinogen Hazard Index HI -------

Total carcinogen Risk R -------

Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal Contamination in Baghdad City

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 244 [email protected]

6.1. Soil Media

Table 9 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for adult, at Residential area in Baghdad city.

Contaminant

HI (adult) (noncarcinogen) R (adult) (carcinogen)

HIing HIder HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R )

Cadmium 0.71232 2.84×10-6 0 0.71232 0 0 0 0 Chromium 6.78×10-3 2.70×10-5 0 6.81×10-3 0 0 0 0 Zinc 2.23×10-4 8.90×10-7 0 2.24×10-4 0 0 0 0 Nickle 5.72×10-3 2.28×10-5 0 5.74×10-3 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.02077 8.28×10-5 0 0.02085 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.74594 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Table 10 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for child, at Residential area use in Baghdad city.

Contaminant

HI (child) (noncarcinogen) R (child) (carcinogen)

HIing HIder HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R )

Cadmium 6.64×10-3 5.58×10-4 0 7.19×10-3 0 0 0 0 Chromium 0.06333 5.32×10-3 0 0.06865 0 0 0 0 Zinc 2.08×10-3 1.74×10-4 0 2.25×10-3 0 0 0 0 Nickle 0.05343 4.48×10-3 0 0.05791 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.19386 0.016285 0 0.21014 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.34614 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Table 11 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for adult, at Industrial area in Baghdad city.

Contaminant

HI (adult) (noncarcinogen) R (adult) (carcinogen)

HIing HIder HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R )

Cadmium 1.81×10-3 1.20×10-5 0 1.82×10-3 0 0 0 0 Chromium 6.64×10-3 4.38×10-5 0 6.68×10-3 0 0 0 0 Zinc 2.96×10-4 1.95×10-6 0 2.98×10-4 0 0 0 0 Nickle 4.14×10-3 2.73×10-5 0 4.17×10-3 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.02346 1.54×10-4 0 0.02361 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.03658 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 245 [email protected]

Table 12 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for child, at Industrial area in Baghdad city.

Contaminant

HI(child)(noncarcinogen) R(child)(carcinogen)

HIing HI

der HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R )

Cadmium 0.01698 0 0 0.01698 0 0 0 0 Chromium 0.06202 0 0 0.06202 0 0 0 0 Zinc 2.76×10-3 0 0 2.76×10-3 0 0 0 0 Nickle 0.03868 0 0 0.03868 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.21904 0 0 0.21904 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.33672 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Table 13 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for adult, at Commercial area in Baghdad city.

Contaminant

HI(adult)(noncarcinogen) R(adult)(carcinogen)

HIing HIder HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R )

Cadmium 8.41×10-4 5.55×10-6 0 8.46×10-4 0 0 0 0 Chromium 5.13×10-3 3.38×10-5 0 5.16×10-3 0 0 0 0 Zinc 2.10×10-4 1.38×10-6 0 2.11×10-4 0 0 0 0 Nickle 3.65×10-3 2.41×10-5 0 3.67×10-3 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.01745 1.15×10-4 0 0.01756 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.02744 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Table 14 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for child, at Commercial area in Baghdad city.

Contaminant

HI(child)(noncarcinogen) R(child)(carcinogen)

HIing HI

der HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R )

Cadmium 7.85×10-3 0 0 7.85×10-3 0 0 0 0 Chromium 0.04792 0 0 0.04792 0 0 0 0 Zinc 1.96×10-3 0 0 1.96×10-3 0 0 0 0 Nickle 0.03415 0 0 0.03415 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.16295 0 0 0.16295 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.25483 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal Contamination in Baghdad City

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 246 [email protected]

6.2. Air Media

Table 15 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for selected sites for adults in air-borne dust samples in Baghdad city air.

