Health Risk Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Chemical Materials in a Combined-Cycle Power Plant

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Environmental Science, College of Natural Resources and the Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Environmental Management, College of Natural Resources and the Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Environment, Takestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran

4 Environmental Technologies Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

5 Environmental Health Engineering Department, School of Health, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran

10.34172/jaehr.1289

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the occupational exposure of workers at a combined-cycle power plant located in the southwestern region of Iran. The assessment focuses on the inhalation exposure route to workplace emissions.
Methods: The primary locations for potential pollutant emissions were identified in close proximity to the areas where chemicals were introduced and utilized within the production process. Sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, ammonia, oil mist, toluene, hydrogen sulfide, hydrazine, and tetrachloromethane were measured and analyzed using the NIOSH standard. Dose-response assessment was estimated using inhalation unit risk (IUR) for cancer risks and reference concentration (RFC) and reference exposure levels (REL) for non-cancer risks. Risk assessment was performed based on the Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guideline.
Results: The results showed that ammonia and toluene had the highest and lowest concentration of pollutants emitted in workplace, respectively. The inhalation of ammonia and sulfuric acid and their daily absorption were at high risk level (HQ > 1). Other noncancerous compounds had HQ < 1. While the hazard index (HI) for total non-cancer risks was 5.34E + 01 (HI > 1), it was likely to have non-cancerous risks. For carcinogenic risks, they were calculated to be 9.58E-03 and 5.47E-04 for hydrazine and tetrachloromethane, respectively. The total carcinogenic risk of the emissions was calculated at 1.01E-02, which was in the significant range (more than 10-4) (i.e. in the range of hazardous cancer effects).
Conclusion: This study confirmed the presence of non-carcinogenic risks, while the quantity of cancer risks fell within the Significant range, indicating a potential for carcinogenic risks.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Holechek JL, Geli HM, Sawalhah MN, Valdez R. A global assessment: can renewable energy replace fossil fuels by 2050? Sustainability. 2022;14(8):4792. doi: 3390/su14084792.
  2. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Human Health Risk Assessment. 2016. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/risk/human-health-risk-assessment.
  3. Chon HT, Lee JU, Lee JS. Heavy metals contamination of mine soil, their risk assessment, and bioremediation. In: Bech J, Bini C, Pashkevich MA, eds. Assessment, Restoration and Reclamation of Mining Influenced Soils. Academic Press; 2017. p. 387-417. doi: 1016/b978-0-12-809588-1.00015-3.
  4. Gerba CP. Risk assessment. In: Pepper IL, Gerba CP, Gentry TJ, eds. Environmental Microbiology. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2015. p. 565-79. doi: 1016/b978-0-12-394626-3.00024-7.
  5. Motahari A, Malmasi S, Jaafarzadeh Haghighi Fard N. Application of a multi-criteria decision-making approach for ranking environmental risks caused by petrochemical industries: a case study of a sodium carbonate production unit. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2015;21(2):358-74. doi: 1080/10807039.2014.916548.
  6. Hämäläinen P, Takala J, Kiat TB. Global Estimates of Occupational Accidents and Work-related Illnesses 2017. Finland: Workplace Safety and Health Institute (WSH Institute), Minister of Social Affairs and Health; 2017.
  7. Lee LK, Yang SM, Park J, Kim J. The effort of health management for workers in Y combined cycle power plant in Korea. Toxicol Environ Health Sci. 2018;10(1):42-8. doi: 1007/s13530-018-0345-5.
  8. Rohr AC, Campleman SL, Long CM, Peterson MK, Weatherstone S, Quick W, et al. Potential occupational exposures and health risks associated with biomass-based power generation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(7):8542-605. doi: 3390/ijerph120708542.
  9. Mokhtar MM, Hassim MH, Taib RM. Health risk assessment of emissions from a coal-fired power plant using AERMOD modelling. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2014;92(5):476-85. doi: 1016/j.psep.2014.05.008.
  10. Bell J. HSE/HSL Irritancy Questionnaire: A Validation and Reliability Study. Health and Safety Laboratory; 2000.
