Advertisement

Human health risk assessment and risk source analysis of arsenic in soil from a coal chemical plant in Northwest China

  • Kai Zhang
  • Huifang Li
  • Zhiguo Cao
  • Ziyue Shi
  • Jing LiuEmail author
Soils, Sec 3 • Remediation and Management of Contaminated or Degraded Lands • Research Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Arsenic (As) is a potentially toxic element and poses risks to human health during coal chemical technology application. Human health risk of As in coal chemical industry was seldom reported. The results of As human health risk distribution for the entire coal chemical plant in our study may provide theoretical and practical support to reduce human health risk of As in coal chemical industry.

Materials and methods

We collected 153 soil samples with a chessboard sampling method in a coal chemical plant in northwestern China. Arsenic concentrations in the soil were measured with inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) after the soil samples were digested. Human health risk of As was assessed through three exposure pathways including inhalation, skin contact, and oral intake. A human health risk distribution map of As for the entire plant was obtained by kriging method.

Results and discussion

The integrated carcinogenic risk of As in the soil was 8.59–13.31 times of the acceptable standard (1.00E-06), which was established by the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China, while the hazard quotient was within the acceptable range (< 1.00). Oral intake, through which 76.61% of the total carcinogenic risk was contributed, was the main pathway of As to human body and gave the smallest control threshold (1.59 mg kg−1) among the three exposure pathways. The smallest control threshold was recommended as the safety control threshold of As in this plant. Moreover, the highest carcinogenic risk and the largest hazard quotient were found in the Power Unit and its downwind direction (in the southeast of plant) because of As disposal and the local prevailing wind.

Conclusions

In the present study, As spatial distribution in the soil was obtained. A map of As human health risk distribution for the entire coal chemical plant was obtained with kriging method based on limited sampling points, which was more robust compared with traditional methods. Arsenic human health risk sources were also analyzed. The results may be applied in the process of reducing human health risk of As in coal chemical industry.

Keywords

Coal chemical plant Health risk assessment Arsenic Kriging Soil 

Notes

Funding

This work was co-supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC0406404), Open Fund of State Key Laboratory of Water Resource Protection (SHJT-16-30.8), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2018QH03).