R(adult)(carcinogen)

HI(adult)(noncarcinogen) District name

Locations of samples

++ R )

R

inh R

der R

ing ++ HI )

HI inh

HI der

HI

ing

1.41×10-3 1.41×10-3 0 0 2.78539 0 1.90×10-5 2.78538 Bunouk Residential area

6.75×10-4 6.75×10-4 0 0 1.32421 0 9.05×10-6 1.32420 Adhamiya 5.12×10-4 5.12×10-4 0 0 1.00457 0 6.87×10-6 1.00456 Adhamiya 3.49×10-4 3.49×10-4 0 0 0.68493 0 4.68×10-6 0.68493 Adhamiya 8.14×10-4 8.14×10-4 0 0 1.59818 0 1.09×10-5 1.59817 Mansour 6.51×10-4 6.51×10-4 0 0 1.27854 0 8.74×10-6 1.27853 Mansour 4.19×10-4 4.19×10-4 0 0 0.82193 0 5.62×10-6 0.82192 Mansour 1.07×10-3 1.07×10-3 0 0 2.10046 0 1.43×10-5 2.10045 Al-Atibaa 3.25×10-4 3.25×10-4 0 0 0.63926 0 4.37×10-6 0.63926 Saydia 8.14×10-4 8.14×10-4 0 0 1.59818 0 1.09×10-5 1.59817 Doura 1.41×10-3 1.41×10-3 0 0 2.77235 0 1.10×10-5 2.77234 Waziria Industrial

Area

Table 16 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for selected sites for child in air-borne dust samples in Baghdad city air.

R(child)(carcinogen)

HI(child)(noncarcinogen) District name

Locations of samples

++ R )

R

inh R

der R

ing ++ HI )

HI inh

HI

der HI ing

1.65×10-3 1.65×10-3 0 0 3.24965 0 4.36×10-5 3.24961 Bunouk Residential area

7.86×10-4 7.86×10-4 0 0 1.54492 0 2.07×10-5 1.54490 Adhamiya 5.96×10-4 5.96×10-4 0 0 1.17200 0 1.57×10-5 1.17199 Adhamiya 4.06×10-4 4.06×10-4 0 0 0.79909 0 1.07×10-5 0.79908 Adhamiya 9.49×10-4 9.49×10-4 0 0 1.86455 0 2.50×10-5 1.86453 Mansour 7.59×10-4 7.59×10-4 0 0 1.49164 0 2.01×10-5 1.49162 Mansour 4.88×10-4 4.88×10-4 0 0 0.95891 0 1.28×10-5 0.95890 Mansour 1.24×10-3 1.24×10-3 0 0 2.45056 0 3.29×10-5 2.45053 Al-Atibaa 3.79×10-4 3.79×10-4 0 0 0.74582 0 1.01×10-5 0.74581 Saydia 9.49×10-4 9.49×10-4 0 0 1.86455 0 2.50×10-5 1.86453 Doura 1.64×10-3 1.64×10-3 0 0 3.23439 0 0 3.23439 Waziria Industrial

area

Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 247 [email protected]

Table 17 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for selected sites for adults in streets-dust samples in Baghdad city air.

R(adult)(carcinogen)

HI(adult)(noncarcinogen) District name

Locations of

samples

++ R )

R inh

R

der R

ing ++ HI )

HI

inh

HI der

HI ing

9.77×10-4 9.77×10-4 0 0 1.91781 0 1.31×10-5 1.91780 Shaab Residential area

1.18×10-3 1.18×10-3 0 0 2.32877 0 1.59×10-5 2.32876 Al-Sadir 1.09×10-3 1.09×10-3 0 0 2.14612 0 1.46×10-5 2.14611 Washash 8.84×10-4 8.84×10-4 0 0 1.73516 0 1.18×10-5 1.73515 Mansour 5.58×10-4 5.58×10-4 0 0 1.09589 0 7.49×10-6 1.09589 Al-Atibaa 1.57×10-3 1.57×10-3 0 0 3.09850 0 1.22×10-5 3.09849 Waziria

Industrial area

3.50×10-3 3.50×10-3 0 0 6.88195 0 2.72×10-5 6.88193 Shaikh Umar

2.82×10-3 2.82×10-3 0 0 5.54470 0 2.19×10-5 5.54468 Shaikh Maarouf

Table 18 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for selected sites for child in streets-dust samples in Baghdad city air.

