Probabilistic and Deterministic Approaches to Estimation of Non

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341043953

Probabilistic and deterministic approaches to estimation of non-carcinogenic human health risk due to heavy metals in groundwater resources of torbat heydariyeh, southeastern of Ir...

Article in International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry · April 2020 DOI: 10.1080/03067319.2020.1757086

CITATIONS READS 2 78

9 authors, including:

Hamed Soleimani Abooalfazl Azhdarpoor Tehran University of Medical Sciences Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

31 PUBLICATIONS 416 CITATIONS 47 PUBLICATIONS 343 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hassan Hashemi Majid Radfarad Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

81 PUBLICATIONS 393 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 640 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nothing View project

Effects of storage time and temperature on the antimony and some trace element release from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) into the bottled drinking water View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hassan Hashemi on 06 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry

ISSN: 0306-7319 (Print) 1029-0397 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/geac20

Probabilistic and deterministic approaches to estimation of non-carcinogenic human health risk due to heavy metals in groundwater resources of torbat heydariyeh, southeastern of Iran

Hamed Soleimani, Abooalfazl Azhdarpoor, Hassan Hashemi, Majid Radfard, Omid Nasri, Mahboobeh Ghoochani, Hamidreza Azizi, Gholamreza Ebrahimzadeh & Amir Hossein Mahvi

To cite this article: Hamed Soleimani, Abooalfazl Azhdarpoor, Hassan Hashemi, Majid Radfard, Omid Nasri, Mahboobeh Ghoochani, Hamidreza Azizi, Gholamreza Ebrahimzadeh & Amir Hossein Mahvi (2020): Probabilistic and deterministic approaches to estimation of non-carcinogenic human health risk due to heavy metals in groundwater resources of torbat heydariyeh, southeastern of Iran, International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1757086

Published online: 29 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=geac20 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1757086

ARTICLE Probabilistic and deterministic approaches to estimation of non-carcinogenic human health risk due to heavy metals in groundwater resources of torbat heydariyeh, southeastern of Iran Hamed Soleimania, Abooalfazl Azhdarpoorb, Hassan Hashemi c, Majid Radfard b, Omid Nasria, Mahboobeh Ghoochanid, Hamidreza Azizie, Gholamreza Ebrahimzadeha and Amir Hossein Mahvia,f aDepartment of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; bDepartment of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran; cResearch Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health, Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran; dMinistry of Health and Medical Education, Occupational and Environmental Health Center, Tehran, Iran; eNursing Faculty, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; fCenter for Solid Waste Research, Institute for Environmental Research, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Water, as the primary human needs, play a vital role in all aspects of Received 4 January 2020 our life, such as social environment, production, the economy, food Accepted 27 March 2020 security, and politics. In the present investigation, Heavy Metals KEYWORDS (HM) concentrations including Cr, Pb, and Cd, have been ascer- Heavy metals; health risk tained in drinking water resources. Besides, point estimation using assessment; hazard quotient; Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI) formula and sensitivity monte Carlo Simulation; analysis (SA) using the Monte Carlo Simulation technique, by 10,000 sensitivity analysis; repetitions in Oracle Crystal Ball®, were applied to demonstrate the uncertainty analysis; non-carcinogenic effects of HMs on different exposed populations groundwater resources; (Infant, children, teenagers, and adults groups). According to the chromium results, the concentrations of Cr, Pb, and Cd in water resources ranged from 2.2 to 173.7 µg/L, 0.5 to 10 µg/L, and 0.2 to 0.9 µg/L, respectively. The results also showed that HI values were in the order of Pb>Cd >Cr. The results of SA, to determine the most effective parameter in increasing non-carcinogenic risk, showed that the concentration parameter of studied HMs had the most effect on increasing sensitivity in the four studied exposed groups.

1. Introduction Water, as the primary human needs, play a vital role in all aspects of our life, such as social environment, production, the economy, food security, and politics [1–4]. Unfortunately, in recent decades the rapid rate of population growth, industrial development, and with- drawal of water resources for expanding of irrigation and other purposes have caused contamination of groundwater and surface water in almost all over the world [5,6]. One of the critical contaminants that inﬂuence groundwater quality and pose a risk to human

