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

net/publication/328216753

Heavy Metals Contents and Health Risk Assessment of Classroom Corner

Dusts in Selected Public Primary Schools in Rivers State, Nigeria

Article in Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health · September 2018

DOI: 10.12691/jephh-6-4-3

CITATIONS READS

19 398

3 authors:

Victor Olua Kingsley Patrick-Iwuanyanwu

University of Port Harcourt University of Port Harcourt
19 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS 127 PUBLICATIONS 1,482 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eucharia Oluchi Nwaichi

University of Cordoba (Spain)
129 PUBLICATIONS 807 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kingsley Patrick-Iwuanyanwu on 07 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health, 2018, Vol. 6, No. 4, 138-147
Available online at http://pubs.sciepub.com/jephh/6/4/3
©Science and Education Publishing
DOI:10.12691/jephh-6-4-3

Heavy Metals Contents and Health Risk Assessment of

Classroom Corner Dusts in Selected Public Primary
Schools in Rivers State, Nigeria
Olua Victor*, Patrick-Iwuanyanwu Kingsley Chukwuemeka, Nwaichi Eucharia Oluchi

Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Port Harcourt

*Corresponding author: vyckol@yahoo.com

Received April 05, 2018; Revised September 11, 2018; Accepted September 28, 2018
Abstract Heavy metals are shown to be a major indoor dusts pollutant. The health risk assessment of Heavy metal
contents of dusts collected from classroom corners of some randomly selected public primary schools in Rivers state
was carried out. Dust samples from Classroom corners of three (3) Public primary Schools in Obio/Akpor, Eleme,
and Ikwerre Local Government Areas (LGAs) was collected and analyzed for Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium
(Cr), and Arsernic (As) using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS, GF, Flame HVG). The heavy metal
concentrations obtained from the analysis revealed that mean maximum level for Pb and Cd were obtained from E at
25.39±0.09 and 3.52±0.23 mg kg-1 respectively, while that of Cr and As were obtained from H at 45.24±0.02 and
1.53±0.06 mg kg-1. The minimum levels were observed at E. The Average daily intake Dose (ADDingestion, dermal and
inhalation) and corresponding Target Hazard Quotients obtained revealed oral ingestion as major exposure pathway,
though with no evidence for non carcinogenic risk/Hazard index (HI), but with children population being more
exposed to Life cancer Risks (TLCR) except at F. It is however recommended that same risk assessment be made on
agricultural products harvested from Primary School Farms and Borehole water within these regions.
Keywords: heavy metals, dusts, public primary school, carcinogenic risks
Cite This Article: Olua Victor, Patrick-Iwuanyanwu Kingsley Chukwuemeka, and Nwaichi Eucharia Oluchi,
“Heavy Metals Contents and Health Risk Assessment of Classroom Corner Dusts in Selected Public Primary
Schools in Rivers State, Nigeria.” Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health, vol. 6, no. 4 (2018):
138-147. doi: 10.12691/jephh-6-4-3.

Studies have shown that Children are vulnerable to

contaminated indoor dusts, as this could be attributed to
1. Introduction their behavioural pattern seen in their hand-to-mouth life
style, crawling, fast growth rate and playing with toys
The indiscriminate, frequent, deliberate and accidental and teddies [5,12,13]. It is note worthy that of all the
release of hazardous, harmful substances has become a predominant routes to heavy metal contamination, studies
major source of environmental pollution. This has led to have shown that ingestion of dust by children is the main
major problem experienced in developing countries as it heavy metal exposure pathway as children are predisposed
has to do with improper management of wastes within to playing on the floor and ingest the dusts indirectly and
our environment, which has gone a long way towards unknowingly [14].
contributing to environmental contamination and pollution,
hence making our environment potentially hazardous/risky.
Indoor dust over time has drawn the attention of 2. Materials and Methods
researchers as people spend up to 90% of their time
in indoor environments such as homes, schools and 2.1. Reagents
offices [1,2,3] thereby coming in contact with surfaces
contaminated with such dusts . Hydrogen tetraoxosulphate (vi) acid (H2SO4), Trioxonitrate
Indoor dust could be defined as fine settled airborne (v) acid (HNO3), Perchloric acid (HClO4), Air, Acetylene.
particles less than 100μm in indoor environments.
Pollutants in indoor dust may be derived from exterior and 2.2. Materials/Equipments
interior sources which could be anthropogenic in nature.
Several studies have shown that indoor dust could act as a Sampled dusts, Hollow cathode lamps, Graphical
carrier of inorganic and organic pollutants such as heavy display and recorder, Solar thermo elemental Atomic
metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides and Absorption Spectrophotometer (Flame AAS) model:
polychlorobiphenyls [3-11]. S4=71096.
 Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health 139

2.3. Study Area 2.6. Atomic Adsorption Spectrophotometer

The study area covers public primary schools within the
(AAS) PROCEDURE
urban, Industrialized and rural area in Rivers State Nigeria. Heavy metals (Lead, Cadmium, Chromium, and
Primary schools at Obio/Akpor, Eleme and Ikwerre Arsenic) were analyzedusing AAS Model:S4=71096, with
Local Government areas represents good sample sites eight-socket hollow cathode lamps. The gases used in this
respectively and hence were chosen. Sample A, B and C instrument were acetylene and air.
represents dusts from classroom corners of Public Primary The hallow cathode lamp of desired metal was installed
School in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area (Urban and the wavelength dial set. The equipment was left to
Region). Sample D, E and F represents dusts from warm up for about 10-20 minutes for energy source to
classroom corners of Public Primary School in Eleme stabilize and the current was readjusted. Suitable burner
Local Government Area (Industrialized Region), while head was installed, and the position adjusted. Air was
Sample G, H and I represents dusts from classroom turned on and its flow rate adjusted to give maximum
corners of Public Primary School in Ikwerre Local sensitivity for the metal being measured The required
Government Area (Rural Region). metal to be determined in the machine was chosen and
blank aspirated inside the machine to zero the instrument.
The standard solution (2ppm) of the choice metal was
aspirated. The aspiration rate of the nebulizer was adjusted
to obtain maximum sensitivity. The machine was finally
calibrated by aspirating with 0.5ppm of metal. Samples
were then aspirated into the flame and atomized. The
samples were analyzed by the machine and their
absorbance’s were recorded with the report automatically
displayed and printed by clicking print report from the
report menu.