R(child)(carcinogen) HI(child)(noncarcinogen) District name

Locations of

samples

++ R )

R

inh R

der R

ing ++ HI )

HI

inh

HI

der HI ing

1.13×10-3 1.13×10-3 0 0 2.23747 0 3.01×10-5 2.23744 Shaab Residential area

1.38×10-3 1.38×10-3 0 0 2.71692 0 3.65×10-5 2.71689 Al-Sadir 1.27×10-3 1.27×10-3 0 0 2.50383 0 3.36×10-5 2.50380 Washash 1.03×10-3 1.03×10-3 0 0 2.02437 0 2.72×10-5 2.02435 Mansour 6.51×10-4 6.51×10-4 0 0 1.27854 0 1.71×10-5 1.27853 Al-Atibaa 1.84×10-3 1.84×10-3 0 0 3.61491 0 0 3.61491 Waziria

Industrial area

4.08×10-3 4.08×10-3 0 0 8.02891 0 0 8.02891 Shaikh Umar

3.29×10-3 3.29×10-3 0 0 6.46879 0 0 6.46879 Shaikh Maarouf

6.3. Comprise Iraq soil Media with World Soil

Table 19 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for Adult, Average Heavy Metals in Iraq Soil (Baghdad city).

Contaminant

HI (adult) (noncarcinogen)

R (adult) (carcinogen)

HIing HIder HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R ) Cadmium 1.54×10-3 5.90×10-4 0 2.13×10-3 0 0 0 0 Zinc 3.24×10-4 1.24×10-4 0 4.48×10-4 0 0 0 0 Nickle 5.78×10-3 2.21×10-3 0 7.99×10-3 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.02713 0.01039 0 0.03752 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.04808 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal Contamination in Baghdad City

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 248 [email protected]

Table 20 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for Child, Average Heavy Metals in Iraq Soil (Baghdad city).

Contaminant

HI (child) (noncarcinogen) R (child) (carcinogen) HIing HIder HI

inh +

+ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R ) Cadmium 0.01440 0.05441 0 0.06881 0 0 0 0 Zinc 3.02×10-3 0.01143 0 0.01445 0 0 0 0 Nickle 0.05402 0.20416 0 0.25818 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.25328 0.95718 0 1.21046 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 1.5519 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Table 21 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for Adult, Average Heavy Metals in USA Soil.

Contaminant

HI(adult)(noncarcinogen) R(adult)(carcinogen) HIing HIder HI

inh +

+ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R ) Cadmium 0.03428 0.01313 0 0.04741 0 0 0 0 Zinc 0.01047 4.01×10-3 0 0.01448 0 0 0 0 Nickle 3.71×10-3 1.42×10-3 0 5.13×10-3 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.11428 0.04376 0 0.15804 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.22506 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Table 22 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for Child, Average Heavy Metals in USA Soil.

Contaminant

HI(child)(noncarcinogen) R(child)(carcinogen) HIing HIder HI

inh +

+ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R ) Cadmium 0.32 1.20928 0 1.52928 0 0 0 0 Zinc 0.09778 0.36950 0 0.46728 0 0 0 0 Nickle 0.03467 0.13100 0 0.16567 0 0 0 0 Lead 1.06667 4.03094 0 5.09761 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 7.25984 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Table 23 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for Adult, Average Heavy Metals in England Soil.

Contaminant

HI(adult)(noncarcinogen) R(adult)(carcinogen) HIing HIder HI

inh +

+ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R )

Cadmium --- --- --- --- -- -- -- --- Zinc 0.01428 5.47×10-3 0 0.01975 0 0 0 0 Nickle 5.71×10-3 2.18×10-3 0 7.89×10-3 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.16667 0.06382 0 0.23049 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.25813 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 249 [email protected]

Table 24 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for Child, Average Heavy Metals in England Soil.

Contaminant

HI(child)(noncarcinogen) R(child)(carcinogen)

HIing HIder HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R )

Cadmium --- --- --- --- -- -- -- --- Zinc 0.13333 0.50386 0 0.63719 0 0 0 0 Nickle 0.05333 0.20154 0 0.25487 0 0 0 0 Lead 1.55556 5.87846 0 7.43402 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 8.32608 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Table 25 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for Adult, Average Heavy Metals in Sweden Soil.

Contaminant

HI(adult)(noncarcinogen) R(adult)(carcinogen)

HIing HIder HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R )

Cadmium 0.01914 7.33×10-3 0 0.02647 0 0 0 0 Zinc 7.46×10-3 2.85×10-3 0 0.01031 0 0 0 0 Nickle 3.64×10-3 1.39×10-3 0 5.03×10-3 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.04285 0.01641 0 0.05926 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 0.10107 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

Table 26 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index and Carcinogen Risk for Child, Average Heavy Metals in Sweden Soil.