CONTACT Amir Hossein Mahvi [email protected] © 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 H. SOLEIMANI ET AL. health are heavy metals (HMs) because of some characteristics such as long persistence in the natural environment, bio-accumulation, stability, toxicity, and non-biodegradation [7–11]. HMs are natural elements of the Earth’s crust [12,13]. Surveying contaminated water by HMs has become one of the most issues of ecological researchers in recent years [14–16]. Commonly, HMs contamination originates from both natural sources (such as erosion of bedrocks and volcanic eruptions processes) and anthropogenic (such as mining, untreated domestic and industrial wastewater discharges, irrigation, industries, and agriculture) [17–21]. Groundwater and surface water contamination by HMs can lead to deteriorating the quality of drinking and irrigation water sources [22,23]. So, it is a serious concern to be exposed by HMs through the non-biodegradable nature of them. Some HMs such as copper and zinc are essential elements for healthy growth and living organisms function. In contrast, high concentrations of trace elements such as chromium, lead, and cadmium are highly toxic to humans and aquatic lives [24,25]. Chromium is a common element in the Earth’s crust. Minimal amount of this element is needed for healthy functioning, while high concentration is toxic and causes major problems in several parts of the body such as livers and kidneys [26,27]. Lead is an extremely toxic metal whose general use has made extensive environmental pollution and health problems in almost all over the world. Exposure to high concentrations of the lead causes adverse health problems such as blood pressure, nerve damage, behavioural disorders, dementia, and learning ability reduction. Generally, Children and neonatal are susceptible and vulnerable groups to lead. Exposure to cadmium causes acute and chronic effects such as kidney and skeletal damages. Experimental studies conducted on humans and animals show that cadmium may cause cancer in humans [28–31]. So, recognising HMs and their possible sources contamination is a significant issue to be investigated as human needs. Studies conducted by Sajadi et al. [32] and Bazrafshan et al. [4] on heavy metals concentration in groundwater resources of Sistan-and-Baluchistan province, Iran showed high levels of Cd and Pb in this area. Similarly, Muhammad et al.’s research [14] showed moderate concentrations of HMs in the groundwater and surface water in the Kohistan region, northern Pakistan. As far as we know, no special investigation has been done to address rural drinking water contamination by heavy metals and their effects on human health in Torbat Heydariyeh City. The primary reason for conducting this study in this area was the presence of several active mines and water resources corrosivity, which can lead to the release of heavy metals into the water supply systems. This study could be a basis to determine the effects of heavy metals in drinking water and their potential to increase the risk of adverse effects on human health.

2. Experimental 2.1. Study area The study area comprising the Torbat Heydariyeh district of Razavi Khorasan province, Iran lies between latitudes 35°.2798´ N and longitudes 59°.2161´ E with a total geogra- phical area of62220 km2, and altitude of 1,333 m above sea level. The population of this INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 3

Figure 1. The spatial location of the studied area and sampling points. area is approximately 267,604 persons. Torbat Heydariyeh has four regions (Central, Jolgerokh, Kadkan, and Bayg), six cities, 11 districts, and 150 villages. This area is bordered from the north with cities of Neyshabur, Mashhad, and Fariman, from the East with the cities of Tayabad, Torbat Jam, and Khaf, from the south with the cities of Mahvelat and Roshtkhar and from the West with the Kashmar city. The study area experiences a semi-arid climate, with mean annual precipitation and temperature of 274 mm and 13.3°C, respectively. Approximately 92% of water resources of Torbat Heydariyeh are utilised in agriculture and the rest in industry and household purposes. Several studies in Torbat-e-Heydariyeh show that the water resources of this area have decreased to critical conditions [33]. The location map of the study area is indicated in Figure. 1.

2.2. Sampling procedure The standard criteria, including collecting the representative samples, notice the pollu- tants, gathering proper and enough quality control samples, and suﬃciently distributed in space and time has been considered to select sampling points. Based on a reconnaissance survey of the study area, a total of 41 groundwater samples were collected from operating wells for the physicochemical analysis. The sampling bottles had been washed twice with double distilled water and nitric acid (65%, Merck) [34]. The pH of the groundwater samples was adjusted to less than two by pure nitric acids (E. Merch, Darmstadt, Germany) to decrease the absorption of heavy 4 H. SOLEIMANI ET AL. metals [35]. All samples were stored in two litres’volume polypropylene bottles and packaged with ice and sent to the laboratory for analysis. According to guidelines, delivery time between sample collection and laboratory receipt was about 5–6 hours. The samples were analysed for determining the heavy metal pollution according to the Standard Method for Examinations of Water and Wastewater [36].

2.3. Chemical analysis 2.3.1. Apparatus and reagents A total of 41 groundwater samples were collected from operating wells for the physicochemical analysis. In all the experiments, double-distilled water was exploited. The standard solution of all three metals (Cr, Pb, and Cd) was produced by diluting 1000 mg/L predetermined amount of standard solutions. Atomic spectroscopy is the method for measuring the elemental composition of an analyte through its mass spectrum. One of the techniques that have found relevance in the application of analytical chemistry for the determination of trace heavy metals is Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (GFAAS) [37]. With GFAA, the samples are added directly in a graphite tube, which is next heated in a planned series of steps to eliminate the solvent and to atomise the remaining samples. To determine Cr, Cd, and Pb in water samples, GFAAS (Perkin Elmer A-Analyst 200) tool equipped with hollow cathode lamps (HCLS) was utilised [38,39]. Instrumental factors used throughout this research for the elements of interest are shown in Table 1. The reliability and repeatabilityoftheexperimentwereevaluated by analyzing standard samples and controls, 10 samples for each examination. All experiments performed according to Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater [36]. Double distilled water was used in all standard preparation and dilutions. The containers were soaked in nitric acid (65%, Merck) and next rinsed with double distilled water before using in the tests. Any glass beakers and containers were kept in 1.0 mol/L HNO3 solution to eliminate any probable contamination. Nitric acid (65%, Merck) was used to eliminate the precipitation of analytes before measurement. In the preparation of working standards of analytes, proper dilutions were performed by 1.0 mol/L nitric acid from the stock solutions of Cr, Cd, and Pb (1000 mg/L). 20 μL of samples and calibration solutions were pipetted in the graphite tube. 500 mg/L of palladium and magnesium mixture for Cr and 1010 mg/L of nickel for cadmium and lead were used as stock solutions of matrix modiﬁers [40].