2.7. Health Risk Assessment

Health risk assessment can be defined as risk
characterization of the potential adverse health effects of
human exposure to contaminants [15]. The IARC has
classified the carcinogens into five categories to indicate
whether the agents can cause cancer, which include
Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans), Group 2A (probably
carcinogenic to humans), Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to
humans), Group 3 (not classifiable as carcinogenic to
humans) and Group 4 (probably not carcinogenic to
humans). From the IARC agents’ classification, As, Cd,
Cr and Pb are classified as potential non-carcinogenic and
carcinogenic elements, whereas other heavy metals (Al,
Figure 1. Map of Rivers State showing sampled sites Co, Cu, Fe, Ni and Zn) are treated as non-carcinogenic
elements. According to the Exposure Factors Handbook
2.4. Sample Collection and Preparation [16] the average daily dose (ADD) (mgkg-1day-1) (Chronic
daily intake, CDI)of heavy metals via ingestion, dermal
Dust samples were collected from the study sites using contact and inhalation was estimated using the following
hard brush and foil, at each sampling point about 50g of equations, respectively:
dust samples were collected from classroom corners. The ADDingest = C×IngR×EF×ED×CF/BW×AT
collected samples were put into sterile bottles and labeled ADDdermal=C×SA×AF×FExABS×EF×ED×CF/BW×AT,
appropriately before taking them to the laboratory for ADDinhale=C×InhR×EF×ED / PEF×BW×AT,
digestion and analysis. where C is the concentration of heavy metals (mg/kg);
Each sample was analysed for heavy metals Pb, As, Cd, IngR = the ingestion rate (mgday-1); SA = the surface area
Cr, using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. of the skin exposed to heavy metal (cm2); AF = the skin
adherence factor (mg/cm2day-1); ABS = the dermal absorption
2.5. Wet digestion Method factor (mg/cm2); InhR = the inhalation rate (m3day-1); PEF,
the particle emission factor (m3/kg); EF, the exposure
A total volume of 100ml of H2SO4, HNO3, and HClO in frequency (days/year); ED=the exposure duration (year);
the rato of 40%:40%:20% was mixed together, 1g of the BW= the body weight (kg); AT= the averaging time
sample was weighed into a conical flask, 2ml of the mixed (days); FE=Dermal exposure ratio and CF= the conversion
acid was added to each of the sample in the conical flask, factor.
and was digested in a fume cupboard with hot plate until The parameters of the ADD, reference dose (RfD) and
white fumes appear. The solution was cooled and filtered cancer slope factor (CSF), which were obtained from
into a 100ml volumetric flask and made upto mark with the Exposure Factors Handbook [16], Integrated Risk
distilled water. Information System [17,18] are shown in Table 1 to
140 Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health

Table 3. Additionally, the risks can be classified as Or

non-carcinogenic risks and carcinogenic risks. Both
HQ = ADD / RfD，
non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic risk exposure for
children and adult were calculated using Hazard Quotient HI = HQingest + HQdermal + HQinhale .
(HQ) and Life Cancer Risk (LCR), respectively.
For non-carcinogenic risk, the HQ for children and For carcinogenic risk, the LCR of children caused
adult during a lifetime can be calculated by dividing the by potential carcinogen exposure over a lifetime can be
ADD from each exposure pathway by a specific RfD as calculated as shown below, for ADD and SF is the slope
shown, whereas ADD is the average daily dose and RfD is factor for cancer. Total Life Cancer Risk (TLCR) adds up
the estimated maximum permissible risk posed to humans all LCRs calculated for ingestion, dermal contact and
through daily exposure. Subsequently, the calculated HQ inhalation. The acceptable range of TLCR for carcinogenic
for all three exposure pathways (ingestion, dermal contact risk is in the range of 1×10−6-1×10−4. If the risk exceeds
and inhalation) was summed to obtain the Hazard Index the range, this implies that carcinogenic risks exist and the
(HI). In the event of HI≤1, then adverse health effects would potential carcinogenic effect would likely occur.
be unlikely to occur. However, potential non-carcinogenic
= ADD × SF,
LCR
effects would occur when HI>1 as this indicates that there
is significant non-carcinogenic risk that is posed to human TLCR =LCR ingest + LCRdermal + LCR inhale.
health.
The formula used for calculation of HQ
2.8. Statistical Analysis
HQ =
( M c × IR × 10−3 × EF × ED ) The analysis of variance was done using SPSS version
( RfD × BW × ATn) 20.
Table 1. Recommended standard values for dusts Health Risk Assessment
Parameters Pb (mg/kg) Cd(mg/kg) Cr(mg/kg) As(mg/kg)
RFDing 0.0035 0.001 0.003 3.00E-04
RFDinh 3.50E-02 0.001 0.0001 1.00E-03
RFDdermal 5.25E-04 0.00001 0.00006 1.00E-05
CSFing 0.0085 6.3 0.5 1.5
CSFinh 4.20E-02 6.3 4.10E-01 1.50E+01
CSFdermal - - 2.0E+1 1.5
[16,17,18,19,20]

Table 2.
Value
Parameter Symbol
ADULT CHILD
Ingestion rate IngR 100 mg 200 mg
Exposure duration ED 24 years 6 years
Exposure frequency EF 350 days 350 days
Average body weight BW 70 15 kg
ATnon-carcinogenic ED × 365 days ED × 365 days
Averaging time (AT)
ATcarcinogenic 70 × 365 days 70 × 365 days
Conversion factor CF 1 × 10−6 kg/mg 1 × 10−6 kg/mg
Surface area of skin SA children 5800 cm2 2800 cm2
Skin adherence factor AFdust 0.07 mg/cm2/day 0.2 mg/cm2/day
ABS non-carcinogenic 0.001 mg/cm2 0.001 mg/cm2
Dermal absorption factor
ABS carcinogenic 0.03 mg/cm2 0.03 mg/cm2
Inhalation rate InhR 20 10 m3/day
Particle emission factor PEF 1.36 × 109 m3/kg 1.36 × 109 m3/kg
Dermal exposure ratio FE 0.61 0.61
[18,19,16,21]

Table 3.
Parameter Symbol Value
Reference dose of cadmium RfDCd 0.001mg/kg/day
Reference dose of arsenic RfDAs 0.0003 mg/kg/day
Reference dose of lead RfDPb 0.0035 mg/kg/day
Reference dose of chromium RfDCr 0.003 mg/kg/day
Cancer slope factor of arsenic CSFAs 1.5 mg/kg/day
Cancer slope factor of cadmium CSFCd 6.3 mg/kg/day
Cancer slope factor of chromium CSFCr 0.5 mg/kg/day
Averaging time for carcinogenic ATcarcinogenic 70 × 365 days
Cancer slope factor of lead CSFPb 0.0085 mg/kg/day
[17,18].
 Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health 141