  11. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 1997.
  12. Ben Y, Fu C, Hu M, Liu L, Wong MH, Zheng C. Human health risk assessment of antibiotic resistance associated with antibiotic residues in the environment: a review. Environ Res. 2019;169:483-93. doi: 1016/j.envres.2018.11.040.
  13. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ToxFAQs™ for Sodium Hydroxide. 2014. Available from: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id = 248&tid = 45.
  14. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH). 2014. Available from: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mmg/mmg.asp?id = 246&tid = 45.
  15. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. California Environmental Protection Agency; 2015.
  16. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ToxFAQs™ for Sulfur Trioxide and Sulfuric Acid. 2014. Available from: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid = 255&toxid = 47.
  17. Zhao H, Wu L, Yan G, Chen Y, Zhou M, Wu Y, et al. Inflammation and tumor progression: signaling pathways and targeted intervention. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021;6(1):263. doi: 1038/s41392-021-00658-5.
  18. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM). 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 96-135. 1996.
  19. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM). 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 94-113. 1994.
  20. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM). 5th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014-151. 2014.
  21. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM). 4th ed. 3rd Suppl. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2003-154. 2003.
  22. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC, US EPA; 2011.
  23. Gong Y, Wei Y, Cheng J, Jiang T, Chen L, Xu B. Health risk assessment and personal exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in metro carriages - a case study in Shanghai, China. Sci Total Environ. 2017;574:1432-8. doi: 1016/j.scitotenv.2016.08.072.
  24. Gruszecka-Kosowska A. Assessment of the Kraków inhabitants’ health risk caused by the exposure to inhalation of outdoor air contaminants. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess. 2018;32(2):485-99. doi: 1007/s00477-016-1366-8.
  25. Asante-Duah K. Public Health Risk Assessment for Human Exposure to Chemicals. 2nd ed. Springer; 2017.
  26. Robson MG. Toscano W. Risk Assessment for Environmental Health. 1st ed. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons; 2007. p. 628.
  27. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Metalworking Fluids. DHHS Publication No. 98-1002. Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH; 1998.
  28. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) - Generic Tables. 2018. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables.
  29. Metcalf and Eddy. Agreement No CE 28/2003 (EP). Sludge Treatment Facilities – Feasibility Study. EIA Report. 2003. Available from: https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia//register/report/eiareport/eia1552008/EIA%20Report/pdf/Text/S4_HRA.pdf.
  30. Pepper I, Gerba CP, Brusseau ML. Environmental and Pollution Science. 2nd ed. Academic Press; 2011.
  31. Cao S, Duan X, Zhao X, Wang B, Ma J, Fan D, et al. Health risk assessment of various metal(loid)s via multiple exposure pathways on children living near a typical lead-acid battery plant, China. Environ Pollut. 2015;200:16-23. doi: 1016/j.envpol.2015.02.010.
  32. Zhao H, Wu L, Yan G, Chen Y, Zhou M, Wu Y, et al. Inflammation and tumor progression: signaling pathways and targeted intervention. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021;6(1):263. doi: 1038/s41392-021-00658-5.
  33. Piotrowski I, Kulcenty K, Suchorska W. Interplay between inflammation and cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020;25(3):422-7. doi: 1016/j.rpor.2020.04.004.
  34. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ToxFAQs™ for Carbon Tetrachloride. 2005. Available from: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id = 195&tid = 35#bookmark06.
  35. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ToxFAQs™ for Hydrazine, 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine and 1,2-Dimethylhydrazine. 2013. Available from: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id = 500&tid = 89#bookmark06.
  36. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2019. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid = 2776.
  37. Kumar B, Mishra M, Verma VK, Rai P, Kumar S. Organochlorines in urban soils from Central India: probabilistic health hazard and risk implications to human population. Environ Geochem Health. 2018;40(6):2465-80. doi: 10.1007/s10653-018-0112-1.