ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

[Results of health risk assessment due to exposure to contaminants in drinking water in Russia population (review of literature)]

Authors:
  • Ministry of Health Russian Federation, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow,Russia Federation

Abstract

With the purpose of the analysis of general trends in the development of risk assessment methodology in Russia the results obtained with the her help, as well as existing methodological problems, there was performed a review of 68 published works concerning the assessment of the health risk for population under the exposure to chemicals in drinking water carried out in 42 cities and regions of the country. There was made the grouping of Russian cities on individual carcinogenic risk level and ranking on the values for the population carcinogenic risk. A list of prioritized carcinogens in tap water has been made. By the values of the risk indices to adverse effects of chemicals tap water there are exposed central nervous system, kidneys, liver, skin and mucous membranes, blood, bone, immune system, hormone homeostasis, blood circulation and digestion organs. There are identified methodological problems leading to an underestimation of the actual risk to public health under exposure of chemicals in drinking water: there are no used regional and age differences in exposure factors, virtually there is no assessed health risk for children population; there is ignored age sensitivity to carcinogens, there is rarely estimated exposure for all the real exposing routes of income and there are no carried out risk calculations at the upper limit (90- 95th percentile) of the exposure.
19



Т.Н. Унгуряну1, С.М. Новиков2





С целью анализа общих тенденций в развитии методологии оценки риска в России, полученных с ее помощью
результатов, а также существующих методических проблем проведен обзор 68 опубликованных работ по
оценке риска здоровью населения при воздействии химических веществ питьевой воды, выполненных в 42 го-
родах и областях страны. Выполнена группировка городов России по уровню индивидуального канцерогенного
риска и ранжирование по значениям популяционного канцерогенного риска. Составлен список приоритетных
канцерогенов водопроводной воды. По значениям индексов опасности неблагоприятному действию химиче-
ских веществ водопроводной воды подвергаются центральная нервная система, почки, печень, кожа и сли-
зистые оболочки, кровеносная, костная, иммунная системы, гормональный обмен, органы кровообращения и
пищеварения.
Выявлены методические проблемы, приводящие к недооценке фактического риска здоровью населения при
воздействии химических веществ питьевой воды: не используются региональные и возрастные различия в
факторах экспозиции; практически не оценивается риск здоровью детского населения; не учитывается воз-
растная чувствительность к канцерогенам; редко оценивается экспозиция для всех реально воздействующих
путей поступления и не проводятся расчеты риска на уровне верхней границы (90-95-й процентиль) экспо-
зиции.
 риск здоровью; питьевая вода.
T. N. Unguryanu1, S. M. Novikov2 – RESULTS OF HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT DUE TO ExPOSURE TO
CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING wATER IN RUSSIA POPULATION (REVIEw OF LITERATURE)
1Directorate of the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights protection and Human Welfare in the Arkhangelsk
region, Arkhangelsk, Russian Federation, 163000; 2A. N. Sysin Research Institute of Human Ecology and Environmental
Health, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119121
With the purpose of the analysis of general trends in the development of risk assessment methodology in Russia the
results obtained with the her help, as well as existing methodological problems, there was performed a review of
68 published works concerning the assessment of the health risk for population under the exposure to chemicals in
drinking water, carried out in 42 cities and regions of the country. There was made the grouping of Russian cities on
individual carcinogenic risk level and ranking on the values for the population carcinogenic risk. A list of prioritized
carcinogens in tap water has been made. By the values of the risk indices to adverse effects of chemicals tap water
there are exposed central nervous system, kidneys, liver, skin and mucous membranes, blood, bone, immune system,
hormone homeostasis, blood circulation and digestion organs. There are identied methodological problems leading
to an underestimation of the actual risk to public health under exposure of chemicals in drinking water: there are no
used regional and age differences in exposure factors, virtually there is no assessed health risk for children population;
there is ignored age sensitivity to carcinogens, there is rarely estimated exposure for all the real exposing routes of
income and there are no carried out risk calculations at the upper limit (90- 95th percentile ) of the exposure.
Key words: health risk; drinking water.
  Новиков Сергей Михайлович, no-
viksergmail.ru

     -
    -

-
     
    -
 -




      

-
-

    -
       -
    -
        
    
-
-


20
  
      -
-
     

  
-
   

      -
-
      -
    
     -
 

   -



  -
     
-
      


-

      

    -


-
-


       -
-
 
-
 
-
-

-

  -

    
  -
-
),
      
-

     
-

   
-
-





).
     -
      
 


    -
-

      -
 

-


-
   
     

      -
    
      


 -
-
-

-
    
     
     -

   -
   -
    
      -

      
    
-
      -
 -
      
      

-
   
 
-
     -


   
-


      -
    
     
    
-

    -

21
     

      -
      
    
      -

    
        
       
-
-


-
-





 -
  
     
      

   




 
-


   



-
    
     
-
-
     -
     


     
      
