Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14249/eia.2016.25.6.414

Comparison of Human Health Risk Assessment of Heavy Metal Contamination from Two Abandoned Metal Mines Using Metal Mine-specific Exposure Parameters  

Lim, Tae-Yong (Department of Geology and Research Institute of Natural Science(RINS), Gyeongsang National University(GNU))
Lee, Sang-Woo (Department of Geology and Research Institute of Natural Science(RINS), Gyeongsang National University(GNU))
Cho, Hyen Goo (Department of Geology and Research Institute of Natural Science(RINS), Gyeongsang National University(GNU))
Kim, Soon-Oh (Department of Geology and Research Institute of Natural Science(RINS), Gyeongsang National University(GNU))
Publication Information
Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment / v.25, no.6, 2016 , pp. 414-431 More about this Journal
Abstract
There are numerous closed and abandoned mines in Korea, from which diverse heavy metals (e.g., As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn) are released into the surrounding soil, groundwater, surface water, and crops, potentially resulting in detrimental effects on the health of nearby residents. Therefore, we performed human risk assessments of two abandoned metal mines, Yanggok (YG) and Samsanjeil (SJ). The exposure parameters used in this assessment were specific to residents near mines and the included exposure pathways were relevant to areas around metal mines. The computed total excess carcinogenic risks for both areas exceeded the acceptable carcinogenic risk ($1{\times}10^{-6}$), indicating that these areas are likely unsafe due to a carcinogenic hazard. In contrast, the non-carcinogenic risks of the two areas differed among the studied receptors. The hazard indices were higher than the unit risk (=1.0) for male and female adults in YG and male adults in SJ, suggesting that there are non-carcinogenic risks for these groups in the study areas. However, the hazard indices for children in YG and female adults and children in SJ were lower than the unit risk. Consumption of groundwater and crops grown in the area were identified as major exposure pathways for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic hazards in both areas. Finally, the dominant metals contributing to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks were As and As, Cu, and Pb, respectively. In addition, the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks of YG were evaluated to be 10 and 4 times higher than those of SJ, respectively, resulted from the relatively higher exposure concentration of As in groundwater within SJ area. Because of lacking of several exposure parameters, some of average daily dose (ADD) could not be computed in this study. Furthermore, it is likely that the ADDs of crop-intake pathway included some errors because they were calculated using soil exposure concentrations and bioconcentration factor (BCF) rather than using crop exposure concentrations.
Keywords
human risk assessment; abandoned metal mines; heavy metal contamination; carcinogenic risk; non-carcinogenic risk;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 6  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Hwang EH, Wee SM, Lee PK, Choi SH. 2000. A study on the heavy metal contamination of paddy soil in the vicinity of the seosung Pb-Zn mine. J Soil Groundw Environ. 5(2): 67-85. [Korean Literature]
2 Jung MC, Jung MY. 2006. Evaluation and management method of environmental contamination from abandoned metal mines in Korea. J Korean Soc Mineral Energy Res. 43(5): 383-394. [Korean Literature]
3 Kim JY, Lee JH, Kunhikrishnan A, Kang DW, Kim MJ, Yoo JH, Kim DH, Lee YJ. Transfer factor of heavy metals from agricultural soil to agricultural products. Korean J Environ Agric. 31(4): 300-307. [Korean Literature]   DOI
4 Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS). 2013. KOSIS 100 indices. http://kosis.kr/nsportalStats/nsportalStats_0102Body.jsp?menuId=6&NUM=156. [Korean Literature]
5 Lee JY. 2005. A study on the body surface area of Korean adults. Ph.D Thesis. Seoul National University, Korea. [Korean Literature]
6 Lee JS, Kwon HH, Shim YS, Kim TH. 2007. Risk assessment of heavy metals in the vicinity of the abandoned metal mine areas. J Soil Groundw Environ. 12(1): 97-102. [Korean Literature]
7 Lee JS, Kim YN, Kim KH. 2010. Suitability assessment for agriculture of soils adjacent to abandoned mining areas using different human risk assessment models. Korean J Soil Sci Fert. 43(5): 674-683. [Korean Literature]
8 Ministry of Environment (ME). 2004. Investigation of soil contamination in abandoned mine. [Korean Literature]
9 Ministry of Environment (ME). 2005. Investigation of soil contamination in abandoned mine. [Korean Literature]
10 Ministry of Environment (ME). 2006. Guidelines for risk assessment of soil contaminants. [Korean Literature]
11 Ministry of Environment (ME). 2007. Korean exposure factor handbook. [Korean Literature]
12 National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2007. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
13 National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2008. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
14 National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2009. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
15 National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2010. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
16 National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER). 2011. Investigation of health effect on inhabitants around abandoned metal mines. [Korean Literature]
17 National Environment Protection Council (NEPC). 1999. Guideline on exposure scenarios and exposure Setting.
18 Research for Nana and Environment (RIVM). 2001. Evaluation and Revision of the CSOIL Parameter Set: Proposed parameter set for human exposure modelling and deriving intervention values for the first series of compounds.
19 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1989. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part A)
20 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1991a. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part B, Development of risk-based preliminary remediation goals)
21 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2004. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part E, Supplemental guidance for dermal risk assessment)
22 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1991b. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part C, Risk evaluation of remedial alternatives)
23 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1996. Soil screening guidance: Technical background document.
24 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1997. Exposure factor handbook.
25 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2001a. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part D, Standardized planning, reporting, and review of superfund risk assessments)
26 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2001b. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume III: Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment (Part A)
27 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part F, Supplemental guidance for inhalation risk assessment)
28 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA in california). 2009. Technical support document for cancer protency Factors.
29 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2011. Exposure factor handbook: 2011 edition.
30 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1992. Dermal exposure assessment: Principles and applications.
31 Choi JW, Yoo KJ, Koo MS, Park JH. 2012. Comparison of heavy metal pollutant exposure and risk assessments in an abandoned mine site. KSCE J Civil Engineers. 32(4B): 261-266. [Korean Literature]
32 An YJ, Baek YW, Lee WM, Jeong SW, Kim TS. 2007. Comparative study of soil risk assessment models used in developed countries. J Soil Groundw Environ. 12(1): 53-63. [Korean Literature]
33 Brand E, Otte PF, Lijzen JPA. 2007. CSOIL 2000: an exposure model for human risk assessment of soil contamination(A model description).
34 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2006. A protocol for derivation of environmental and human health.
35 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Environmental Agency (EA). 2002. The contaminated land exposure assessment model (CLEA): Technical basis and algorithms.
36 Environmental Agency (EA), 2005, CLEA UK Handbook (Draft): Support document for the CLEA UK software Beta Version 1.0
37 Health Canada. 2007. Federal contaminated site risk assessment in Canada. Part I: Guidance on human health preliminary quantitative risk assessment.