3. Results and Discussion beneficial effects and could become toxic to plants and
animals [23], whereas Asia et al., [26] stated that Cd is
seen to be toxic even if absorption by ingestion is low.
3.1. Heavy Metal Contents of Dust Samples Chronic exposure to high levels of Cd in food causes bone
from selected Public Primary Schools in disorders, including osteoporosis and osteomalacia [26].
Rivers State EPA, [30], accounted for the moderately toxicity of Cd to
all organisms, with cumulative poisoning in animals
The mean levels of the heavy metal contents of concentrating at the liver, kidney, pancreas and thyroid of
dust samples from classroom corners of three selected humans and other mammals [30]. It’s major route of entrance
public primary schools in three Local Government Areas to the human body is through the gastrointestinal tract by
(Obio/Akpor, Eleme and Ikwerre) are as shown in Table 4. consumption of food products grown on contaminated soil,
The result of this study showed Pb mean levels ranged however smokers may receive a considerable part of their
from 10.26±0.02 to 25.39±0.06 mgKg-1 with highest Pb Cd intake by inhaling cigarette smoke [31,32].
level observed at E and minimum level at F. It is notable Chromium mean levels obtained ranged from 19.03±0.01
that the presence of Pb in the dust samples corroborates to 45.24±0.02 mgKg-1. Maximum Cd value was obtained
the findings of [22] who stated the presence of Pb in the at H while F has minimum values.
classroom dusts of schools within Lagos State. It has also Studies have shown that Occupational exposure to
been reported that Pb may become toxic to plants and Cr(III) is associated with respiratory effects with an
animals if their concentrations exceed permissible limits evidenced coughing, wheezing, and decreased forced
in soil and plant [23], as Pb has the ability to inhibit water volume after an inhalation exposure to a sample of Cr(III)
imbalance, alter mineral nutrition, enzyme activities, sulfate [33]. Pulmonary defects or symptoms such as;
hormonal status and membrane permeability alteration. Pb asthma, chronic bronchitis, chronic irritation, chronic
at increased concentrations could inhibit cellular activities pharyngitis, chronic rhinitis, congestion and hyperemia,
thus causing cell death [24]. It has a toxic and destructive polyps of the upper respiratory tract, tracheobronchitis,
effect on the central nervous system, kidneys, liver, and ulceration of the nasal mucosa with possible septal
reproductive system, the most severe effect being brain perforation may proceed with inhalation of chromium dust
necrosis, these hence poses dangerous threat to exposed [34,35].
individuals [25,26,27]. The Pb Levels were also seen to be Dermal exposure to chromium has been shown to
within close range to the level obtained by Addo et al., [28] produce irritant and allergic contact dermatitis [36,37].
(in Ketu south District Ghana) and Popoola et al., [22] Chromium is absorbed into the skin and triggers an immune
(Lagos Nigeria). The low levels of Pb in this study could response (sensitization). Sensitized individuals will showcase
be attributed to the ban on leaded gasoline in Nigeria an allergic dermatitis response when exposed to high
which often time is an important input to Pb pollution in chromium level [36]. Localized erythematous or vesicular
urban environment as well as low productivity of most lesions at points of contact or generalized eczematous
Industries in Rivers State. The result also revealed highest dermatitis should suggest sensitization [38].
Pb Levels within the industrialized region (Eleme LGA). Occupational exposure to Cr(VI) compounds in a
It has been reported that exposure to Pb can cause damage number of industries has been associated with increased
or reduce children’s intelligence (IQ) and academic risk of respiratory system cancers [39]. Recent studies also
performance. It also has the potential to decrease hearing disclosed excessive risk of lung cancer death resulting
ability and sight of children, and cause memory loss and from occupational exposure to Cr(VI) compounds, [40,41].
attention deficit and disorders [29]. Carcinogenicity appears to be associated with the
Cadmium mean levels ranged between 0.18±0.01 to inhalation of the less soluble/insoluble Cr(VI) compounds.
3.52±0.17 mgKg-1 with highest Cd level observed within The toxicology of Cr(VI) does not reside with the
E and minimum level at F. Reports by Aydinalp and elemental form. It varies greatly among a wide variety of
Marinova, shows that Cd does not have any known very different Cr(VI) compounds [42].
Table 4. HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF DUSTS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS
SAMPLE SITE Pb (mg/kg) Cd(mg/kg) Cr(mg/kg) As(mg/kg)
A 14.61±0.17 a 1.35±0.01 a 40.28±0.12 a 0.50±0.23 a
OBIO/AKPOR B 21.30±0.01 a 1.57±0.01b 36.60±0.23 a 1.16±0.06 b
C 18.14±0.03 a 1.28±0.01c 30.74±0.00 a 1.02±0.01 c

D 15.42±0.23 a 0.53±0.01 a 26.40±0.17 a 0.10±0.01a

ELEME E 25.39±0.06 a 3.52±0.17 a 38.21±0.12 a 1.24±0.07 d
F 10.26±0.02 a 0.18±0.01 a 19.03±0.01 a 0.058±0.01a

G 12.50±0.00 a 0.65±0.06 a 24.70±0.12 a 0.06±0.01a

IKWERRE H 23.91±0.12 a 2.84±0.01 a 45.24±0.02 a 1.53±0.23 a
I 13.41±0.01 a 1.74±0.02 a 24.19±0.04 a 0.07±0.05a
Ketu Ghana [28] 22.89 - 744.02 -
Lagos Nigeria [22] 23.33 0.09 8.35 -
Values are Mean±SEM Means in the same column with same superscript alphabet are significantly different at p≤0.05.A, B, C= Sampled public
primary schools in Obio/Akpor, D, E, F, =sampled public primary schools in Eleme, G, H, I = sampled public primary schools in Ikwerre.
142 Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health

Activities of localized industries within sampled sites inorganic forms of arsenic have been seen in some
might be responsible for the high Chromium values types of seaweed. Recent studies suggest hijiki seaweed
reported in this study as the result showed that Cr is of the has very high levels of inorganic arsenic [44]. ATSDR,
highest amount of all heavy metals assayed. Chromium on revealed that in the entire U.S. population, the major
the average as seen in this study were above the average source of arsenic exposure is via ingestion of food
concentration in the earth's crust 0.2µg/g [42], suggesting containing arsenic [45], it was however noted that intake
an athropogenic Cr source, Most especially at E and H from air, soil, and drinking water is usually much less.
located within Eleme and Ikwerre LGA. The Cr levels
could be attributable to the high Industrial activities and 3.2. Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) or Average
vehicular emissions respectively at these locations. Daily Intake Dose
However Chromium levels obtained were below that
reported by Addo et al. from his work at Ketu-South Different contact routes for heavy metal exposure to
District Ghana but higher than that reported by Popoola et individuals were studied in view of the pupils’s daily
al. on assessment of heavy metals within selected Schools routine. Using the available results obtained from this
in Lagos Nigeria [22,28]. study and with reference to standard values as set by
This study showed that Arsenic (As) mean levels USEPA. [18], the ADD/CDI was calculated.
ranged from 0.058±0.01 to 1.53±0.23 mgKg-1 with highest The results for the Chronic daily intake (also known as
As level seen within H and minimum level at F. the Average daily intake dose) for the three exposure
The International Agency for Research on Cancer pathways (namely: ingestion, Dermal and Inhalation) is as
(IARC) has classified arsenic and arsenic compounds as shown in Table 5 to Table 7. The result shows that the
carcinogenic to humans [43] other adverse health effects major exposure pathway is through oral ingestion
that may be associated with long-term ingestion of inorganic followed by dermal contact and lastly inhalation, this is in
arsenic include developmental effects, neurotoxicity, conformity with the work earlier reported by Mayo et al.,
diabetes, pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease and Olujimi et al. [12,14] who revealed that the major
[43]. Arsenic-induced myocardial infarction, in particular, exposure pathway of heavy metals in indoor dust to
can be a significant cause of excessive mortality. However, children is through ingestion, followed by dermal contact
aside Arsenic seen in dust from anthropogenic sources and then inhalation.
Table 5. AVERAGE DAILY INTAKE DOSE (ADDingest )
SAMPLE Pb (mg/kg) Cd(mg/kg) Cr(mg/kg) As(mg/kg)
L.G.A
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A 2.09E-05 1.95E-04 1.93E-06 1.80E-05 3.45E-06 5.37E-04 7.14E-07 6.67E-06
Obio/Akpor B 3.04E-05 2.84E-04 2.24E-06 2.09E-05 3.14E-06 4.88E-04 1.66E-06 1.55E-05
C 2.59E-05 2.42E-04 1.83E-06 1.71E-05 2.63E-06 4.10E-04 1.46E-06 1.36E-05