    -
       
-
     
     
-

-
     
-
 

    
-
 
 -
-

  -

Индивидуальный канцерогенный риск более 1×10-3
[1,01×10-3–1,4×10-2]
 -
 
  
  
 
 
Индивидуальный канцерогенный риск 1×10-4–1×10-3
[1×10-4–7,9×10-4]
  
 -
 

 
 
  
 
 
  

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
Индивидуальный канцерогенный риск 1×10-5–1×10-4
[1,08×10-5–9,6×10-5]
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  

  

 
 


 
 
 -
 
 
 
22


     
      
  -


-

       -

-


-


 
     -

-

    

      
  -
-
-

      
     
 
-

       


        
 -
-

. Вахрамеева И.Н., Адулова Ф.Х., Климова Л.В., Иванова Е.А.,
Мясоедова Г.Н., Павилич Е.Б.  -
      
      -

 Омариева Э.Я., Османов Р.О., Кайдарова З.Ш. -
    
       

     
-
-

Клейн С.В.     
-

-
 

Болдырева В.В., Михайлова А.Я., Николаев Д.И.-
       
      -

Игнатьева Л.П., Погорелова И.Г., Потапова М.О. -
 
    
 

 Маймулов В.Г., Лимин Б.В., Карлова Т.В., Скальный А.В., Чер-
някина Т.С., Кузнецова И.А     


Кузнецова И.А., Фигурина Т.Я., Шадрина С.Ю-



Осипова Г.М., Горячев А.В., Хайданова Е.В.-
      


Зайцева Н.В., Шур П.З., Май И.В., Сбоев А.С., Волк-Леонович
О.П., Нурисламова Т.В.   
  
    

Савельев С.И., Голованова Е.А., Коротков В.В., Нахичеван-
ская Н.В.-
-


    -

Тихомиров Ю.П., Грачева М.П., Бадеева Т.В., Леонов А.В.,
Богомолова Е.С., Филиппова Л.Б., Липшиц Д.А. -
      
   -

Басов М.О., Басова О.М.   
      
    -
      

     
-
-

Быстpых В.В. 

Коньшина Л.Г., Сергеева М.В., Липанова Л.Л., Солонин А.В.
    
-

Шашина Т.А., Новиков С.М., Козлов А.В., Кислицин В.А.,
Скворцова Н.С.-
    -

Карлова Т.В.     -
-
-
 
     



Бастраков С.И., Николаев А.П.   
-


Гасилин В.В., Ахтямова Л.А., Меркулова Л.Ю., Айзатуллин
А.А., Айзатуллина Л.М., Тимбербулатова Г.А.

-

23

    -

Сергеева М.В., Якушева М.Ю.-
-

Чеботарькова С.А.   
    -
       

Унгуряну Т.Н.


Суржиков В.Д., Суржиков Д.В.
-
-

Хмелёв В.А.   
      -
-

Коваленко А.И., Пахомова Т.Н., Зайкова М.В., Курочкин А.Н.,
Басалаев Р.С., Лобанова Ю.С.  -
-


Фридман К.Б., Лим Т.Е., Воецкий И.А.
   
  
-
-
     

Боев В.М., Куксанов В.Ф., Быстрых В.В.-
-

Ананьев В.Ю., Кайсарова Н.А., Кику П.Ф., Измайлова О.А.,
Трунова И.Е.      -


Брусенцова А.В., Резанова Н.В., Никитин С.В., Федоров А.С.,
Овчинникова Е.Л.     
-
-


    -

Турбинский В.В., Маслюк А.И.
 

Халфина Р.Р., Нафикова Г.Р., Байкина И.М., Давлетнуров
Н.Х., Степанов Е.Г.  -
     -
        -
      

     -

Степкин Ю.И., Клепиков О.В., Колнет И.В.  
     -
   

-
-

 Бондарев В.А., Нахичеванская Н.В., Полякова М.Ф., Юрьев Г.А.,
Кирдей Д.Г.  
      
        
     

     

Трунова И.Е., Ананьев В.Ю., Кику П.Ф., Жигаев Д.С.

      -
    

    -

Маймулов В.Г., Нагорный С.В., Пацюк Н.А., Петрашевич
В.А., Чернякин Т.С., Суворова А.В. 
-


-
-

Кручинин А.А., Ашитко А.Г., Любутская Е.В.-
      
     
 
-
-
   


Сетко А.Г., Вяльцина Н.Е.-
      
     

Трунова И.Е., Ананьев В.Ю., Кику П.Ф., Жигаев Д.С.
-
-

-
 -



References

     

 Vakhrameeva I.N., Adulova F.Kh., Klimova L.V., Ivanova E.A., Mya-
soedova G.N., Pavilich E.B. et al. Some aspects of drinking water
-

Omarieva E.Ya., Osmanov R.O., Kaydarova Z.Sh. Hygienic as-
sessment of water supply of the Tersko-Kumskogo basin in Dag-

    
zdorov’yu naseleniya v promyshlenno razvitykh regionakh.