References

  1. Ali J, Kazi TG, Baig JA, Afridi HI, Arain MS, Brahman KD, Naeemullah, Panhwar AH (2015) Arsenic in coal of the Thar coalfield, Pakistan, and its behavior during combustion. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(11):8559–8566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bencko V (1977) Carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects of arsenic. Environ Health Perspect 19:179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen ZM, Liang GY, Mo ZY et al (2016) Health risk assessment of heavy metals from road dust in residential areas near a mining area of Guangxi. Environ Occup Med 33:1101–1105Google Scholar
  4. Das S, Jean JS, Kar S (2013) Bioaccessibility and health risk assessment of arsenic in arsenic-enriched soils, Central India. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 92:252–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ettler V (2016) Soil contamination near non-ferrous metal smelters: a review. Appl Geochem 64:56–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fan BT (1983) Chemical carcinogens in the environment. Environ Pollut Prev:21–24Google Scholar
  7. Finkelman RB, Tian LW (2018) The health impacts of coal use in China. Int Geol Rev 60(5–6):579–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gao JW (2010) Relation between arsenic in environment and coal burning-born endemic arsenism in the south of Shaanxi province. Dissertation, Graduate School of Chinese Academy of ScienceGoogle Scholar
  9. Hou JR (1998) Practical geostatistics. Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  10. Hua YP, Luo ZJ, Cheng SG et al (2012) Analysis of soil remediation limits in site based on health risk. Industr Safety Environ Protect 38:68–71Google Scholar
  11. Jia JL, Li XJ, Yang L et al (2016) Human health risks and safety thresholds of arsenic in soils from a coal chemical industry area in Northwest China. Geoscience 23(3):124–132Google Scholar
  12. Kang Y, Liu GJ, Chou CL et al (2011) Arsenic in Chinese coals: distribution, modes of occurrence, and environmental effects. Sci Total Environ 412:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lang CY, Wang DG, Hang J (2011) Distribution characteristics and pollution evaluation of arsenic, antimony, lead and zinc in soil around Chengdu coal-fired power plant. Environ Chem 30(08):1439–1444Google Scholar
  14. Liu G, Shi Y, Tian HJ et al (2018) Soil pollution characteristics and ecological risk assessment of As at a large scale arsenic slag-contaminated site. Environ Sci 39(12):5639–5646Google Scholar
  15. Mo XR, Wu LS, Deng ST et al (2015) Health risk assessment of heavy metal in soil of demolished smelting site. Asian J Ecotoxicol 10(04):235–243Google Scholar
  16. Rodriguez-Proteau R, Grant RL (2005) Toxicity evaluation and human health risk assessment of surface and ground water contaminated by recycled hazardous waste materials. Water Pollut 2005:133–189Google Scholar
  17. Saha N, Rahman MS, Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Guo W (2017) Industrial metal pollution in water and probabilistic assessment of human health risk. J Environ Manag 185:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shin W, Choung S, Han WS, Hwang J, Kang G (2018) Evaluation of multiple PRPs' contributions to soil contamination in reclaimed sites around an abandoned smelter. Sci Total Environ 642:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tang Q, Liu GJ, Zhou CC, Zhang H, Sun R (2013) Distribution of environmentally sensitive elements in residential soils near a coal-fired power plant: potential risks to ecology and children's health. Chemosphere 93:2473–2479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tang Q, Sheng WQ, Li LY, Zheng L, Miao C, Sun R (2018) Alteration behavior of mineral structure and hazardous elements during combustion of coal from a power plant at Huainan, Anhui, China. Environ Pollut 239:768–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tanriover B (2012) Renal cell cancer, environmental arsenic exposure and carcinogenic mutations. Int J Hematol Oncol 22:62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. The Ministry of Environmental Protection of the PRC, The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the PRC (2008) Environmental quality standards for soils. vol GB15618–2008Google Scholar
  23. The Ministry of Environmental Protection of the PRC, The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the PRC (2014) Technical guidelines for risk assessment of contaminated sites vol HJ 25.3–2014Google Scholar
  24. US Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Development of pathway specific soil screening levelsGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang YX, Lv JX (2012) Effects on spread of coal dust and arsenic accumulation to soil and crops. J Soil Water Conserv 26(3):30–33Google Scholar
  26. Wang FC, Yu GS, Gong X et al (2009) Research and development of large-scale coal gasification technology. Chem Ind Eng Prog 28:173–180Google Scholar
  27. Wang C, Liu H, Zhang Y, Zou C, Anthony EJ (2018) Review of arsenic behavior during coal combustion: volatilization, transformation, emission and removal technologies. Prog Energy Combust Sci 68:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Xu LC (2007) Spatial analysis and pollution assessment of heavy metal pollution in farmland soils in Fuxin City. Dissertation, Southwest UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Xu YN, Zhang JH, Ke HL et al (2014) Human health risk under the condition of farmland soil heavy metals pollution in a gold mining area. Geol Bull China 33:1239–1252Google Scholar
  30. Yang K, Im J, Jeong S, Nam K (2015) Determination of human health risk incorporating experimentally derived site-specific bioaccessibility of arsenic at an old abandoned smelter site. Environ Res 137:78–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang C, Tashpolat T, Hou Y et al (2016) Assessment of heavy metals pollution and its health risk of atmospheric dust fall from east part of Junggar Basin in Xinjiang. Environ Sci 37:2453–2461Google Scholar
  32. Yao DX, Zhi XC, Zheng BS (2004) The transformation and concentration of environmental hazardous trace elements during coal combustion. Environ Chem 23:31–37Google Scholar
  33. Zhang XY (2018) Analysis of heavy metal pollution status and ecological risk assessment of alkaline farmland soil in North Guangdong mining area. Proceedings of the 2018 National Academic Annual Conference of Environmental EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang Y, Chang JL, Liang HD et al (2015) Quantitative analysis and evaluation of arsenic in soil from coal fire pollution point in Wuda mining area. Environ Chem 34(12):2319–2320Google Scholar
  35. Zhang K, Yang JJ, Bai L et al (2017) The characteristics and source apportionment of heavy metal pollution in the soil at a coal chemical industry area in Northwest China. J Min Sci 2:191–198Google Scholar
  36. Zhang K, Qiang C, Liu J (2018) Spatial distribution characteristics of heavy metals in the soil of coal chemical industrial areas. J Soils Sediments 18(5):2044–2052CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Chemistry and EnvironmentChina University of Mining and Technology (Beijing)BeijingChina
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Water Resource Protection and Utilization in Coal MiningBeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of Environmental ScienceBaylor UniversityWacoUSA

Personalised recommendations