D 2.20E-05 2.06E-04 7.57E-07 7.07E-06 2.26E-06 3.52E-04 1.43E-07 1.33E-06

Eleme E 3.63E-05 3.39E-04 5.03E-06 4.69E-05 3.28E-06 5.09E-04 1.77E-06 1.65E-05
F 1.47E-05 1.37E-04 2.57E-07 2.40E-06 1.63E-06 2.54E-04 8.57E-08 8.00E-07

G 1.79E-05 1.67E-04 9.29E-07 8.67E-06 2.12E-06 3.29E-04 8.57E-08 8.00E-07

Ikwerre H 3.42E-05 3.19E-04 4.06E-06 3.79E-05 3.88E-06 6.03E-04 2.19E-06 2.04E-05
I 1.92E-05 1.79E-04 2.49E-06 2.32E-05 2.07E-06 3.23E-04 1.00E-07 9.33E-07

Table 6. AVERAGE DAILY INTAKE DOSE (ADDInhalation)

SAMPLE Pb (mgkg-1day-1) Cd(mgkg-1day-1) Cr(mgkg-1day-1) As(mgkg-1day-1)
L.G.A
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A 3.07E-09 7.16E-09 2.84E-10 6.62E-10 2.54E-09 1.97E-08 1.05E-10 2.45E-10
Obio/Akpor B 4.47E-09 1.04E-08 3.30E-10 7.70E-10 2.31E-09 1.79E-08 2.44E-10 5.69E-10
C 3.81E-09 8.89E-09 2.69E-10 6.27E-10 1.94E-09 1.51E-08 2.14E-10 5.00E-10

D 3.24E-09 7.56E-09 1.11E-10 2.60E-10 1.66E-09 1.29E-08 2.10E-11 4.90E-11

Eleme E 5.33E-09 1.24E-08 7.39E-10 1.73E-09 2.41E-09 1.87E-08 2.61E-10 6.08E-10
F 2.16E-09 5.03E-09 3.78E-11 8.82E-11 1.20E-09 9.33E-09 1.26E-11 2.94E-11

G 2.63E-09 6.13E-09 1.37E-10 3.19E-10 1.56E-09 1.21E-08 1.26E-11 2.94E-11

Ikwerre H 5.02E-09 1.17E-08 5.97E-10 1.39E-09 2.85E-09 2.22E-08 3.21E-10 7.50E-10
I 2.82E-09 6.57E-09 3.66E-10 8.53E-10 1.52E-09 1.19E-08 1.47E-11 3.43E-11
 Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health 143

Table 7. AVERAGE DAILY INTAKE DOSE (ADDdermal)

SAMPLE Pb (mgkg-1day-1) Cd(mgkg-1day-1) Cr(mgkg-1day-1) As(mgkg-1day-1)

L.G.A
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child

A 5.17E-08 3.33E-07 4.78E-09 3.07E-08 1.43E-07 9.17E-07 1.77E-09 1.14E-08

Obio/Akpor B 7.54E-08 4.85E-07 5.55E-09 3.58E-08 1.29E-07 8.34E-07 4.10E-09 2.64E-08
C 6.42E-08 4.13E-07 4.53E-09 2.91E-08 1.09E-07 7.00E-07 3.61E-09 2.32E-08

D 5.46E-08 3.51E-07 1.88E-09 1.21E-08 9.34E-08 6.01E-07 3.54E-10 2.28E-09

Eleme E 8.98E-08 5.78E-07 1.25E-08 8.02E-08 1.35E-07 8.70E-07 4.39E-09 2.82E-08
F 3.63E-08 2.34E-07 6.37E-10 4.10E-09 6.73E-08 4.33E-07 2.12E-10 1.37E-09

G 4.42E-08 2.85E-07 2.30E-09 1.48E-08 8.74E-08 5.63E-07 2.12E-10 1.37E-09

Ikwerre H 8.46E-08 5.45E-07 1.00E-08 6.47E-08 1.60E-07 1.03E-06 5.41E-09 3.48E-08
I 4.74E-08 3.05E-07 6.16E-09 3.96E-08 8.56E-08 5.51E-07 2.48E-10 1.59E-09

E=exponential.