Kleyn S.V. About organization of social-hygienic monitoring of
drinking water in regional level. In: Gigienicheskie i mediko-
    

Boldyreva V.V., Mikhaylova A.Ya., Nikolaev D.I. Health cancer


(in Russian)
Ignat’eva L.P., Pogorelova I.G., Potapova M.O. Hygienic assess-
ment cancer and non-cancer risk by oral drinking water chemical

24
Maymulov V.G., Limin B.V., Karlova T.V., Skal’nyy A.V., Chernya-
kina T.S., Kuznetsova I.A. et al. Measure system for prevention
and decreasing of new cases ecological diseases. Gigiena i sani-

Kuznetsova I.A., Figurina T.I., Shadrina S.Yu.
safe drinking water for population with using a risk assessment


Osipova G.M., Goryachev A.V., Khaydanova E.V. Studying the
assessment of drinking water quality and morbidity of popula-
-

Zaytseva N.V., Shur P.Z., May I.V., Sboev A.S., Volk-Leonovich
O.P., Nurislamova T.V. Complex problems of health risk

         
Russian)
Savel’ev S.I., Golovanova E.A., Korotkov V.V., Nakhichevanskaya
N.V. Using risk assessment methodology for hygienic assessment
of drinking water supply. In: Gigienicheskie i mediko-
    

Tikhomirov Yu.P., Gracheva M.P., Badeeva T.V., Leonov A.V., Bo-
gomolova E.S., Filippova L.B., Lipshits D.A. Using risk assessment
methodology in regional system of social-hygienic monitoring.

Basov M.O., Basova O.M. Experience of using health risk assess-
ment methodology as an instrument of social-hygienic monitoring


riskami zdorov’yu naseleniya v promyshlenno razvitykh region-



Kon’shina L.G., Sergeeva M.V., Lipanova L.L., Solonin A.V.
Health risk assessment of environmental pollution in city Orsk.

Shashina T.A., Novikov S.M., Kozlov A.V., Kislitsin V.A., Skvorts-
ova N.S. Health risk assessment due to exposure of aluminum

Karlova T.V. Identifying of priority risk factors of ambient air
and drinking water pollution in towns of the Russian Federation.
       
prikladnye aspekty analiza riska zdorov’yu naseleniya. Perm:

Bastrakov S.I., Nikolaev A.P. Assessment of drinking water quali-

  
(in Russian)
Gasilin V.V., Akhtyamova L.A., Merkulova L.Yu., Ayzatullin A.A.,
Ayzatullina L.M., Timberbulatova G.A. Multimedia health risk
assessment for population in zone with a big chemical enterprise.
-
       
Russian)
Sergeeva M.V., Yakusheva M.Yu. Health risk assessment due to
environmental exposure in municipal level. Gigiena i sanitariya.

Chebotar’kova S.A. Using of risk assessment methodology for
       

Unguryanu T.N. Health risk assessment for integrated exposure
of chemical contaminants in tap water. Ekologiya cheloveka.

 Surzhikov V.D., Surzhikov D.V. Health risk assessment and manage-
ment due to multicomponent environmental pollution in big center

Khmelev V.A. Complex characteristics of cancer risk due to ex-
  -

Russian)
 Kovalenko A.I., Pakhomova T.N., Zaykova M.V., Kurochkin A.N.,
Basalaev R.S., Lobanova Yu.S. Results of environment monitor-


(in Russian)
Fridman K.B., Lim T.E., Voetskiy I.A. Results of health risk as-
sessment due to tap water contaminants in Saint-Petersburg. In:
-
-
sian)
Boev V.M., Kuksanov V.F., Bystrykh V.V. Regional features of
cancer risk in agro-industrial region of the South Ural. Gigiena i

Anan’ev V.Yu., Kaysarova N.A., Kiku P.F., Izmaylova O.A.,
Trunova I.E. Risk assessment of chemical contaminants of food
      

Brusentsova A.V., Rezanova N.V., Nikitin S.V., Fedorov A.S.,
Ovchinnikova E.L. Integrated health risk assessment due to
       
    

Turbinskiy V.V., Maslyuk A.I. Risk for population health due to
  

Khalna R.R., Nakova G.R., Baykina I.M., Davletnurov N.Kh.,
Stepanov E.G. Cancer and non-cancer risk assessment for popu-
lation health in Tuimazy town. In: Onishchenko G.G., Zaytseva
       
       

Stepkin Yu.I., Klepikov O.V., Kolnet I.V. Health risk assessment
due to environmental chemicals in industrial city. In: Rakhmanin
-

Bondarev V.A., Nakhichevanskaya N.V., Polyakova M.F., Yur’ev
G.A., Kirdey D.G. Ecological features of child health disorders
due to tap water pollution in Zadonskof the Lipezk region. In:
      
prikladnye aspekty analiza riska zdorov’yu naseleniya. Perm:

