A Variance Decomposition Approach for Risk Assessment of Groundwater Quality
- 98 Downloads
This research focuses on the assessment of fluoride doses in groundwater adopting the mathematical model employed by the USEPA. A total of 456 groundwater samples were tested to assess the spatial distribution of fluoride contamination in the study areas. Three age groups (children, teens and adults) were selected for two-way pathway exposure (potential dose and dermal dose) assessment. For uncertainty and sensitivity of inputs variables, a new emerging Sobol sensitivity analysis (SSA) technique was used to determine the relative importance of inputs using Monte Carlo simulation. Three types of effects, first-order effect (FOE), second-order effect (SOE) and total effect (TE) were calculated. The results showed that 96% of the samples analysed were within the standard acceptable level (1.5 mg l−1) of WHO guidelines. The spatial distribution depicts that the eastern and south-eastern parts of the study area have the higher concentrations with the few spots of elevated concentration in the middle of the north and the south-west areas. The mean value of Hazard Index for children in the study region is less than 1, whereas the 95th percentile exceeded the value of 1 for both children and teens. The FOE shows the concentration of fluoride (Cw) is highly sensitive followed by exposure frequency (EF), intake rate (IRw) and body weight (BW). The SOE scores revealed that IRw–BW are the most important input parameters for the assessment of oral health risk. For the dermal model, the highest value of Sobol score was recorded for interactions Cw–SA for adults followed by teens and children. Further, the results show that the older-age groups have more dermal risk than the younger-age groups. The research explores the feasibility of SSA technique to investigate the effects of individual input parameters for health risk model and whether it can be applied to another contaminant.
KeywordsGroundwater Sobol sensitivity analysis Fluoride Mid-Gangetic plain
This work was supported by the Board of Research and Nuclear Sciences through the Department of Atomic Energy, India for providing financial assistance under the National Uranium project (NUP) (BRNS Project Ref. No.: 36(4)/14/10/2014-BRNS). The authors are also profoundly grateful to the reviewers and the associate editor for the careful examination of the draft of the manuscript and their many valuable comments and suggestions to help improve the manuscript.
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Board of Research and Nuclear Sciences under Department of Atomic Energy, India.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Akiniwa K (1997) Re-examination of acute toxicity of fluoride. Fluoride 30:89–104Google Scholar
- APHA (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association (APHA), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Beg M, Srivastav S, Carranza E, de Smeth J (2011) High fluoride incidence in groundwater and its potential health effects in parts of Raigarh District, Chhattisgarh, India. Curr Sci 100:750–754Google Scholar
- Chilton J et al (2006) Fluoride in drinking-water. World Health 408:613–693Google Scholar
- Epa U (2011) Exposure factors handbook 2011 edition (final). US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- IPCS (2012) Environmental health criteria 227: fluorides Effects of ingested fluoride. National Academy Press, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Karthikeyan G, Shunmugasundarraj A (2000) Isopleth mapping and in situ fluoride dependence on water quality in the Krishnagiri block of Tamil Nadu in South India. Fluoride 33:121–127Google Scholar
- Kohn WG, Maas WR, Malvitz DM, Presson SM, Shaddix KK (2001) Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. Morbid Mortal. Wkly Rep. 50, No. RR-14. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
- Maithani P, Gurjar R, Banerjee R, Balaji B, Ramachandran S, Singh R (1998) Anomalous fluoride in groundwater from western part of Sirohi district, Rajasthan and its crippling effects on human health. Curr Sci 74(9):773–777Google Scholar
- Miller G, Egyed M, Shupe J (1977) Alkaline phosphatase activity, fluoride citric acid, calcium, and phosphorus content in bones of cows with osteoporosis. Fluoride 10:76Google Scholar
- NAS (1971) Fluorides, committee on biological effects of atmospheric pollutants. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. p 295Google Scholar
- Podgorny PC, McLaren L (2015) Public perceptions and scientific evidence for perceived harms/risks of community water fluoridation: an examination of online comments pertaining to fluoridation cessation in Calgary in 2011. Can J Pub Health 106:e413–e425Google Scholar
- Rostamia I, Mahvib AH, Dehghanib MH, Baghania AN, Marandid R (2017) Application of nano aluminum oxide and multi-walled carbon nanotube in fluoride removal. Desalination 1:6Google Scholar
- Sobol IM (1993) Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models. Math Model Comput Exp 1:407–414Google Scholar
- Staff E (2001) Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for superfund sites, Peer review Draft Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER:9355.9354–9324Google Scholar
- Subba Rao N, Prakasa Rao J, Nagamalleswara Rao B, Niranjan Babu P, Madusudhana Reddy P, Devadas DJ (1998) A preliminary report on fluoride content in groundwaters of Guntur area, Andhra Pradesh, India. Curr Sci 75:887–888Google Scholar
- USEPA (1992) Guidelines for exposure assessment. Fed Reg 57:22888–22938Google Scholar
- WHO (2004) IPCS risk assessment terminology. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- WHO (2011) Guidelines for drinking-water quality. WHO Chron 38:104–108Google Scholar