2.3.2. Quality assurance and control A strict quality control program consisting of reagent blanks, duplicate samples, and standard reference material (Trace Element in Water, 1643e) bought from NIST was

Table 1. GFAAS factors used in the measurement of Cr, Cd, and Pb. Parameters Unit Cr Cd Pb Lamp current mA 4.0 4.0 5.0 Slit width nm 0.2 0.5 0.5 Wavelength nm 357.9 228.8 283.3 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 5 utilised for evaluating methods used in the determination of Cr, Cd, and Pb in water samples. The limit of detection (LOD) values for Cr, Cd, and Pb was obtained to be 0.191, 0.032, and 0.266 ppb, while the limit of quantiﬁcation (LOQ) for these metals was obtained as 0.495, 0.141 and 1.325 ppb, respectively. Our ﬁndings showed a stable measurement process and accurate data for all the investigated heavy metals and the recovery per cent of 97.33 ± 5.12%, 96.89 ± 4.54%, and 94.22 ± 5.34%, was obtained for Cr, Cd and Pb, respectively [41].

2.4. Non-carcinogenic human risk assessment Health risk assessment (HRA) is a procedure of hazard risk assessment that evaluates likely hazards to human health and the level of risks those hazards pose [34,42,43]. The United States Environment Protection Agency (USEPA) describes the human health risk assessment (HRA) as the systematic approach for estimating the probability of adverse health effects in the exposed group who may be susceptive to unique harmful elements in contaminated ecological systems, such as surface or groundwater sources [44–47]. In this study, the risk assessment was carried out to determine the adverse health effects of exposure to some heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, and chromium in drinking water resources of Torbat Heydariyeh. For this purpose, the exposed population was classified into four groups: infant (<2 years), children (2–6 years), teenager (6–- 16 years), and adult (>16 years) [46]. Ingestion of contaminated water is the most common route of exposure to hazardous metals and chemical substances [48]. EPA expresses a Reference Dose (RfD) for oral exposure to cadmium and chromium (6+). According to IRIS EPA reports, Cadmium intake occurs via the ingestion of contaminated water and food that, for each of these two paths, determines the specific RfD [9,49]. It should be noted that the carcinogenic effects for cadmium and chromium have been estimated from the inhalation route [49]. So, because this study aimed to determine the health risk through water consumption, the non- carcinogenic risk was evaluated. IRIS-EPA has not defined carcinogenic and non- carcinogenic effects for the lead. Various epidemiological studies have investigated this issue. Therefore, valid articles were criterion in this case [50]. For the non-carcinogenic risk to be determined, the Reference Dose (RfD) is of great significance. RfD is an exposure that, if contacted by a human population (including sensitive groups) daily, is likely to cause no significant risk of harmful effects throughout life. The RFD is expressed in mg/kg body weight per day. IRIS_EPA has determined reference dose of 0.005, 0.003, and 0.002 mg/kg BW. Day, for cadmium, chromium, and lead, respectively [50]. Hazard Quotient is estimated by having RfD and determination of studied heavy metals intake per day (through drinking water consumption). The non- carcinogenic effect can be expressed as hazard quotient (HQ) using Eq. 1 [51]: C IR E ED HQ ¼ i fr (1) RfD BW AT where HQ: Hazard Quotient, Ci: Average contamination concentration in water (mg/L), IR: Ingestion rate of water (L/d), 6 H. SOLEIMANI ET AL.

Efr: Exposure frequency (d/year), ED: exposure duration for cancer risk assessment (year), RFD: Oral reference dose (mg/Kg.day), BW: Average body weight (kg), AT: Averaging time (day) = (ED×365). The formula parameters for exposed groups are described in Table 2. Given the values presented in Table 2, the HQ point value was estimated using the above formula. HI is a hazard index which indicates the integrated risk of cadmium, chromium, and lead in drinking water (Equation. 2). When the value of HQ is larger than one, it indicates that the non-carcinogenic risk excesses the acceptable limits.

¼ n ðÞ HI Æi¼0 HQ i (2)

Equation 2 [56] If HI<1.0, the non-carcinogenic adverse eﬀect due to this exposure path- way or chemical is assumed to be negligible [56], and if so, the value of HI is greater than 1, then the NHHR exceeds the acceptable standard of the contaminant in drinking water.