Trunova I.E., Anan’ev V.Yu., Kiku P.F., Zhigaev D.S. Health risk
assessment due to tap water chemicals in the Primorskiji krai. In:


Maymulov V.G., Nagornyy S.V., Patsyuk N.A., Petrashevich V.A.,
Chernyakin T.S., Suvorova A.V. Environment and child health in
 -
ka, gigiena i meditsina okruzhayushchey sredy na rubezhe vek-
  
(in Russian)
Kruchinin A.A., Ashitko A.G., Lyubutskaya E.V.  
and non-cancer risk due to oral exposure of tap water chemicals
  
Fundamental’nye i prikladnye aspekty analiza riska zdorov’yu
        
Russian)
Setko A.G., Vyal’tsina N.E. Environmental exposure on children
in the urban and rural territories of the Orenburg region. Gigiena

Trunova I.E., Anan’ev V.Yu., Kiku P.F., Zhigaev D.S. Health risk as-
sessment due to exposure of non-central water supply chemicals in


riskami zdorov’yu naseleniya v promyshlenno razvitykh region-


... Проблема обеспечения населения питьевой водой, соответствующей всем гигиеническим требованиям, приобретает большую значимость на территориях с добычей, подготовкой и транспортировкой нефти [1,2]. Это обусловлено тем, что на таких территориях водоисточники, предназначенные для хозяйственно-питьевых целей, не соответствуют гигиеническим нормативам по ряду показателей, таких как жесткость, марганец, железо, медь, хром, свинец, кадмий и т.д. ...
... В процессе эксплуатации нефтяных месторождений происходит нарушение герметичности водоносных горизонтов и попадание многих токсичных соединений в подземные и поверхностные водные объекты. Таким образом, ухудшается качество вод, предназначенных для хозяйственно-питьевых целей [1][2][3][4]. Так, на территориях Ханты-Мансийского автономного округа -Югры [5] в районах с нефтяными месторождениями питьевая вода не соответствует установленным гигиеническим требованиям. В воде отдельных районов обнаруживаются соединения с превышением ПДК: нефтепродуктов (до 2,4 раза), хлоридов (до 3,9 раза), бромидов (до 2,2 раза), свинца (до 2 раз), кадмия (до 3 раз). ...
Article
Providing population with drinking water conforming to all hygienic standards is a pressing issue on territories where oil fields are located. In our research we focus on assessing water supply sources located in areas with oil fields and health risks for people who consume water from centralized water supply systems aimed at providing drinking water and water for communal use. Our research goal was to hygienically assess health risks for people living in areas where oil fields were located in Bashkortostan; these health risks were caused by people consuming water from centralized water supply systems. Our analysis was based on data obtained via laboratory research performed by «Bashkommunvodokanal» water supply facility and Bashkortostan Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology; the data were collected in 2016–2018 in Chishminskiy and Dablekanovskiy districts. Risks associated with drinking water quality were assessed taking into account all the requirements fixed in the Guide R 2.1.10.1920-04. Organoleptic risks related to water olfactory-reflex properties were assessed according to procedures fixed in the Methodical Guidelines MR 2.1.4.0032-11. Overall carcinogenic health risk assessed in Chishminskiy and Davlekanovskiy districts was higher than maximum permissible level due to chromium6+, DDT, lindane and arsenic detected in drinking water. Population carcinogenic risks amounted to 7 additional cases for people who consumed water supplied via water intake in Alkino-2 settlement; 69 additional cases, Isaakovskiy water intake; 76 additional cases, Kirzavodskoy water intake. Results obtained via non-carcinogenic risk assessment performed for all examined territories indicate that diseases might occur in the hormonal system (HQ =3.04–4.56), liver (HQ =2.3–3.83), and kidneys (HQ =1.47–2.45). The highest non-carcinogenic risks were detected for people who took water from Kirzavodskoy water intake in Davlekanovskiy district. We also detected unacceptable organoleptic risk (higher than 0.1) caused by excessive water hardness in Chishminskiy district. All the obtained results call for developing and implementing a set of activities aimed at reducing health risks for population.
... Providing population with drinking water that meets all hygienic requirements is of vital importance in areas with oil extraction, treatment and transportation [1,2]. This is due to the fact that in these areas water intended for communal use and drinking does not meet hygienic standards [2,3] as per a number of factors, such as hardness, manganese, iron, copper, chromium, lead, cadmium concentrations, etc. ...
... When oil fields are exploited, aquifers are known to be adversely affected and many toxicants penetrate into ground and surface water objects. Thus, the quality of the water used for communal needs and drinking deteriorates [1][2][3][4]. For example, in the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug -Yugra [5], in areas with oil fields, drinking water does not meet the established hygienic requirements. ...
Article
Full-text available