The Average daily intake Dose (ADDingestion) were of exposure to heavy metals in street dust in zinc smelting
below the reference doses (RFD) as recommended by district [46,47] and study of exposure to heavy metals in
USEPA and other international bodies. ADDingestion has a surface dust of Wuhu urban area [48].
range from 3.63E-05 to 1.47E-05; 5.03E-06 to 2.57E-07;
3.88E-06 to 1.63E-06; 2.19E-06 to 8.57E-08 in mg kg-1 3.3. Non-Carcinogenic Risk Exposure in
day-1 for Pb,Cd, Cr, and As ingestion respectively in
adults whereas
Public Primary School in Rivers State
That of children ranged from 3.39E-04 to 1.37E-04, Target Hazard Quotient (THQ) and Hazard index were
4.69E-05 to 2.40E-06, 6.03E-04 to 2.54E-04, 2.04E-05 to used to estimate the non-carcinogenic risk due to exposure
8.00E-07, for Pb, Cd, Cr and As, respectively for to heavy metal. Table 8 to Table 11 shows the THQ and
ingestion of dust from classroom corners. The maximum HI values representing non-carcinogenic risks of heavy
levels were seen at E, for Pb and Cd, H, for Cr and As metals within classroom corners of public primary school
whereas F, has the lowest ADDingest level for all heavy dust for children and adult through ingestion, inhalation
metals. and dermal contact exposure pathways. The HQ and HI
Average daily intake dose (ADDInhalation) ranged from followed same trend as the ADD values in the following
5.33E-09 to 2.16E-09, 7.39E-10 to 3.78E-11, 2.85E-09 to order for the respective heavy metals across the sampled
1.20E-09, 3.21E-10 to 1.26E-11 for Pb, Cd, Cr and As schools E>H>B>C>D>A>I>G>F for Pb in adults and child,
respectively all in mg kg-1 day-1 for adult Population and E>H>I>B>A>C>G>D>F for Cd, H>A>E>B>C>D>G>I>F
1.24E-08 to 5.03E-09, 1.73E-09 to 8.82E-11, 2.22E-08 to for Cr, H>E>B>C>A>D>I>G>F for As and
9.33E-09 and 7.50E-10 to 2.94E-11for Pb, Cd, Cr and As H>E>B>C>A>I>D>G>F for total HI for adults and
respectively for children Population for dusts in classroom children as seen in classroom corners. The HI values
corners. These values as observed were below the obtained from this study were less than one as set by
inhalation reference dose for the various heavy metals. USEPA, [18] for both adult and children. This however
Average daily intake dose (ADDdermal) ranged from indicates that the region may be relatively free from
8.98E-08 to 3.63E-08, 1.25E-08 to 6.37E-10, 1.60E-07 to non- carcinogenic risks due to ingestion, inhalation and
6.73E-08, 5.41E-09 to 2.12E-10, for Pb, Cd, Cr, and As dermal contact to classroom dusts. However it was
all in mgkg-1day-1 for adult Population and 5.78E-07 to observe in all sampled sites that children population were
2.34E-07, 8.02E-08 to 4.10E-09, 1.03E-06 to 4.33E-07, more prone to these non carcinogenic risks confirming the
3.48E-08 to 1.37E-09 for Pb, Cd, Cr and As for children earlier reports [5,12,13]. When compared to the work
Population for dusts in classroom corners. These values as previously reported by Popoola et al., [22] it was seen that
seen are below the dermal reference dose for the various the HI values within public primary schools in Rivers state
heavy metals as recommended by USEPA [18]. is within the same range as that in Lagos state, Nigeria.
Average daily dose of ingestion of dust particles for all However, similar comparison with indoor dusts in China
metals were much higher than those of inhalation of re- reported by Cao et al. [49], obtained high HI value for As
suspended dust particles and dermal absorption of dust (21.30), making the location very unhealthy with the
particles. The highest levels of risks were associated with citing of a lead-acid battery plant within its environment.
the route of ingestion of dust particles to children and Kurt-Karakus, also found non-carcinogenic risk for Cr (HI
adults for all metals, followed by dermal contact and value of 1.10) in the dust samples collected from offices in
inhalation this corroborates with earlier work on the study Istanbul, Turkey [50].
144 Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health

Table 8. TARGET HAZARD QUOTIENT (THQingest)

Pb Cd Cr As
L.G.A SAMPLE
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A 0.006 0.056 0.002 1.80E-02 1.15E-03 1.79E-01 2.38E-03 2.22E-02
Obio/Akpor B 0.009 0.081 0.002 2.09E-02 1.05E-03 1.63E-01 5.52E-03 5.16E-02
C 0.007 0.069 0.002 1.71E-02 8.78E-04 1.37E-01 4.86E-03 4.53E-02

D 0.006 0.059 0.001 7.07E-03 7.54E-04 1.17E-01 4.76E-04 4.44E-03

Eleme E 0.010 0.097 0.005 4.69E-02 1.09E-03 1.70E-01 5.90E-03 5.51E-02
F 0.004 0.039 0.0003 2.40E-03 5.44E-04 8.46E-02 2.86E-04 2.67E-03

G 0.005 0.048 0.001 8.67E-03 7.06E-04 1.10E-01 2.86E-04 2.67E-03

Ikwerre H 0.010 0.091 0.004 3.79E-02 1.29E-03 2.01E-01 7.29E-03 6.80E-02
I 0.006 0.051 0.003 2.32E-02 6.91E-04 1.08E-01 3.33E-04 3.11E-03

E=exponential

Table 9. TARGET HAZARD QUOTIENT (THQInhalation)

SAMPLE Pb Cd Cr As
L.G.A
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A 8.77E-07 2.05E-06 2.84E-07 6.62E-07 2.54E-05 1.97E-04 3.50E-07 8.17E-07
Obio/Akpor B 1.28E-06 2.98E-06 3.3E-07 7.70E-07 2.31E-05 1.79E-04 8.12E-07 1.90E-06
C 1.09E-06 2.54E-06 2.69E-07 6.27E-07 1.94E-05 1.51E-04 7.14E-07 1.67E-06

D 9.26E-07 2.16E-06 1.11E-07 2.60E-07 1.66E-05 1.29E-04 7.00E-08 1.63E-07

Eleme E 1.52E-06 3.56E-06 7.39E-07 1.73E-06 2.41E-05 1.87E-04 8.68E-07 2.03E-06
F 6.16E-07 1.44E-06 3.78E-08 8.82E-08 1.20E-05 9.33E-05 4.20E-08 9.80E-08

G 7.5E-07 1.75E-06 1.37E-07 3.19E-07 1.56E-05 1.21E-04 4.20E-08 9.80E-08

Ikwerre H 1.44E-06 3.35E-06 5.97E-07 1.39E-06 2.85E-05 2.22E-04 1.07E-06 2.50E-06
I 8.05E-07 1.88E-06 3.66E-07 8.53E-07 1.52E-05 1.19E-04 4.90E-08 1.14E-07

Table 10. TARGET HAZARD QUOTIENT (THQdermal)

SAMPLE Pb Cd Cr As
L.G.A
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A 9.85E-05 6.34E-04 4.78E-04 3.07E-03 2.38E-03 1.53E-02 1.77E-04 1.14E-03
Obio/Akpor B 1.44E-04 9.24E-04 5.55E-04 3.58E-03 2.16E-03 1.39E-02 4.10E-04 2.64E-03
C 1.22E-04 7.87E-04 4.53E-04 2.91E-03 1.81E-03 1.17E-02 3.61E-04 2.32E-03

D 1.04E-04 6.69E-04 1.88E-04 1.21E-03 1.56E-03 1.00E-02 3.54E-05 2.28E-04

Eleme E 1.71E-04 1.10E-03 1.25E-03 8.02E-03 2.25E-03 1.45E-02 4.39E-04 2.82E-03
F 6.91E-05 4.45E-04 6.37E-05 4.10E-04 1.12E-03 7.22E-03 2.12E-05 1.37E-04

G 8.42E-05 0.000542 2.30E-04 1.48E-03 1.46E-03 9.38E-03 2.12E-05 1.37E-04

Ikwerre H 1.61E-04 1.04E-03 1.01E-03 6.47E-03 2.67E-03 1.72E-02 5.41E-04 3.48E-03
I 9.04E-05 5.82E-04 6.16E-04 3.96E-03 1.43E-03 9.18E-03 2.48E-05 1.59E-04

Table 11. HAZARD INDEX (HI)

Pb Cd Cr As ƩHI
SAMPLE SITE
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A 6.06E-03 5.63E-02 2.41E-03 2.11E-02 3.56E-03 1.94E-01 2.56E-03 2.33E-02 1.46E-02 2.95E-01
Obio/Akpor B 8.84E-03 8.21E-02 2.80E-03 2.45E-02 3.23E-03 1.77E-01 5.93E-03 5.42E-02 2.08E-02 3.38E-01
C 7.53E-03 6.99E-02 2.28E-03 2.00E-02 2.71E-03 1.49E-01 5.22E-03 4.76E-02 1.77E-02 2.86E-01