2.5. Monte carlo simulation (MCS) Because of the imprecision and insuﬃciency of the environmental data, many parameters should be employed in the health risk assessment approach. An uncertainty, which is an inevitable part of risk assessment, refers to the situation of limited knowledge about the real value of a parameter or variable [57,58]. Regularly, the risk is deemed as point estimation. The point estimation presents limited information regarding the level of uncertainty surrounding the risk point in HRA [43]. If uncertainty parameters such as model and scenario uncertainty are not applied, the result will not be valid [59]. So, USEPA (the United States Environmental Protection Agency) has suggested the monte Carlo simulation (MCS) technique to overcome the uncertainty problem [48,60]. MCS (what-if analysis) – as one of the most broadly used methods for probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) modelling- is an approach that can evaluate the variability and uncertainty in the several parameters of the human health risk assessment procedure [57].In present research, the uncertainty analysis was performed using the Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) method by 10,000 repetitions in Oracle Crystal Ball® (version 11.1.34190). The MCS method selects the values of the parameters from their distribution ﬁtted to input data and consequently calculates both point value and the distribution of exposure and risk [42,61,62].

Table 2. Values of parameters used in health risk assessment method. Parameters Unit Infant Children Teenager Adults References IR L/day 0.7 0.78 2 2.5 [52] Efr Day/year 350 350 350 350 [53] ED Year 1 4 13 40 [52] RfD mg/kg.day Cd:0.005 [54] Cr: 0.003 Pb: 0.002 BW Kg 7.5 15 50 80 [1] AT Day 350 1400 4550 14,000 [55] INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 7

2.6. Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using the Excel 2010 software. Statistical analysis, such as correlation analysis, was done by statistical package IBM SPSS Version 16.00 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Also, signiﬁcance tests were at a 95% conﬁdence level. Maps of the study area were generated using Arc GIS.V 10.3 [62].

3. Results and discussion The results of groundwater contamination through heavy metals in the study area, non- carcinogenic human health risk assessment by both deterministic and probabilistic methods, and sensitivity analysis have been described in the following.

3.1. Heavy metals and groundwater contamination Heavy metals (HMs) contamination originates from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Several resources of HMs in surface and groundwater resources include mining, soil erosion, industrial eﬄuents, natural weathering of the earth’s crust, sewage discharge, urban runoﬀ, insect or disease control agents applied to crops, and many others [25]. Table 3 outlines the HMsconcentrationsingroundwater samples isolated from Torbat HeydariyehCity.

3.1.1. *Red: Concentrations over the acceptable level (WHO) Chromium (Cr) is the seventh most abundant element on the earth. Anthropogenically, chromium is released into the environment through sewage and fertilisers [64]. In general, the natural concentration of Cr in groundwater resources is low (<1 µg/litre). In the Netherlands, the average level of 0.7 µg/litre has been observed, with a maximum of

Table 3. Heavy Metals concentrations (μg/L) in a water sample collected from the study area. NO Sampling Point Pb Cd Cr NO Sampling Point Pb Cd Cr 1 Asadabad 0.6 0.2 50 21 Sorkhabad 0.6 0.4 5 2 Asadieh 2.5 0.6 73 22 Sarhang 1.2 0.6 66 3Asfiz 5.2 0.7 5 23 Soltababad 0.8 0.6 64 4 Bres 1.2 0.6 4 24 Senjedpoor 1.5 0.8 3 5 Bask 2.5 0.8 2.2 25 Siki 1.1 0.9 18 6 Boriabad 4.5 0.5 91 26 Shilegoshad 5.2 0.4 17 7 Pengi 0.5 0.6 9 27 Senoobar 4.9 0.6 3 8 Pishakhor 0.8 0.6 73 28 AbdAbad 1.4 0.6 14 9 Tejrod 0.5 0.8 23 29 Asgerd 2.5 0.4 108 10 Hajibigi 1.8 0.6 11 30 Fathabad 0.6 0.6 43 11* Heshmatabad 0.8 0.8 105 31 Fedihe 1.9 0.5 6 12 Hesar 0.9 0.8 18 32 Kajderakht 0.9 0.6 4 13 Hozsorkh 0.5 0.9 25 33 Kaslak 0.6 0.6 5 14 Khorm 0.6 0.7 76 34 Kamesofla 0.8 0.4 9 15 Khoreshbor 0.8 0.6 5 35 Kameolia 0.6 0.6 12 16 Dafi 0.9 0.6 6 36 Kalghora 0.8 0.2 65 17 Derkhatsenjed 3.5 0.8 60 37 Mahmoodabad 0.9 0.3 39 18 Reghiche 0.5 0.6 173.7 38 Nesar1 8 0.6 5 19 Rodmajan 1.5 0.4 12 39 Nesar 2 2.4 0.4 18 20 Sarbala 2.6 0.6 37 40 Nosratabad 4.2 0.6 34 # WHO Standard (μg/L) [63] 10 3 100 41 Nori 10 0.8 43 *Bold: Concentrations over the acceptable level (WHO). 8 H. SOLEIMANI ET AL.