Providing population with drinking water conforming to all hygienic standards is a pressing issue on territories where oil fields are located. In our research we focus on assessing water supply sources located in areas with oil fields and health risks for people who consume water from centralized water supply systems aimed at providing drinking water and water for communal use. Our research goal was to hygienically assess health risks for people living in areas where oil fields were located in Bashkortostan; these health risks were caused by people consuming water from centralized water supply systems. Our analysis was based on data obtained via laboratory research performed by «Bashkommunvodokanal» water supply facility and Bashkortostan Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology; the data were collected in 2016–2018 in Chishminskiy and Dablekanovskiy districts. Risks associated with drinking water quality were assessed taking into account all the requirements fixed in the Guide R 2.1.10.1920-04. Organoleptic risks related to water olfactory-reflex properties were assessed according to procedures fixed in the Methodical Guidelines MR 2.1.4.0032-11. Overall carcinogenic health risk assessed in Chishminskiy and Davlekanovskiy districts was higher than maximum permissible level due to chromium6+, DDT, lindane and arsenic detected in drinking water. Population carcinogenic risks amounted to 7 additional cases for people who consumed water supplied via water intake in Alkino-2 settlement; 69 additional cases, Isaakovskiy water intake; 76 additional cases, Kirzavodskoy water intake. Results obtained via non-carcinogenic risk assessment performed for all examined territories indicate that diseases might occur in the hormonal system (HQ =3.04–4.56), liver (HQ =2.3–3.83), and kidneys (HQ =1.47–2.45). The highest non-carcinogenic risks were detected for people who took water from Kirzavodskoy water intake in Davlekanovskiy district. We also detected unacceptable organoleptic risk (higher than 0.1) caused by excessive water hardness in Chishminskiy district. All the obtained results call for developing and implementing a set of activities aimed at reducing health risks for population.
... К системам человека, испытывающим наибольшее токсическое воздействие от химических веществ, содержащихся в питьевой воде, относятся иммунная, пищеварительная, сердечно-сосудистая, эндокринная, нервная системы, кожные и слизистые покровы. Длительное употребление питьевой воды с концентрациями химических веществ, превышающими гигиенические нормативы, ока-зывает неблагоприятное влияние на здоровье населения в целом и особенно детского [4][5][6]. Предупреждение вредного воздействия на человека факторов среды обитания -одна из приоритетных задач, решение которой должно основываться на проведении специальных санитарно-эпидемиологических расследований, установлении причинно-следственных связей между состоянием здоровья и средой обитания человека [6,7]. ...
... Главным инструментом гигиенической оценки и прогнозирования вредного воздействия факторов среды обитания является методология оценки риска для здоровья человека [8][9][10][11]. Оценка опасности для здоровья человека химического загрязнения питьевой воды основывается на расчете канцерогенного и неканцерогенного риска приоритетных загрязнителей и проводится в соответствии с нормативными документами 2,5,7,8 . ...
Article
Introduction: As the most important environmental factor having multiple effects on human vital activities and health, drinking water often becomes the subject of predicting adverse health effects. With the purpose of establishing quantitative and/or qualitative characteristics of harmful effects of drinking water chemicals for human health, an integral assessment of drinking water quality with subsequent health risk assessment is carried out. It is based on estimating the risk posed by chronic (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic) exposures that shows probability of developing a disease. Results: Practical activities of departments and institutions of the Federal Service for Surveillance in the Sphere of Consumers Rights and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor) on assessing health effects of environmental factors have demonstrated that, even in concentrations equaling their detection limits in quite a number of test methods, most chemical water pollutants pose unacceptable carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks both for the general population and occupational cohorts. Thus, the results of some laboratory methods of testing are inappropriate for an objective human health risk assessment. Conclusions: We describe criteria for selecting methods of the quantitative chemical analysis of drinking water fit for the purposes of sanitary and epidemiologic expert examination combined with a population health risk assessment. The criteria of choice have been elaborated based on the review of regulatory and method documents and results of analytical testing of drinking water quality.
... The water samples showed slightly higher salts concentrations (EC and TDS), with EC value of 1.24, 1.79, and 2.21 dS m −1 in three respective areas, while TDS = 611 mg L −1 in Taunsa. The EC value in 25% of the samples surpassed the WHO safe limit value for drinking water, and elevated levels can disturb the mucous membrane in humans [31]. All the other parameters under study were found to be within the limits prescribed by WHO (Table 3). ...
Article
Full-text available
We investigated the quality of drinking water and its possible effects on human health in the Dera Ghazi Khan (D. G. Khan) district of Pakistan. Samples were collected from three tehsils of the D. G. Khan district, namely D. G. Khan, Kot Chutta, and Taunsa. A total of 50 samples (n = 50) were collected from the study area using standard procedures. The pH of the water samples ranged from 6.52–8.75, EC 0.31–9.78 dS m⁻¹, and TDS 105–985 mg L⁻¹. The bacterial analysis showed that 9 out of 50 samples (18%) contained pathogenic E. coli bacterial. The results showed that the pH and EC values of some sampling sites exceeded the WHO guidelines for drinking water. It was observed that the pH of only 1 sample, and the EC of 18 samples in D. G. Khan—5 in Kot Chutta and 16 in Tehsil Taunsa—exceeded the WHO guidelines. In terms of E. coli presence and related diseases (hepatitis A, B, and C), we collected data, which were screened and belonged to the sampling sites, from 1378 patients receiving treatment related to hepatitis A, B, and C. It was revealed that 530 patients belonged to the D. G. Khan site, followed by Taunsa (460), and Kot Chutta (388). Based on the results, it was concluded that the quality of drinking water samples generally was good, except for 6% of the samples, assessed using (SAR) and Kelly’s ratio (KR), and 9 sites were positive for E. coli.