D 6.40E-03 5.94E-02 9.45E-04 8.28E-03 2.33E-03 1.27E-01 5.11E-04 4.67E-03 1.02E-02 1.99E-01
Eleme E 1.05E-02 9.78E-02 6.27E-03 5.49E-02 3.36E-03 1.85E-01 6.34E-03 5.79E-02 2.65E-02 3.95E-01
F 4.26E-03 3.95E-02 3.21E-04 2.81E-03 1.68E-03 9.19E-02 3.07E-04 2.81E-03 6.56E-03 1.37E-01

G 5.19E-03 4.82E-02 1.16E-03 1.02E-02 2.18E-03 1.20E-01 3.07E-04 2.81E-03 8.83E-03 1.81E-01
Ikwerre H 9.92E-03 9.21E-02 5.06E-03 4.44E-02 3.99E-03 2.18E-01 7.83E-03 7.15E-02 2.68E-02 4.26E-01
I 5.56E-03 5.17E-02 3.10E-03 2.72E-02 2.14E-03 1.17E-01 3.58E-04 3.27E-03 1.12E-02 1.99E-01
 Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health 145

3.4. Carcinogenic Risk Exposure via Dust in USEPA, [18] while the rest of the schools had TLCR
Public Primary School in Rivers State values within the range of threshold value. Considering
the carcinogenic risk on cumulative effect of the heavy
The results of the carcinogenic risk due to exposure to metals assayed, it was observed that children in all the
classroom dusts are shown in Table 12 to Table 15. This is schools are exposed to carcinogenic risks as the ƩTLCR
represented by calculating the life cancer risks (LCR) for was seen to be above the range of threshold values
the three exposure routes. The LCR showed same trend as (10-6 to10-4) above which environmental and regulatory
the ADD in the order LCRingest>LCRdermal>LCRinhalation. agencies consider the risk unacceptable. The adults were
Carcinogenic risks that exceed the Total life cancer risk seen to have ƩTLCR within the range of threshold value.
(TLCR) acceptable values (10-4) [18] were found in This entails that the adults are less exposed to cancer risk
children exposed to Cr in all the schools except for F from exposure to classroom dusts containing theses heavy
(9.67E-05). However these values were within the range metals (Pb, Cd, Cr, As). However adequate measures
of threshold values (10-6 to10-4) [18] Chromium could be should be taken to prevent increased concentration of
lethal, it has the ability to cause lung cancer, kidney, these heavy metal as well as prolonged exposure as there
respiratory tract, reproductive system damage [51]. The could be potential risks with continuous environmental
TLCR values obtained for Pb at all School sites and As at pollution as the ƩTLCR tends towards the upper safety
D, F, G, H, I, (adult), were below threshold range as set by limits in adults.
Table 12. LIFE CANCER RISK (LCRingest)
Pb Cd Cr As
SAMPLE SITE
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A 1.77E-07 4.14E-07 1.22E-05 2.84E-05 1.73E-06 6.71E-05 1.07E-06 2.50E-06
Obio/Akpor B 2.59E-07 6.04E-07 1.41E-05 3.30E-05 1.57E-06 6.10E-05 2.49E-06 5.80E-06
C 2.20E-07 5.14E-07 1.15E-05 2.69E-05 1.32E-06 5.12E-05 2.19E-06 5.10E-06

D 1.87E-07 4.37E-07 4.77E-06 1.11E-05 1.13E-06 4.40E-05 2.14E-07 5.00E-07

Eleme E 3.08E-07 7.19E-07 3.17E-05 7.39E-05 1.64E-06 6.37E-05 2.66E-06 6.20E-06
F 1.25E-07 2.91E-07 1.62E-06 3.78E-06 8.16E-07 3.17E-05 1.29E-07 3.00E-07

G 1.52E-07 3.54E-07 5.85E-06 1.37E-05 1.06E-06 4.12E-05 1.29E-07 3.00E-07

Ikwerre H 2.90E-07 6.77E-07 2.56E-05 5.96E-05 1.94E-06 7.54E-05 3.28E-06 7.65E-06
I 1.63E-07 3.80E-07 1.57E-05 3.65E-05 1.04E-06 4.03E-05 1.50E-07 3.50E-07

Table 13. LIFE CANCER RISK (LCRinhalation)

Pb Cd Cr As
SAMPLE SITE
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A 1.29E-10 7.52E-11 1.79E-09 1.04E-09 1.04E-09 2.02E-09 1.58E-09 9.19E-10
Obio/Akpor B 1.88E-10 1.10E-10 2.08E-09 1.21E-09 9.46E-10 1.84E-09 3.66E-09 2.13E-09
C 1.60E-10 9.34E-11 1.69E-09 9.88E-10 7.94E-10 1.54E-09 3.21E-09 1.88E-09

D 1.36E-10 7.94E-11 7.01E-10 4.09E-10 6.82E-10 1.33E-09 3.15E-10 1.84E-10

Eleme E 2.24E-10 1.31E-10 4.66E-09 2.72E-09 9.87E-10 1.92E-09 3.91E-09 2.28E-09
F 9.05E-11 5.28E-11 2.38E-10 1.39E-10 4.92E-10 9.56E-10 1.89E-10 1.10E-10

G 1.10E-10 6.43E-11 8.60E-10 5.02E-10 6.38E-10 1.24E-09 1.89E-10 1.10E-10

Ikwerre H 2.11E-10 1.23E-10 3.76E-09 2.19E-09 1.17E-09 2.27E-09 4.82E-09 2.81E-09
I 1.18E-10 6.90E-11 2.30E-09 1.34E-09 6.25E-10 1.22E-09 2.21E-10 1.29E-10

Table 14. LIFE CANCER RISK (LCRdermal)

Pb Cd Cr As
SAMPLE SITE
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A - - - - 1.26E-06 1.38E-04 7.96E-08 1.28E-07
Obio/Akpor B - - - - 1.15E-06 1.25E-04 1.85E-07 2.97E-07
C - - - - 9.64E-07 1.05E-04 1.62E-07 2.61E-07

D - - - - 8.28E-07 9.02E-05 1.59E-08 2.56E-08

Eleme E - - - - 1.20E-06 1.31E-04 1.97E-07 3.18E-07
F - - - - 5.97E-07 6.50E-05 9.55E-09 1.54E-08

G - - - - 7.75E-07 8.44E-05 9.55E-09 1.54E-08

Ikwerre H - - - - 1.42E-06 1.55E-04 2.44E-07 3.92E-07
I - - - - 7.59E-07 8.26E-05 1.11E-08 1.79E-08
146 Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health

Table 15. TOTAL LIFE CANCER RISK (TLCR)