(a) (b) (c) Cr Concentration Cd Concentration Pb Concentration

Figure 2. Spatial distribution of (a) Cr, (b) Cd, and (c) Pb concentrations (µg L−1) in drinking water of Torbat Heydariyeh.

five µg/litre [65,66]. A maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of 0.1 mg/L (100 µg/L) is proposed for total chromium in drinking water [67]. In the present study, Cr concentration in groundwater samples ranged from 2.2 to 173.7 (μg/L) (Table 3 & Figure 2(a)). Totally, according to Table 3, concentrations over the maximum acceptable level for Chromium (100 μg/L) were found in 7% of the groundwater samples. Chromium concentrations in Heshmatabad, Asgerd, and Reghiche areas were 105,108, and 173.7 μg/L, respectively, which are exceed the accepted levels. Cr concentration was found to be acceptable in other sampling points. Hydrogeochemical study of groundwater resources is useful to identify processes controlling groundwater chemistry [68]. Rock-weathering interactions and ion-exchange processes play an essential role in controlling groundwater chemistry [33]. Soils and rocks may comprise small amounts of Cr, almost always in the trivalent state (Cr+3). Also, Chromium was demonstrated to occur naturally in waters and soils during the dissolution and weathering of rocks, especially in ophiolitic zones [33]. Leaching from topsoil and rocks (especially serpentinised rocks of ophiolitic zones) is the most important natural source of chromium entry into waterbodies. There are some major lithological units (ophiolitic complex and sedimentary rocks) in the study area such as ophiolitic melange in the north of Torbat Heydariyeh (Asad Abad area) [69], Sarhang- Golbou ophiolitic zone (Kadkan, NW Torbat Heydariyeh) [70], Zaveh catchment area (Zaveh-Torbat plain) [33], Opaolitic area of Kate Talkh village (Northwest of Torbat Heydariyeh), and Robat Sefid region (Northern of Torbat Heydariyeh). So, the high concentration of Cr in some areas (Table 3) can be the result of the presence of these ophiolitic complex and sedimentary rocks in study area. The ophiolitic complex is mostly composed of hydrated ultramafic rocks (serpentinised mantle peridotites and serpenti- nites), fragments of layered and isotropic gabbros, diabases, basalts and pelagic sediments. Also it should be noted typical geogenic sources of Cr are ultramafic rocks and serpenti- nites of ophiolites. Several researches indicate that there is little or no toxicity associated with Cr3+,whereasCr6+ are categorised as carcinogenic to humans by the inhalation route of exposure, based on sufficient evidence in both humans and animals [71]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 9

Cadmium concentrations in uncontaminated natural waters are commonly below one µg/l [71]. The Cd concentrations in groundwater samples of the study area ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 μg/L (Table 3). The highest Cd concentration (0.9 μg/L) was seen in a groundwater sample obtained from Hozsorkh (Figure 2b). Most of the inhabitants in this region mainly rely on agriculture for their livelihood and the major crops of this area are wheat, barley, and pistachio. So, several kinds of nitrogen fertilisers and other agrochemicals are used in farming practices to improve yields. As a result, the high usage of Cd containing fertilisers in this region can increase the cd concentration in groundwater resources [72]. Although the concentration of cadmium in all samples throughout the study period was below the WHO guideline limit of three μg/L for domestic water use, chronic and prolonged exposure to this metal through drinking purposes can cause many adverse health effects. There are limited pieces of evidence that cd is carcinogenic through the inhalation path, and the international agency for research on cancer (IARC) has classified cd and cd compounds in Group 2A [73,74]. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of carci- nogenicity by the oral route and no clear evidence that cadmium is genotoxic. With chronic oral exposure, the kidney appears to be the most sensitive organ [75]. The source of Cadmium contamination in groundwater resources of the study area can be due to natural causes such as ophiolitic complex and sedimentary rocks such as Kate Talkh village (Northwest of Torbat Heydariyeh), and Robat Sefid region (Northern of Torbat Heydariyeh) [76]. Qasemi et al. studied the concentration of cadmium and the health risk to humans through the ingestion of groundwater in 39 rural areas of Gonabad and Bajestan, Razavi Khorasan province. The mean cadmium concentrations in groundwater in the studied rural areas of Gonabad and Bajestan ranged from 0.087 to 14.32 μg/L and from 0.417 to 18.36 μg/L, respectively. According to their findings, the high concentration of cadmium in studied areas can be the result of both natural and anthropogenic (industrial/agricultural activities) resources [77]. Lead (Pb) is a bio-accumulative and highly toxic element that can cause irreversible damage to body organs such as kidneys and the nervous and reproductive systems [78]. The Pb concentrations in groundwater samples ranged from 0.5 to 10 μg/L (Table 3). The highest Pb concentration was seen in the groundwater sample (10 μg/L) obtained from Nori (Figure 2c). Although the level of lead in all samples was below the WHO guideline limit of 10 μg/L, chronic and prolonged exposure to this metal through drinking purposes can cause many adverse health effects considering the bioaccumulative property of this metal [79]. Anthropogenic sources of leading the study area can be related to several parameters include the mining, manufacture and use of Pb-containing products, combus- tion of coal and oil, and waste incineration. In a study about the chemical quality of groundwaters resources in Zarin Shahr city, the mean concentration of lead and cadmium found to be higher than standard levels. According to their results, the water wells were polluted due to the high discharge rate of agricultural and industrial wastewater [78].

