您的位置:山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报(医学版)》

山东大学学报 (医学版) ›› 2021, Vol. 59 ›› Issue (12): 42-49.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1671-7554.0.2021.1010

• • 上一篇    下一篇

2014~2019年青岛市生活饮用水健康风险评估

潘璐,王炳玲,王寅,张秀芹,徐春生,李丹丹,段海平   

  1. 青岛市疾病预防控制中心环境卫生科, 青岛市预防医学研究院, 山东 青岛 266033
  • 发布日期:2021-12-29
  • 通讯作者: 段海平. E-mail:duan_hp@126.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家重大公共卫生专项饮用水和环境健康危害因素监测项目;国家健康风险评估试点建设项目

Health risk assessment of drinking water in Qingdao from 2014 to 2019

PAN Lu, WANG Bingling, WANG Yin, ZHANG Xiuqin, XU Chunsheng, LI Dandan, DUAN Haiping   

  1. Department of Environmental Health, Qingdao Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention;
    Qindao Institute of Preventive Medicine, Qingdao 266033, Shandong, China
  • Published:2021-12-29

摘要: 目的 评价青岛市2014~2019年生活饮用水水质的健康风险,为青岛市生活饮用水卫生管理提供相关依据。 方法 分析青岛市10个区市2014~2019年间的2 963份生活饮用水水质结果,采用美国国家环境保护署(US EPA)经典“四步法”健康风险评估模型对其中的17种化学污染物进行经口摄入途径的健康风险评估。 结果 2014~2019年经口途径摄入饮用水中,对成年人致癌风险最高的为镉(致癌风险为1.94×10-5),其次为铬和砷。大部分污染物的致癌风险在6年内呈现总体下降趋势。非致癌风险最高的为氟化物(危害系数为0.31),其次为硝酸盐氮和砷。致癌风险在男性和女性之间差异均无统计学意义。砷、铬、三氯甲烷和四氯化碳的致癌风险在出厂水和末梢水间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。三氯甲烷在丰水期的致癌风险大于枯水期且差异有统计学意义(P=0.009)。 结论 青岛市生活饮用水中化学污染物的健康风险低于US EPA推荐的最大可接受风险,初步认为青岛市生活饮用水风险处于可接受水平,不会对成年人群健康产生明显危害。镉、砷和铬的致癌风险及氟化物、硝酸盐氮和砷的非致癌风险相对较高,应在饮用水风险管理中优先关注。

关键词: 健康风险评估, 饮用水, 化学污染物, 致癌风险, 非致癌风险

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the health risk of drinking water in Qingdao from 2014 to 2019, and thus to provide the data basis for the drinking water risk management. Methods Totally 2 963 samples of drinking water from 2014 to 2019 in 10 districts of Qingdao were collected, and the risk assessment model recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency(US EPA)was applied to evaluate the health risks caused by 17 chemical pollutants in drinking water. Results The highest carcinogenic risk of adult caused by drinking water was cadmium(carcinogenic risk was 1.94×10-5), followed by chromium and arsenic. The carcinogenic risks of all six chemical pollutants showed an overall downward trend in 6 years. Fluoride had the highest non-carcinogenic risk(hazard quotient was 0.31), followed by nitrate and arsenic. There was no statistically significant difference in carcinogenic risk between men and women. Arsenic, chromium, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride showed statistically different carcinogenetic risks between finished water and tap water(all P<0.05). The carcinogenic risk of chloroform in the high flow period was greater than that in the low flow period(P=0.009). Conclusion The health risk of drinking water in Qingdao is below the maximum acceptable risk level recommended by US EPA. The health risks of 17 chemical pollutants are at an acceptable level and will not cause obvious health risk for adult. The carcinogenic risks of cadmium, arsenic and chromium and the non-carcinogenic risks of fluoride, nitrate nitrogen and arsenic are relatively high, and should be given priority attention in drinking water risk management.

Key words: Health risk assessment, Drinking water, Chemical pollutants, Carcinogenic risk, Non-carcinogenic risk

中图分类号: 