Pb Cd Cr As ƩTLCR
SAMPLE SITE
Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child
A 1.77E-07 4.14E-07 1.22E-05 2.84E-05 2.99E-06 2.05E-04 1.15E-06 2.63E-06 1.65E-05 2.37E-04
Obio/Akpor B 2.59E-07 6.04E-07 1.41E-05 3.30E-05 2.72E-06 1.86E-04 2.68E-06 6.10E-06 1.98E-05 2.26E-04
C 2.20E-07 5.14E-07 1.15E-05 2.69E-05 2.28E-06 1.56E-04 2.36E-06 5.36E-06 1.64E-05 1.89E-04

D 1.87E-07 4.37E-07 4.77E-06 1.11E-05 1.96E-06 1.34E-04 2.30E-07 5.26E-07 7.15E-06 1.46E-04
Eleme E 3.08E-07 7.19E-07 3.17E-05 7.39E-05 2.84E-06 1.95E-04 2.86E-06 6.52E-06 3.77E-05 2.76E-04
F 1.25E-07 2.91E-07 1.62E-06 3.78E-06 1.41E-06 9.67E-05 1.39E-07 3.16E-07 3.30E-06 1.01E-04

G 1.52E-07 3.54E-07 5.85E-06 1.37E-05 1.84E-06 1.26E-04 1.39E-07 3.16E-07 7.98E-06 1.40E-04
Ikwerre H 2.90E-07 6.77E-07 2.56E-05 5.96E-05 3.36E-06 2.30E-04 3.53E-06 8.04E-06 3.28E-05 2.99E-04
I 1.63E-07 3.80E-07 1.57E-05 3.65E-05 1.80E-06 1.23E-04 1.61E-07 3.68E-07 1.78E-05 1.60E-04

[9] Huang. M.; Wang, W.; Chan, C.Y; Cheung, K.C.; Man, Y.B.
4. Conclusion Contamination and risk assessment (based on bioaccessibility via
ingestion and inhalation) of metal (loid)s in outdoor and indoor
It was observed that despite the significant difference of particles from urban centers of Guangzhou, China. Science of The
the mean level of the heavy metals obtained across the Total Environ. (2014). 480: 117-124.
[10] Praveena, S.M.; Abdul, M.N.S.; Aris, A.Z. Determination of
various L.G.As (Obio/Akpor, Eleme, Ikwerre) at p≤0.05, heavy metals in indoor dust from primary school (Sri Serdang,
non of the schools show cased non-carcinogenic risk while Malaysia): estimation of the health risks. J. Environ. Foren.;
carcinogenic risks was observed mainly for children due (2015). 16: 257-263.
to exposure to heavy metals from classroom dusts as the [11] Wang, X.; Sato, T.; Xing, B. Health risks of heavy metals to the
general public in Tianjin, China via consumption of vegetables
hazard index obtained for the accessed schools were
and fish. Sci. Total Environ. (2005). 350, 28-37.
be1ow the permissible limit, while the Total Life Cancer [12] Moya J; Bearer CF; Etzel RA. Children’s behavior and physiology
Risk obtained was within the range of the permissible and how it affects exposure to environmental contaminants.
limit of 1 x10-6 to 1 x 10-4 in adults except for children Pediatrics, (2004). 113: 996-1006.
were these values were seen to be above the permissible [13] Beamer, P.; Key, M.E.; Ferguson, A.C.; Canales, R.A.; Auyeng,
W. Quantified activity pattern data from 6-to-27-month-old
limit. farmworker children for use in exposure assessment. Environ. Res.
(2008). 108: 239-246.
[14] Olujimi, O.; Steiner, O.; Goessler, W. Pollution indexing and
Conflicts of Interest health risk assessments of trace elements in indoor dusts from
classrooms, living rooms and offices in Ogun State, Nigeria. J.
Afri. Earth Sci. (2015). 101: 396-404.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. [15] Luo, X.S.; Ding, J.; Xu, B.; Wang, Y.J.; Li, H.B. Incorporating bio
accessibility into human health risk assessments of heavy metals
in urban park soils. Sci. Total Environ., (2012). 424: 88-96.
References [16] United States of Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
(2002). Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening
levels for superfund sites. OSWER 9355/4-24. Washington, DC:
[1] Klepeis, N.E.; Nelson, W.C.; Ott, W.R.; Robinson, J.P.; Tsang, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, and peaceful
A.M.. The national human activity pattern survey (NHAPS): a coexistence Africa World Press, Trenton, New Jersey, pg 72.
resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants.
[17] United States Department of Energy. The risk assessment
J. Exp. Env.Epid. (2001)11: 231-252.
information system (USDOE). Oak Ridge, TN: US Department of
[2] Schweizer, C.; Edwards, R.D.; Bayer-Oglesby, L.; Gauderman, Energy’s Oak Ridge Operations Office (ORO),. 2011 Available at:
W.J. and Ilacqua; V. Indoor time-microenvironment-activity https://rais.ornl.gov/.
patterns in seven regions of Europe. J. Exp. Env.Epid. (2007).;
[18] United States of Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
17:170-181.
Integrated. risk information system. Washington, DC: US EPA,
[3] Tran, D.T.; Alleman, L.Y.; Coddeville, P.; Gallo, J.C. Elemental 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/. Retrieved 02/07/2017.
characterization and source identification of size resolved
[19] US Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for Determining a
atmospheric particles in French classrooms. Atmos.Environ.
Mutagenic Mode of Action for Carcinogenicity: Review Draft.
(2012). 54:250-259.
(2007). Available online:
[4] Al-Rajhi, M.A.; Seaward, M.R.D; and Al-Aamar, A.S. (1996). http://www.epa.gov/osa/mmoaframework/pdfs/MMOA-ERD-
Metal levels in indoor and outdoor dust in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. FINAL-83007.pdf (accessed on 3/07/2017).
Environ. Intl. 22: 315-324.
[20] MEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s
[5] Tong, T.Y.; Lam, K.C. (2000). Home sweet home? A case study Republic of China). Technical Guidelines for Risk Assessment of
of household dust contamination in Hong Kong. Sci. Total Contaminated Sites; China Environmental Science Press: (2014).
Environ., 256: 115-123. Beijing, China. (In Chinese).
[6] Al-Khashman, O.A. (2004). Heavy metal distribution in dust, [21] US Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Guidance
street dust and soils from the work place in Karak Industrial Estate, for Superfund Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual
J.Atmos. Environ.; 28: 6803-6812. (Part A); (1989). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response:
[7] Meza-Figueroa, D.; La O-Villanueva M.D.; Parra, M.L.D. Heavy Washington, DC, USA.
metal distribution in dust from elementary schools in Hermosillo, [22] Popoola, O.E.; Bamgbose, O.; Okonkwo, O.J.; Arowolo, T.A.,
Sonora, Mexico. Atmos. Environ. (2007). 41: 276-288. Popoola, A.O. Heavy metals content in classroom dust of some
[8] Hassan, S.K.M. Metal concentrations and distribution in the public primary schools in metropolitan Lagos, Nigeria. Res. J.
household, stairs and entryway dust of some Egyptian homes. Environ. Earth Sci. (2012). 4: 460-465.
Atmos.Environ., (2012). 54: 207-215. [23] Aydinalp, C.; Marinova, S. The Effects of Heavy metals on Seed
http://www.afdevinfo.com/htmlreports/lor/lor_ni_10_15.html Germination and Plant Growth on Alfalfa plant (Medicago sativa).
retrieved 08/06/2017. Bulg.J. Agric.Sci. (2009), 15(4), 347-350.
 Journal of Environment Pollution and Human Health 147