... Унгуряну и С.М. Новиков, основываясь на результатах метаисследования публикаций, посвященных оценке рисков здоровью, обусловленных пероральным поступлением загрязнителей, отмечают необходимость исследования достаточно широкого перечня токсикантов: щелочных, щелочноземельных и тяжелых металлов [13]. Особое внимание при контроле качества высокоминерализованной питьевой воды волгоградского Заволжья необходимо обратить на неорганические вещества, вносящие наибольший вклад в общую минерализацию подземных вод: хлориды, сульфаты, кальций, магний, калий и натрий. ...
Article
Full-text available
In modern conditions, health risk assessment activities have become the leading direction in the analysis of potential threats to the health of the population living on the territory of a certain hydrogeochemical province. Based on the analysis of the reporting documentation of state reports in the field of consumer protection and human well-being, as well as ecology and natural resources of the Volgograd region, a priority list of pollutants was selected, due to the chemical nature of the aquifers of the Volgograd Trans-Volga region. The health risk assessment was carried out on the basis of 19 samples taken from non-centralized water supply sources in the Elton rural settlement using the methodology presented in P 2.1.10.1920-04. In this study, for the first time for groundwater in the Volgograd region, a risk-based approach was applied to assess the effect of dissolved toxicants on the health status of the population. The greatest contribution to the formation of a non-carcinogenic risk to the health of adults and children is made by oral exposure to sodium and nitrates. The cardiovascular system is the main critical system that is jointly affected by these toxicants. The total risk of non-carcinogenic hazard (HI) was HI = 0.5262 for adults and 1.2366 for children (taking into account standard exposure factors). The excess of the maximum permissible concentrations of the most significant in the formation of an unfavorable sanitary and ecological situation is primarily due to the geochemical nature of sodium-chloride-sulfate underground waters in the southeast of the Volgograd region, as well as irrational agriculture and the lack of zones of sanitary protection of water sources. The identified risks should be taken into account when exploring new groundwater resources and organizing water supply systems on the territory of the Elton rural settlement. The data obtained are planned to be used in the development of recommendations for the procedure for organizing water treatment in remote arid regions of the Volgograd region in the context of determining priority treatment facilities for sources of non-centralized water supply. Prospects for further research are related to the determination of carcinogenic risks formed by natural heavy metals and agricultural toxins associated with irrational agriculture.
Article
Full-text available
The research presents characteristics of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic inhalation and aquatic chemical risk caused by chemical pollutants of atmospheric air and drinking water exposure to the health of the population of the Arctic city of Salekhard. It has been established that carcinogenic risks with inhalation exposure to chromium, soot and formaldehyde as well as with oral exposure to cadmium, beryllium, lead and hexavalent chromium correspond to the upper limit of the acceptable risk and are subject to constant monitoring. The risk of oral exposure to arsenic needs to be minimized through the development and implementation of additional health measures. The calculated indices of non-carcinogenic risk for inhalation and oral exposure, not exceeding 1.0, that shows a low probability of adverse effects from critical organs / systems.
Article
Introduction. The state of drinking water supplied to consumers through centralized water supply systems is an important factor affecting health. The study aims to assess the risk to the health of the population of an industrial city associated with the content of chemicals in tap water. Materials and methods. Scientists conducted a study in Novokuznetsk, Kemerovo region, which is a major industrial center of Siberia. They analyzed the average annual values of chemical, microbiological and parasitological indicators of surface waters at the intake gates, as well as the results of studies of drinking water samples. The authors also assessed non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risks to public health associated with contamination of tap water. Results. The surface water supplied to the consumers of Novokuznetsk is taken from the Tom River by the Dragoon and Left-Bank water intakes. The main pollutants of water in the intake gates are suspended solids, iron, common coliform bacteria, thermotolerant coliform bacteria and coliphages. The most dangerous impurities contained in drinking water are silicon, chloroform, bromodichloromethane, boron and formaldehyde. The risk of immediate action associated with contamination of drinking water for the city's population was 0.903, which significantly exceeds the acceptable level (0.05). We identified the risk of chronic intoxication associated with water pollution at the level of 0.0176, which does not exceed the permissible level (0.02). The risk of oncological morbidity associated with the content of carcinogenic substances in drinking water was 1.41×10–5, which is 1.41 times higher than the permissible risk (1×10–5). Limitations. The limitations of the study were to conduct only an assessment of the health risk from the effects of chemicals. Conclusion. The probability of occurrence of environmentally caused diseases persists at concentrations of pollutants in drinking water at a level below the accepted hygienic standards. Ethics. This study did not require the conclusion of the Ethics Committee.