3.2. The non-carcinogenic risk assessment by Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) Risk assessment is expressed as the process of determining the likelihood of incidence of an event and the probable value of adverse health impacts throughout the specified time [80,81]. In the present research, health risk assessment was carried out to determine the effects of non-carcinogenic of cadmium, chromium, and lead on the health of residents in 10 H. SOLEIMANI ET AL. rural areas of Torbat Heydariyeh. In order to assess the potential hazard level of the selected contaminants in drinking water, HQ (Eq. 1) and HI (Eq. 2) values were computed for infants, children, teenagers, and adults. The results of the calculation of the point hazard estimation are presented in Table 4. Histograms for simulating HI results in four exposed groups were displayed in Figures. 3–6, respectively. Sensitivity Analysis (SA) is also shown in these graphs to determine the influence of each parameter. The result of point and probability estimation shows that HI and HQ are in the order of Infant> children> teenager> adult. Also, for the children group, the HQ value was larger than one, which shows long-term exposure to studied heavy metals through drinking water

Table 4. A deterministic approach to determine HQ and HI. HQ Parameter Pb Cd Cr HI Infant 0.091244 0.010609 1.047705 1.149558 Children 0.050836 0.005911 0.583722 0.640468 Teenager 0.039105 0.004547 0.449017 0.492668 Adult 0.03055 0.003552 0.350794 0.384897

Figure 3. HI value and SA in infant group.

Figure 4. HI value and SA in children group. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 11

Figure 5. HI value and SA in teenager group.

Figure 6. HI value and SA in the adult group. consumption increase the likelihood of non-carcinogenic risk and the adverse eﬀects [82]. The HI values for the 5th and 95th percentile in infants, children, teenagers, and adult groups were (0.24–3.28), (0.13–1.83), (0.1–1.43), and (0.08–1.12), respectively. In 95% of the exposed infant population, HI values of less than 3.28 and greater than one were observed, which shows a high non-carcinogenic risk in this group. Consequently, these groups can be considered as a hypersensitive population. Hence, these results could be a warning for decision-makers and also researchers to conduct more comprehensive investigations with more samples [83]. Figure. 7 compares the amounts of studied heavy metals in exposed groups to HI. In the sensitivity analysis charts and Fig.7, it can be observed that the chromium values in the drinking water have the primary role in increasing the HI in all exposed groups. As a result, it is essential to reduce exposure to this metal, and the main exposure reduction policies should be based on this metal. So, it is suggested that strategies be taken to minimise exposure to this metal. Based on the results of sensitivity analysis (SA) (Figs. 3–6), the amount of heavy metals concentrations (Pb,Cd, and Cr) in drinking water had the highest impact on increasing non-carcinogenic risk for the four exposed population groups; so, a decrease of HMs concentration in water can reduce the risk of health. Also, the body weight (BW) was inversely related to the sensitivity. These ﬁndings suggest that higher BW is associated with decreased sensitivity [34]. Groundwater is typically one of the most precious freshwater resources in the world applied for drinking, agriculture, and industrial applications in many regions. Heavy metals 12 H. SOLEIMANI ET AL.

Figure 7. Comparison of HI in diﬀerent exposed groups.

(HMs) are one of the critical contaminants that influence groundwater quality and pose a risk to human health because of some characteristics such as long persistence in the natural environment, bio-accumulation, stability, toxicity, and non-biodegradation. So, recognising HMs and their possible sources contamination is a significantissuetobeinvestigatedas human needs. In the present investigation, Heavy Metals (HM) concentrations, including Cr, Pb, and Cd, have been determined in drinking water resources of the Torbat Heydariyeh area. Because of the imprecision and insufficiency of the environmental data, many parameters should be employed in the health risk assessment approach and it is suggested that in addition to the point estimation approach, for more comprehensive studies, the researchers also use the probabilistic method. Therefore in this study, both deterministic and probabilistic methods were applied for health risk assessment of heavy metal in different exposed groups. It is also suggested that in groundwater resources studies, the hydrogeochemical characteristics of groundwater resources be considered to identify groundwater chemistry control processes. Because of the higher concentration of some heavy metals than allowable limits, propertreatment, and governmental interventions for the appropriate provision of drinking water are recommended.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thanks the ﬁnancial support of NIMAD from this research as Grant number 976889.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding

This work was supported by NIMAD grant with oﬃcial code number 976889 by the Ministry of Health, Iran. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 13

ORCID

Hassan Hashemi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6348-3885 Majid Radfard http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2245-5260