[24] Seregin, I.V.; Ivaniov, V.B. Physiological aspects of cadmium and [38] Lewis, R. “Occupational Exposures: Metals. In: Current
lead toxic effects on higher plants. Russ. J. Plant Phys. (2001). 48: Occupational & Environmental Medicine. LaDou, J. editor. 3rd
606-630. Ed.” Lange Medical Books/McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.. (2004).
[25] Ademoroti, C. M. A. . Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, 439-441.
Foludex Press Ltd., Ibadan. (1996). 171-204. [39] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry “Toxicological
[26] Asia, I. O.; Ekpo, K. E.; Amayo, K. O.; Jegede, D. A.. Profile for Chromium.” (2000).
Determination of Lead, Cadmium and Mercury in surrounding http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=62&tid=17.
water and organs of some species of fish from Ikpoba River in retrieved 08/06/2017
Benin city, Nigeria. Intl. J. Phy. Sci. (2008) 3(11): 289-292. [40] Gibb, H. J.; Lees, P.S. “Lung cancer among workers in chromium
[27] Uaboi - Egbenni, P. O.; Okolie, P. N.; Martins, O.; Teniola, O. chemical production.” Amer. J. Ind. Med. (2000). 38(2): 115-126.
Studies on the occurrence and distribution of heavy metals in [41] Park, R. M.; Bena, J.F. “Hexavalent chromium and lung cancer in
sediments in Lagos Lagoon and their effects on benthic microbial the chromate industry: a quantitative risk assessment.” Risk
population. Afri. J. Environ. Sci. Tech. (2010). 4(6), pp. 343-351, Analysis (2004). 24(5): 1099-1108.
Available online at http://www.academicjournals. org/AJES [42] Katz, S. A.; Salem, H. “The toxicology of chromium with respect
[28] Addo, M.A.; Darko, E.O.; Gordon, C.; Nyarko, B.J.B.; Gbadago, to its chemical speciation: a review.” J. Appl. Tox. (1993). 13(3):
J.K. Heavy Metal Concentrations in Road Deposited Dust at Ketu- 217-224.
South District, Ghana. Intl. J. Sci. Tech. (2012). 2(1): 28-29. [43] World Health Organization, Arsenic (2016).
[29] Sanborn, M.D.; Abelsohn, A.; Campbell, M.; Weir, E. (2002). http://www.who.int/media centre /factsheets /fs372 /en/ retrieved
Identifying and managing adverse environmental health effects: 3. 17/06/1
Lead exposure. Can.Med.Asso. J. 166: 1287-92. [44] Rose, M.; Lewis, J.; Langford, N.; Baxter, M.; Origgi, S.; Barber,
[30] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Methods of Chemical MArsenic in seaweed-forms, concentration and dietary exposure.
Analysis of Water and Waste. Analytical Quality Control Food Chemi. Toxicol. (2007). 45(7): 1263-1267.
Laboratory, cin cinnati, O.H., US. Enviromental Protection [45] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. [ATSDR]
Agency, Water Pollution Control Resource. (1971). Series. No. Toxicological profile for arsenic. Draft for Public Comment.
1805GWV05/71. Atlanta GA;. Available from:
[31] Corbett, D. R.; Dillon, K.; Burnett, W.; Schaefer, G. The special http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=22&tid=3. (2007).
variability of nitrogen and phosphorous concentration in sand retrieved 04/07/2017
aquifer influenced by onsite sewage treatment and disposal [46] Zheng, N.; Liu, J.; Wang, Q.; Liang, Z. Health risk assessment of
systems: a case study on St. George Island, Florida. Environ.Pol. heavy metal exposure to street dust in the zinc smelting district,
(2002). 117: 337-345. Northeast of China. Sci. Total Environ. (2010). 408, 726-733.
[32] Iqbal, M. A.; Chaudhary, M.N.; Zaib, S.; Imran, M.; Ali, K .; Iqbal, [47] Junhua, M.; Wichitra, S. Distribution and Health Risk Assessment
A. Accumulation of Heavy Metals (Ni, Cu, Cd, Cr, Pb) in of Heavy metals in Surface Dusts of Maha Sarakham Municipality.
Agricultural Soils and Spring Seasonal Plants, Irrigated by Proce. - Soc.Behav. Sci. (2012). 50, 280-293.
Industrial Waste Water. J.Environ. Tech. Mgt. (2011). 2:1. [48] Fang, F.; Jiang, B.; Wang, H.; Xie, H. Particle size distribution
Retrieved June 3, 2017 from http://icoci.org/jetm and health risk assessment of heavy metals in surface dust of
[33] Novey, H. S.; Habib, M. “Asthma and IgE antibodies induced by Wuhu urban area. Geo. Res. (2010). 29(7), 1193-1202.
chromium and nickel salts.” Journal of Allergy & Clinical [49] Cao, S.; Duan, X.; Zhao, X.; Wang, B.; Ma, J. Health risk
Immunology. (1983). 72(4): 407-412. assessment of various metal(loid)s via multiple exposure pathways
[34] Lindberg, E.; Vesterberg, O. “Urinary excretion of proteins in on children living near a typical lead-acid battery plant, China.
chromeplaters, exchromeplaters and referents.” Scan. J.W.Environ. Environ.Pol.; (2015). 200:16-23.
Health. (1983). 9(6), 505-510. [50] Kurt-Karakus, P.B. Determination of heavy metals in indoor dust
[35] Dayan, A. D.; Paine, A.J. “Mechanisms of chromium toxicity, from Istanbul, Turkey: Estimation of the health risk. Environ.Intl,
carcinogenicity and allergenicity: review of the literature from (2012). 50:47-55.
1985 to 2000.” Hum. Expt. Tox.(2001). 20(9): 439-51. [51] Wilbur, S.; Abadin, H.; Fay, M.; Yu, D.; Tencza, B. Toxicological
[36] Polak, L. “Immunology of chromium. In: Chromium: metabolism Profile for Chromium. Atlanta (GA): Agency for Toxic
and toxicity.” Burrows, D, ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,: Substances and Disease Registry (US). 3, Health Effects. 2012.
(1983). 51-135. Available at:
[37] Bruynzeel, D. P.;Hennipman, G. “Irritant contact dermatitis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK158851/ retrieved 7/6/17
and chrome-passivated metal.” Contact Dermatitis (1988). 19(3):
175-179.

View publication stats