Health Risk Assessment Model of Drinking Water Sources Based on Combination of Bayesian and Triangle Fuzzy Number

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weijian Ran ◽  
Xin Tian ◽  
Yumin Wang
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Drinking Water ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Health Risk Assessment ◽  
Fuzzy Number ◽  
Water Sources ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Assessment Model ◽  
Drinking Water Sources

Co-occurrence, possible origin, and health-risk assessment of arsenic and fluoride in drinking water sources in Mexico: Geographical data visualization

2020 ◽  
Vol 698 ◽  
pp. 134168 ◽  
Author(s):  
María T. Alarcón-Herrera ◽  
Daniel A. Martin-Alarcon ◽  
Mélida Gutiérrez ◽  
Liliana Reynoso-Cuevas ◽  
Alejandra Martín-Domínguez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Drinking Water ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Data Visualization ◽  
Health Risk Assessment ◽  
Water Sources ◽  
Geographical Data ◽  
Drinking Water Sources

Health risk assessment of phthalate esters (PAEs) in drinking water sources of China

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 3620-3630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Long Wang ◽  
Qian-Yuan Wu ◽  
Chao Wang ◽  
Tao He ◽  
Hong-Ying Hu
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Drinking Water ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Health Risk Assessment ◽  
Phthalate Esters ◽  
Water Sources ◽  
Drinking Water Sources

scholarly journals Water Quality Pollutants and Health Risk assessment for Four Different Drinking Water Sources

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 03004
Author(s):  
Miaomiao Tian ◽  
Wenzhao Li ◽  
Meijuan Ruan ◽  
Jing Wei ◽  
Weiwei Ma
Keyword(s):  
Water Quality ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Drinking Water ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Health Risk Assessment ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Risk Assessment Model ◽  
Acceptable Risk

Drinking water quality has become a great concern to the whole society, especially in heavily polluted rural areas. This paper analyzes the water quality of 100 water supping the US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) recommended health risk assessment model. The results showed that the microbial indicators exceeded the standard in the whole year, and some of the water supply units which lead, nitrated and dissolved solids exceeding the standard. The model recommended by EPA is applied to establish risk assessment model for health risk assessment of adults in wet and dry seasons, respectively. Results of HRA indicated that carcinogenic risk of chromium was 7.61E-05a-1 and the risk value of arsenic was 9.92E-06a-1 which exceed the maximum acceptable risk level recommended by USEPA 5.0×10-5 closely to the ICPR recommendation 1.0×10-6. Meanwhile we conduct health risk assessment (HRA) on relevant non-carcinogenic indicators: nitrate is 2.95E-09a-1, the risk value of fluoride (F) is 2.49E-09a-1, the risk value of lead is 2.39E-09a-1 and copper (Cu) 9.00E-10a-1 exceeds the maximum acceptable risk level risk value recommended by USEPA 1.0×10-9. The above indicators require priority control and management of pollutants that are prioritized and managed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document