References

[1] D. Jalili, et al., Data Brief 20, 394 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.08.023. [2] S. Khan, et al., J. Clean. Prod. 60,93(2013). doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.02.016. [3] S. Rapant and K. Krčmová, Environ Geochem Health 29, 131 (2007). doi:10.1007/s10653-006- 9072-y. [4] E. Bazrafshan, et al., Concentration of Heavy Metals in Surface Water and Sediments of Chah Nimeh Water Reservoir in Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Iran. Desalination and Water Treatment, 2015(ahead-of-print): p. 1. [5] M. Youseﬁ, et al., Data Brief 16, 724 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.dib.2017.11.099. [6] F.B. Asghari, et al., Data Brief 18, 375 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.03.059. [7] A. Fallahati, et al., Environ Monit Assess 192(1), 64 (2020). 10.1007/s10661-019-8037-4. [8] L. Karamia. et al. Desalin. Water Treat. 148, 119 (2019). 10.5004/dwt.2019.23780 [9] H. Akbari, et al., Data Brief 20, 463 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.08.031. [10] M. Pirsaheb, et al., Int. J. Pharm. Technol. 8 (1), 11023 (2016). [11] M. Moradi, et al., J. Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. 23 (1), 65 (2014). [12] E. Anticó, et al., Water 9(11), 877 (2017). 10.3390/w9110877. [13] H. Nasirian, et al., Environ Monit Assess 188(2), 107 (2016). 10.1007/s10661-016-5117-6. [14] S. Muhammad, M.T. Shah and S. Khan, Microchem. J. 98, 334 (2011). doi:10.1016/j. microc.2011.03.003. [15] K. Khan, et al., J. Environ. Sci. 25(10), 2003 (2013). 10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60275-7. [16] H. Nasirian, et al., Indian Journal of Science and Technology 8(33), 1 (2015). 10.17485/ijst/ 2015/v8i1/53997. [17] H. Soleimani, et al., Data Brief 17, 148 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.dib.2017.12.061. [18] N. Bortey-Sam, et al., Environ Monit Assess 187(7), 1 (2015). 10.1007/s10661-015-4630-3. [19] A. Demirak, et al., Chemosphere 63(9), 1451 (2006). 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.09.033. [20] P. Chanpiwat, S. Sthiannopkao and K.-W. Kim, Microchem. J. 95, 326 (2010). doi:10.1016/j. microc.2010.01.013. [21] S. Muhammad, M.T. Shah and S. Khan, Food Chem. Toxicol. 48, 2855 (2010). doi:10.1016/j. fct.2010.07.018. [22] Z. Atafar, et al., Environ Monit Assess 160(1–4), 83 (2010). 10.1007/s10661-008-0659-x. [23] H. Nasirian, et al., J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 11(1), 22 (2013). 10.1186/2052-336X-11-22. [24] S.M. Praveena, S.N.M. Shaifuddin and S. Akizuki, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 136, 135 (2018). doi:10.1016/ j.marpolbul.2018.09.012. [25] S.M. Praveena, Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 75, 415 (2018). doi:10.1007/s00244-018-0537- 7. [26] C. Knight, et al., Environ Geochem Health 19(2), 63 (1997). 10.1023/A:1018442219943. [27] Y. Loubières, et al., J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 37(3), 333 (1999). 10.1081/clt-100102431. [28] L. Järup, et al., Occup Environ Med 57(10), 668 (2000). 10.1136/oem.57.10.668. [29] G. Nordberg, et al., AMBIO: J Hum. Environ. 31(6), 478 (2002). 10.1579/0044-7447-31.6.478. [30] K. Sharaﬁ, M. Fazlzadehdavil, M. Pirsaheb, J. Derayat, and S. Hazrati, Ecol. Eng. 44, 244–248 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.03.008. [31] A. Mahvi, F. Gholami and S. Nazmara, European J. Sci. Res. 23 (2), 197 (2008). [32] S.A. Sajadi, et al., Iranian J. Health Sci. 3 (3), 1 (2015). [33] M. Nematollahi, et al., Environ Monit Assess 188(1), 2 (2016). 10.1007/s10661-015-4968-6. [34] L. Kaur, M.S. Rishi and A.U. Siddiqui, Environ. Pollut. 259, 113711 (2020). doi:10.1016/j. envpol.2019.113711. [35] H. Soleimani, et al., Data Brief 20, 375 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.08.022. 14 H. SOLEIMANI ET AL.