  • R123.1
[1] 王强, 赵月朝, 屈卫东, 等. 1996-2006年我国饮用水污染突发公共卫生事件分析[J]. 环境与健康杂志, 2010, 27(4): 328-331. WANG Qiang, ZHAO Yuezhao, QU Weidong, et al. Investigation of drinking water contamination incidents in China during 1996-2006[J]. Journal of Environment and Health, 2010, 27(4): 328-331.
[2] 李羡筠. 砷的毒性及排砷研究进展[J]. 职业与健康, 2012, 28(6): 742-744, 747. LI Xianyun. Research progress on toxicity and excretion of arsenic[J]. Occupation and Health, 2012, 28(6): 742-744, 747.
[3] 李存江.重视重金属中毒对神经系统的损害[J].中华内科杂志, 2011(11): 908-909.
[4] Richardson SD, Plewa MJ, Wagner ED, et al. Occurrence, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of regulated and emerging disinfection by-products in drinking water: a review and roadmap for research[J]. Mutat Res, 2007, 636(1-3): 178-242.
[5] US EPA. Methods for assessing exposure to chemical substances. Volume 4: methods for enumerating and characterizing populations exposed to chemical substances[S]. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Exposure Evaluation Division, Washington DC, US EPA 560/5-85-004, 1985.
[6] 中华人民共和国卫生部, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. GB/T 5750.1-2006 ~ GB/T 5750.13-2006, 生活饮用水标准检验方法[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社,2006.
[7] 中华人民共和国卫生部, 中国国家标准化管理委员会. GB 5749-2006,生活饮用水卫生标准[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社,2006.
[8] 中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会. WS/T 777-2021. 化学物质环境健康风险评估技术指南[S]. 北京: 中国标准出版社, 2021.
[9] 环境保护部. 中国人群暴露参数手册(成人卷)[M]. 北京:中国环境出版社, 2013.
[10] 杜艳君, 莫杨, 李湉湉. 环境健康风险评估方法 第四讲 暴露评估(续三)[J]. 环境与健康杂志, 2015, 32(6): 556-559.
[11] US EPA. Superfund public health evaluation manual[EB/OL]. [1986-10] (2021-12-06). https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/2000DATB.TXT.
[12] 季文佳, 王琪, 黄启飞, 等. 危险废物储存的地下水环境健康风险评价[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2010, 33(4): 160-164. JI Wenjia, WANG Qi, HUANG Qifei, et al. Health risk assessment for groundwater environment related to hazardous waste storage[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010, 33(4): 160-164.
[13] 孙庆华, 杜宗豪, 杜艳君,等. 环境健康风险评估方法 第五讲 风险特征(续四)[J]. 环境与健康杂志, 2015, 32(7): 640-642.
[14] US EPA. Available information on assessment exposure from pesticides in food[S]. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, Office of Pesticide Programs, 2000.
[15] No authors listed. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. A report of age- and gender-related differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of reference individuals. ICRP Publication 89[J]. Ann ICRP, 2002, 32(3-4): 5-265.
[16] 符刚, 曾强, 赵亮, 等. 基于GIS的天津市饮用水水质健康风险评价[J]. 环境科学, 2015, 36(12): 4553-4560. FU Gang, ZENG Qiang, ZHAO Liang, et al. Health risk assessment of drinking water quality in Tianjin based on GIS[J]. Environmental Science, 2015, 36(12): 4553-4560.
[17] 王婷, 王丽萍, 赵田禾,等. 2018年四川省江油市生活饮用水健康风险评价[J]. 现代预防医学, 2019, 46(12): 2261-2264, 2286. WANG Ting, WANG Liping, ZHAO Tianhe, et al. Health risk assessment of drinking water in Jiangyou City of Sichuan Province in 2018[J]. Modern Preventive Medicine, 2019, 46(12): 2261-2264, 2286.
[18] 廖雅芬, 叶坚, 古翠虹. 肇庆市农村地区饮用水健康风险评价[J]. 现代预防医学, 2018, 45(6): 181-184. LIAO Yafen, YE Jian, GU Cuihong. Health risk assessment of drinking water in rural areas of Zhaoqing City[J]. Modern Preventive Medicine, 2018, 45(6): 181-184.
[19] 孟春霞, 郑西来, 王成见. 平度市高氟地下水分布特征及形成机制研究[J]. 中国海洋大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 49(11): 111-119. MENG Chunxia, ZHENG Xilai, WANG Chengjian. Study on distribution characteristics and formation mechanism of high fluorine ground water in Pingdu City[J]. Periodical of Ocean University of China, 2019, 49(11): 111-119.
[20] 孟春霞,郑西来,马振宇,等. 青岛市农村供水中硝酸盐氮污染状况及健康风险评价[J].水利水电技术, 2014, 45(9): 24-26, 38. MENG Chunxia, ZHENG Xilai, MA Zhenyu, et al. Assessment on status of nitrate pollution in rural water supply of Qingdao and its healthy risk[J]. Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering, 2014, 45(9): 24-26, 38.