Contaminant

HI(child)(noncarcinogen) R(child)(carcinogen)

HIing HIder HI inh

++ HI )

R

ing R

der R

inh +

+ R ) Cadmium 0.17867 0.67518 0 0.85385 0 0 0 0 Zinc 0.06964 0.26318 0 0.33282 0 0 0 0 Nickle 0.034 0.12848 0 0.16248 0 0 0 0 Lead 0.4 1.51160 0 1.9116 0 0 0 0

∑∑ + + HI 3.26075 ∑∑ ++ R )

0

7. DISCUSSION This study which contained Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) that estimating the amount and seriousness of released pollutants. Which used in directories of environment for large filed (oral exposure of inhabitants) in the Baghdad city indicated that the non-carcinogenic risk tends to become significant for children and adults with exposure duration of 6yrs and 30yrs respectively. 1- Air media in Baghdad city was high polluted by lead, especially at industrial. Therefore inhalation intake and risk were very high which may cause cancer or other diseases related to lead poisoning. 2- For soil media, noncarcinogen HI resulted from ingestion of soil was insignificant but the cumulative non-carcinogenic risk resulted from dermal contact tends to become significant , mainly

Potential Health Risk Assessment for Soil and Air Heavy Metal Contamination in Baghdad City

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 250 [email protected]

for children , since it approaches unacceptable values and there was no particularly dangerous single heavy metal , but their cumulative effect, , is for concern. 3-From the comparison between the results of the Noncarcinogen Hazard Index Adult and Child [HIing+HIder+HIinh] for Heavy Metal in Baghdad city soil with World soil media as shown in Fig [1&2], it was noticed that there were significant difference between the results in Baghdad city soil with World soil.USA and England were high polluted by lead. therefore [ingestion intake and dermal intake]risk were very high which may cause cancer or other diseases related to lead poisoning.

Figure 1 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index Adult [HIing+HIder+HIinh] for Heavy Metal in World Soil Media.

Figure 2 Noncarcinogen Hazard Index Child [HIing+HIder+HIinh] for Heavy Metal in World Soil Media.

8. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Author is grateful to Prof. Dr. Mohammad Abed Muslim Al-Tufaily for the assistance given me to complete the work study involved in writing this paper.

HIin

g+HI

der

Baghdad USA England Sweden

HIin

g+HI

der

Baghdad USA England Sweden

Dr. Nabaa Shakir Hadi

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 251 [email protected]

REFERENCES [1] Abdul Hameed M. J. Al Obaidy, Athmar A. M. Al Mashhadi, "Heavy Metal Contaminations in

Urban Soil within Baghdad City, Iraq", Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol.4, (2013), pp.72-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2013. 41008.

[2] Khaldoun S. Al-Bassam*, Nour N. Abdul Karim** and Muthana A. Al-Umar, "A Survey of Dust-Borne Lead Concentration in Baghdad City", Iraqi Bulletin of Geology and Mining, Vol.5, No.2, (2009), p 1- 12.

[3] Mark G. R., “Risk Assessment for Environmental Health ", John Wiley & sons, (2007).

[4] Maitham A. Sultan, "Evaluation of Soil pollution by heavy metals in Baghdad city using GIS" , The 1st International Applied Geological Congress, Department of Geology, Islamic Azad University – Mashad Branch, Iran, 26-28 April (2010).

[5] Ortolano. L., “Environmental Regulation and Impact Assessment”, John Wiley & Sonc, Inc, (1997).

[6] “Physical Planning Directorate in Babylon Governorate”(2006).

[7] Richard J. Watts, “Hazardous Wastes”, department of Civil and Environmental engineering, Washington state university, copy by John Wiley & Sons, (1997).

[8] Rodriguez R. ・Grant R. L., “Handbook of Environmental Chemistry Vol. 5, Part F,” Springer - Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, (2005).

[9] Sonnemann, G, “Integrated Life-Cycle and Risk Assessment For Industrial Processes”, Lewis Publishers, (2004).

[10] Susan J. M., “Principles of Environmental Engineering and Science”, McGraw Hill, New York, (2004).

[11] USEPA, "Exposure Factor Handbook", (1997).

[12] USEPA, “Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principal and Applications”, EPA/600/8-91/011B, (1992).

[13] USEPA. Regional Screening Level Table (RSL) for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, (2011).

[14] USEPA, “Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A)”, (EPA/540/1-89/002), (1989).

[15] Bader A. Hakami, Gold Mines and Impact of Heavy Metals on the Environment. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 6(2), 2015, pp. 70–80.


Top Related