[36] N. Mirzaei, H.R. Ghaffari, K. Karimyan, F.M. Moghadam, A. Javid, and K. Sharafi, Int. J. Pharm. Technol. 7 (3), 9680–9689 (2015). http://eprints.hums.ac.ir/id/eprint/4415. [37] M. Shamsipur, et al., Talanta 130,26(2014). doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2014.06.049. [38] M. Mirzabeygi, et al., Human Ecol. Risk Assess.: Int. J. 23(8), 1893 (2017). 10.1080/ 10807039.2017.1322895. [39] A.R. Ipeaiyeda and A.R. Ayoade, Appl. Water Sci. 7, 4449 (2017). doi:10.1007/s13201-017-0590- 9. [40] C. Vasilatos, et al. Hellenic J. Geosci. 43,57(2008). [41] J. Ali, et al., J Mol Liq 291, 111299 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.molliq.2019.111299. [42] A. Abbasnia, et al., Human Ecol. Risk Assess.: Int. J. 25(8), 2098 (2019). 10.1080/ 10807039.2018.1488582. [43] M. Ghaderpoori, et al., Int. J. Pharm. Res. 10 (3), 328 (2018). [44] N. Mirzaei, et al., J. Environ. Chem. Eng., 5 (4), 3151–3160 (2017). doi:10.1016/j. jece.2017.06.008. [45] C. Thoeye, et al. 4 Methods Used for Health Risk Assessment. [46] M. Mirzabeygi, et al., Data Brief 18,40(2018). doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.02.069. [47] S. Praveena and A. Aris, Environ Geochem Health 40, 749 (2018). doi:10.1007/s10653-017- 0021-8. [48] I.B. Koki, et al., Chemosphere 195, 641 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.12.112. [49] USEPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/iris. United States Environmental Protection Agency. [50] J.M.R. Antoine, L.A.H. Fung and C.N. Grant, Toxicol. Rep. 4, 181 (2017). doi:10.1016/j. toxrep.2017.03.006. [51] M. Radfard, et al., Data Brief 21, 1918 (2018). doi:10.1016/j.dib.2018.11.007. [52] U. EPA, Peer Review Draft, OSWER 9355,4(2001). [53] L. Ferreira-Baptista and E. De Miguel, Atmos. Environ. 39, 4501 (2005). doi:10.1016/j. atmosenv.2005.03.026. [54] M. Radfarda, et al., Desalin. Water Treat. 145, 249 (2019). doi:10.5004/dwt.2019.23651. [55] P. Tirkey, et al., Groundwater Sustainable Dev. 5,85(2017). doi:10.1016/j.gsd.2017.05.002. [56] O.G. Onyele and E.D. Anyanwu, African J. Environ. Nat. Sci. Res. 1 (1), 15 (2018). [57] D. Huang, et al., 2010 3rd International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, IEEE, Yantai, China, 2010. doi:10.1109/BMEI.2010.5639276. [58] P. Dutta, MethodsX 4,76(2017). doi:10.1016/j.mex.2017.01.005. [59] A. Mesdaghinia, S. Nasseri and M. Hadi, Iranian J. Health Environ. 9 (3), 347 (2016). [60] M. Ghaderpoori, et al., Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 27 (7), 7588–7595 (2020). doi:10.1007/s11356- 019-07423-w. [61] M.H. Dehghani, et al., Microchem. J. 150, 104135 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.microc.2019.104135. [62] N. Shalyari, et al., MethodsX 6, 1812 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.mex.2019.07.024. [63] W.H. Organization, I.P.o.C. Safety, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (World Health Organization, 1993). https://books.google.be/books?id=MEL1MAAACAAJ. [64] A. Ghani and A. Ghani, H. Botany 2 (1), 9 (2011). [65] W. Slooff, et al., Integrated Criteria Document Chromium. RIVM Rapport 710401002, 1990. [66] M. Pirsaheb, et al., World Appl. Sci. J. 21 (3), 416 (2013). [67] H. Canada, Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document— Enteric Viruses. 2011. [68] R. Rajesh, et al., Environ. Earth Sci. 65(4), 1203 (2012). 10.1007/s12665-011-1368-2. [69] A. Ghasemi, et al., J Middle East Appl. Sci. Technol. 15 (2014). ISSN:2305-0225. [70] A. Ghasemi, M.J. Nematollahi and H. Taghavi Sani, J. Environ. Geol. 10 (34), 1 (2016). [71] W.H. Organization, Volume 2, 281 (1993). [72] A. Kubier, R.T. Wilkin and T. Pichler, Appl. Geochem. 108, 104388 (2019). doi:10.1016/j. apgeochem.2019.104388. [73] A. Maleki, et al., Asian J. Chem. 23 (3), 1373 (2011). [74] M.H. Ehrampoush, et al., J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 13(1), 84 (2015). 10.1186/s40201-015- 0237-4. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 15

[75] World Health Organization, Boron in Drinking-Water: Background Document for Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality (World Health Organization, 2009). https://apps. who.int/iris/handle/10665/70170. [76] E. Nazari, M. Razmara and A. Ghasemi, Study the Indices of Water Resources Contamination in the Kate Talkh Ophiolitic Zone (Northwest of Torbat Heydariyeh, Khorasan Razavi), in The 1st National Conference on Environment, Energy and Biodefense. 2014: Tehran. [77] M. Qasemi, et al., Biol Trace Elem Res 192(2), 106 (2019). 10.1007/s12011-019-1660-7. [78] A. Ebrahimi, et al., Health Sys. Res. 6, 918–926 (2010). [79] H. Rezaei, et al., Toxicol. Environ. Sci. Health. 11(1), 54 (2019). 10.1007/s13530-019-0388-2. [80] Y. Gao, et al., PLoS ONE 7(4), e33982 (2012). 10.1371/journal.pone.0033982. [81] S.H. Hwang, J.B. Park and K.J. Lee, Environ Geochem Health 40, 1237–1246 (2018). doi:10.1007/s10653-017-0039-y. [82] K. Sharaﬁ, et al., Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 176,64(2019). doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.03.072. [83] M. Ghoochani, et al., Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 26 (23), 24190–24197 (2019). doi:10.1007/ s11356-019-05778-8.

View publication stats