Article
Background. Implementation of the Federal Clean Water Project within the National Housing and Urban Environment Project was based on the results of numerous health studies conducted within the framework of functioning of the interdepartmental system of public health monitoring and introduction of the risk-based approach into sanitary and epidemiological surveillance. In this regard, there was a need to develop a comprehensive approach to securing safety of drinking and recreational water use and assessing efficiency of implemented solutions. Objective. To assess efficiency of implementation of a system approach to ensuring safety of public drinking and recreational water use on the example of the Voronezh Region. Materials and methods. The study included laboratory testing of water quality in places of recreational water usage, drinking water quality assessment followed by a health risk assessment, a comprehensive evaluation of the extent of sanitary and epidemiological problems in drinking water supply systems, an online questionnaire-based survey of regional residents on tap water quality, a correlation analysis to establish the relationship between population health and water quality, and experimental studies to assess migration of organic compounds from polymer containers into bottled drinking water. Results. Challenges of recreational water use are associated with poor quality of surface water in terms of chemical (ammonium ion, nitrates, phosphates, and biochemical oxygen demand) and microbiological water quality parameters. Priority indices of drinking water quality in centralized water supply systems include the contents of nitrates, fluorine, boron, and iron, which are unacceptable in terms of non-carcinogenic risk (HQ > 1). In disadvantaged areas, water quality in centralized drinking water supply systems is considered “extremely poor”. The online survey demonstrated that the majority of the population (30.7 %) prefers to use water filter jugs to treat tap water. We observed significant correlations between the quality of tap and surface waters and disease incidence rates in the population. We also obtained new data on migration of organic compounds from polymer containers intended for drinking water storage and bottling in case of storage temperature excursions. Conclusion. Our findings served as the basis for the proposed algorithm of implementing a system approach to securing safety of recreational and drinking water use and for evaluating the effectiveness of implemented solutions.
Article
The object of the study was the centralized drinking water supply system of the Voronezh Region. The purpose of the study was to assess health risks for the population of the Voronezh Region associated with drinking water quality. Materials and methods: The data of the regional drinking water quality monitoring system, which included monthly sampling and testing of water samples at 553 sites in 32 administrative districts and the city of Voronezh for 8 priority sanitary and chemical indicators (total hardness, concentrations of iron, manganese, nitrates, nitrites, boron, fluorine, and ammonium ions) for the years 2010-2019 were used. To achieve the objective based on monitoring studies of drinking water quality in the water distribution system, four generally accepted stages of risk assessment were implemented including hazard identification, evaluation of dose-response relationship, exposure assessment, risk quantification and characterization. When evaluating the exposure, four calculation scenarios were considered and probable body burdens for children and adults were calculated using the average long-term concentration and 95 percentile of concentration in a separate administrative territory. Results: Regional non-carcinogenic risks estimated on the basis of the average regional concentrations of priority pollutants did not exceed acceptable values (HQ < 1) for 6 of 7 ingredients. Unacceptable risk levels were observed in two of 33 administrative districts due to the presence of nitrates in drinking water (HQ ranged 1.34 to 2.95 for children and equaled 1.26 for adults). Detailed information for separate settlements (control points) using an aggravated scenario helped identify 4 rural settlements in 2 administrative districts with unacceptable risks for the child population of iron in drinking water (HQ up to 2.31), 230 settlements in 27 districts – of nitrates (HQ up to 9.51), one settlement – of boron (HQ = 1.17), and 35 settlements in 13 districts – of fluorine (HQ up to 4.17). Discussion: Summarizing the results of the regional studies of health risks for the population associated with the quality of drinking water, one can testify the shift of the problem to rural settlements where water treatment is practically null. The use of average concentrations of chemicals in drinking water in administrative districts proved to be insufficiently objective and having significant uncertainties. The reduction of uncertainties was achieved by a detailed review of the information for each monitoring site and the use of the 95th percentile concentration of the chemical to assess the health risks for children and adults. Conclusions: With a sufficient degree of certainty, the priority regional indicators determining the unacceptable level of non-carcinogenic risk (HQ > 1) associated with the quality of drinking water include elevated levels of nitrates, fluorine, boron, and iron. Key words: drinking water, centralized water supply, water quality, public health risk.