[21] 赵秀春, 王成见, 孟春霞. 青岛市地下水中硝酸盐氮的污染及其影响因素分析[J]. 水文, 2008, 28(5): 94-96.
[22] 陈春静, 张景山, 李峻, 等. 2019年南京市饮用水重金属健康风险评估[J]. 现代预防医学, 2020, 47(5): 51-54. CHEN Chunjing, ZHANG Jingshan, LI Jun, et al. Health risk assessment of heavy metals in drinking water, Nanjing, 2019[J]. Modern Preventive Medicine, 2020, 47(5): 51-54.
[23] 何政. 2007-2010年江阴市集中式生活饮用水三氯甲烷、四氯化碳监测结果分析[J]. 中国预防医学杂志, 2012, 13(1): 72-73.
[24] 李新伟, 崔永学, 张扬, 等. 济南市市政供水三氯甲烷和四氯化碳含量及风险评估[J]. 环境卫生学杂志, 2018, 8(1): 42-45. LI Xinwei, CUI Yongxue, ZHANG Yang, et al. Assessment on the levels and health risks of chloroform and carbon tetrachloride in municipal water supplies in Jinan[J]. Journal of Environmental Hygiene, 2018, 8(1): 42-45.
[25] 崔永学,单冰,王丽珩,等.2008—2018年济南市饮用水健康风险时空特征研究[J].现代预防医学, 2021,48(3): 410-415, 426. CUI Yongxue, SHAN Bing, WANG Liheng, et al. The spatial-temporal characteristics of health risks of drinking water in Jinan, 2008-2018[J]. Modern Preventive Medicine, 2021, 48(3): 410-415, 426.
[26] 顾鸿儒. 2017-2018年T市生活饮用水水质分析与健康风险评价[D].苏州:苏州大学, 2018.
[1] 单冰,崔亮亮,张迎建,曹萌,秦大中,王丽珩,彭秀苗. 济南市宾馆、理发店和美容院室内空气中常见化学污染物的健康风险评估[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(12): 110-119.
[2] 孙成瑶,唐大镜,陈凤格,赵川,关茗洋. 2016~2020年石家庄市大气PM2.5化学成分变化趋势及健康风险评估[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(12): 78-86.
[3] 曹萌,王丽珩,彭秀苗,崔亮亮. 2016~2020年济南市两城区大气PM2.5中多环芳烃浓度特征及慢性健康风险评估[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(12): 87-95.
[4] 夏慧禹,刘仲,刘树民,李学文. 集约化动物养殖区饲料-粪便-饮用水中β受体激动剂的残留特征及其健康风险[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(12): 33-41.
[5] 刘芳盈,赵志强,孟超,王丹,李平,刘晓利,张殿平,王勤,王敏. 淄博市生活饮用水中硝酸盐暴露及其健康风险的时空分布特征[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(12): 50-57.
[6] 彭秀苗,王雪峰,公为美,张扬,周敬文,崔亮亮. 2016~2020年济南市居民饮用水中8种重金属浓度变化趋势及健康风险特征分析[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(12): 24-32.
[7] 杨似玉,闫晓娜,彭靖,张杰,王永星,张欣烨,张书芳. 郑州市两城区大气PM2.5中金属、类金属污染特征及健康风险评估[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(12): 70-77.
[8] 柴然,张秀芹,徐春生,王寅,潘璐,王炳玲,段海平. 青岛市生活饮用水中微塑料分布特征[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(12): 58-62.
[9] 杜艳君,班婕,孙庆华,张翼,王情,陈晨,刘园园,李湉湉. 《化学物质环境健康风险评估技术指南》解读[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(12): 20-23.
[10] 王金涛,苏萍,袁中尚,薛付忠. 部分分布竞争风险模型及其在健康风险评估中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2017, 55(6): 37-41.
[11] 王停停,王金涛,袁中尚,苏萍,薛付忠. 原因别竞争风险模型及其在健康风险评估中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2017, 55(6): 42-46.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 王焕亮,孙宝柱,杜洪玫,周长青,张丽. 不同麻醉监测指标调控异丙酚麻醉的比较[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2006, 44(5): 471 -474 .
[2] 宋永红,马春红,吕红娟,朱传福,聂向民,王玫,刘艳,张萍 . 中国北方汉族人群HLA基因多态性研究[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2007, 45(6): 546 -553 .
[3] 黄庆,田辉,李林,梁飞,刘贤锡 . 老年人肺癌组织中鸟氨酸脱羧酶基因表达及其临床意义[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2006, 44(6): 556 -559 .
[4] 朱梅佳,韩巨,王新怡,鹿伟,王爱华,关心华,曹霞,曹秉振. 伴有皮层下梗死和白质脑病的常染色体显性遗传性脑动脉病临床病理研究[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2006, 44(8): 834 -839 .
[5] 侯晓阳,卜培莉,张运,冯进波,刘春喜,李传保,郝明秀. 过氧化酶体增殖物激活受体α抑制血管紧张素Ⅱ促心肌纤维化作用的试验研究[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2007, 45(7): 665 -668 .
[6] 曾季平,王丽娜,王立祥,任晓辉,张孟业,夏文,崔行. 氯化锰致PC12细胞损伤的研究[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2006, 44(5): 467 -470 .
[7] 舒雅,齐峰. 下颌角托在肥胖患者全麻诱导中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2007, 45(10): 1072 -1074 .
[8] 宋海岩,武玉玲,张艳萍. 牡蛎提取物对高温致神经管畸形中凋亡细胞的保护作用[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2007, 45(2): 113 -116 .
[9] 于慧1,2 ,陈少华1 ,赵家军2 ,高聆3
. 乙醇对人肝L02细胞糖原和GSK3β、PAMPK的影响[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2009, 47(04): 75 -78 .
[10] 王志刚,丁 璇,孙 鹏/sup>,王成伟,郝晓光,潘 顺 . 术前脑血管造影在血管内支架成形术治疗缺血性脑血管病中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2007, 45(2): 146 -148 .