Article
Introduction. The supply of high quality potable water to the population living within the geochemical provinces remains an important problem since the imbalance of chemical elements is a risk factor for various diseases and syndromes. The purpose of the study was to analyze the quality of surface and groundwater related to the geochemical characteristics of the region and to assess public health risks. Materials and methods. Water quality was analyzed in the areas of the Zabaykalsky Krai characterized by the presence of geochemical anomalies. Non-carcinogenic risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals in drinking water was carried out in accordance with the requirements of R 2.1.10.1920–04. Results. We established the excess of maximum permissible concentrations for such elements as iron (1.1–5.1 MPC), fluorides (1.1–2 MPC), nitrates (2.2 MPC), manganese (5.1 MPC), zinc (2.5–4.6 MPC), and cadmium (1.3–1.5 MPC). Higher than acceptable values of non-carcinogenic hazard quotients were attributed to the effects of nitrites (HQ = 1.5) and arsenic (HQ = 3.4) on the child population in the Kirinsky district. The total hazard index (THI) exceeded the permissible one for children in the Kyrinsky (5.05), Borzinsky (1.92), Chitinsky (1.19), and Tungokochensky (1.24) districts, the urban-type settlements of Zabaykalsk (2.07) and Priargunsk (1.62), and the towns of Petrovsk-Zabaykalsky (1.1) and Chita (1.87). Arsenic, fluorine, iron, and nitrites in water contributed the most to the risk level. Conclusions. The priority water pollutants included heavy metals, nitrites, arsenic, manganese, iron salts, and fluorides due to local natural geochemical features and industrial pollution. The assessment of the total non-carcinogenic risk based on hazard quotients showed that the children were at higher risk for toxic effects of those chemicals on the immune system, teeth, bone tissue, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal tract, skin, reproductive, respiratory, and hematopoietic systems, liver, kidney, central nervous and musculoskeletal systems.
Article
To supply the population with qualitative potable water is a priority problem in the provision of sanitary-and-epidemiologic well-being and in the prevention of disease in the Vologda Region. The monitoring of the results of laboratory control over the quality of drinking-water and the assessment of health risk enabled a package of measures to be proposed to optimize the conditions of drinking water supply in the Vologda Region. The risk assessment technology used by a state agency for sanitary-and-epidemiological surveillance makes it possible to substantiate a system of actions to organize household water use and to include scientifically grounded proposals into the developed regional and local programs.
Article
The paper presents the quality of drinking water. The carcinogenic risk of water and the coefficient of its toxic effect were calculated. The findings determine the priority of the pollutants detected in the drinking water, estimate the carcinogenic risk of water to be 1.4 per 10,000 population. It is recommended to revise specifications for the drinking water of dichloromethane, dichloroethylene, dioctyl phthalate and acrylonitrile.
Article
Based on the quantitative and qualitative determination of drinking water pollution by a large number of substances of varying toxicity and hazard, the authors calculated a possible risks of their adverse impact on the body by the development of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects.
Some aspects of drinking water supply in Achinsk. In: Materialy X Vserossiyskogo s'ezda gigienistov i sanitarnykh vrachey
  • I N Vakhrameeva
  • F Adulova
  • Kh
  • L V Klimova
  • E A Ivanova
  • G N Myasoedova
  • E B Pavilich
Vakhrameeva I.N., Adulova F.Kh., Klimova L.V., Ivanova E.A., Myasoedova G.N., Pavilich E.B. et al. Some aspects of drinking water supply in Achinsk. In: Materialy X Vserossiyskogo s'ezda gigienistov i sanitarnykh vrachey. Moscow; 2007; vol.2: 92-5. (in Russian)
Hygienic assessment of water supply of the Tersko-Kumskogo basin in Dagestan Gigienicheskie i mediko-profilakticheskie tekhnologii upravleniya riskami zdorov'yu naseleniya v promyshlenno razvitykh regionakh. Perm: Knizhnyy format
  • E Omarieva
  • Ya
  • R O Osmanov
  • Z Kaydarova
  • Sh
Omarieva E.Ya., Osmanov R.O., Kaydarova Z.Sh. Hygienic assessment of water supply of the Tersko-Kumskogo basin in Dagestan. In: Onishchenko G.G., Zaytseva N.V., eds. Gigienicheskie i mediko-profilakticheskie tekhnologii upravleniya riskami zdorov'yu naseleniya v promyshlenno razvitykh regionakh. Perm: Knizhnyy format; 2010: 268–73. (in Russian)
About organization of social-hygienic monitoring of drinking water in regional level. In: Gigienicheskie i medikoprofilakticheskie tekhnologii upravleniya riskami zdorov'yu naseleniya. Perm
  • S V Kleyn
Kleyn S.V. About organization of social-hygienic monitoring of drinking water in regional level. In: Gigienicheskie i medikoprofilakticheskie tekhnologii upravleniya riskami zdorov'yu naseleniya. Perm; 2011: 282-9. (in Russian)