Home Cancer risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the soil and sediments of Iran: a systematic review study
Article Publicly Available

Cancer risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the soil and sediments of Iran: a systematic review study

  • Roshanak Rezaei Kalantary , Neamatollah Jaafarzadeh , Mohammad Rezvani Ghalhari and Mohsen Hesami Arani EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: October 27, 2021
Download Article (PDF)
Reviews on Environmental Health
From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health Volume 37 Issue 4

Abstract

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are organic pollutants containing several hydrocarbon rings affecting human health according to the published monitoring data. Most of these compounds can be absorbed by the soil and sediments due to the abundance of production resources of these compounds in the soil around the cities and sediments of the Iranian coast. Cancer risk assessment (CRA) is one of the most effective methods for quantifying the potentially harmful effects of PAHs on human health. In this study, the published papers that monitored PAHs in Iran’s soil and sediments were reviewed. The extraction of different data and their equivalent factors were performed according to BaP equivalent, which is the main factor for calculating CRA of PAHs. The highest concentrations of PAHs were found in the sediments of Assaluyeh industrial zones (14,844 μg/kg), Khormousi region (1874.7 μg/kg), and Shadegan wetland (1749.5 μg/kg), respectively. Dermal exposure to sediments was 96% in adults, and 4% in children, and ingestion exposure to sediment was 99% in adults and 99.2% in children. Children dermal exposure to soil was 53%, and the accidental exposure to soil was 47%. In adults, dermal exposure to soil was 96% and the accidental exposure was 4%. The results of the present study indicated a significant, the carcinogenic risk of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in sediments of southern regions and soils of central regions of Iran is significant.

Keywords: environmental pollution; human health risk assessment; Monte Carlo; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); sediments; sensitivity analysis; soil

Introduction

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of hydrophobic and chemically stable compounds that are harmful to both human and the environment due to their toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic attribute. Of the hundreds of known PAHs, 16 have been classified as high priority pollutants [1]. The occurrence of PAH in the soil is primarily due to events, such as incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, extensive spillage of petroleum and other organic substances transportation, volcanic activity, wood processing, and smoke [2, 3]. Given the inherent properties of PAHs, such as high hydrophobicity and low vapor pressure, they became water-insoluble and can be expeditiously absorbed by organic compounds present in the soil and sediments [4, 5]. Therefore, soil and sediments are recognized as the primary sources of PAH accumulation in the environment [6, 7] and can be considered an appropriate indicator for PAH environmental contamination.

Cancer potency of some PAH species was found causing detrimental adverse health effects in the immune, neurological, hematopoietic, urinary tract, liver, lung, skin, and reproductive systems in animals and humans [8]. Moreover, the association between occupational exposure to PAH and the incidence of cancer has been established in epidemiologic studies. The widespread exposure to PAHs can be considered as a global concern. The key route of human exposure to the soil and sediments is incidental soil ingestion, especially in children living in coastal areas that can transmit chemical, organic contaminants, and PAHs [9]. Dermal and inhalation routes also play a role in the occurrence of adverse health effects [10]. Although PAHs were found in fruits and vegetables grown in soils contaminated with petroleum [11], the most significant threat emerges from marine sediment PAHs. They can accumulate in the tissue of marine organisms and endanger community health by entering the marine food chain [12]. Concerns about industrialization and the extent of environmental pollution to PAHs and their health hazards, as well as assessing potential health risks of PAHs [13] are necessary to predict the adverse health effects associated population health management using appropriate restrictive measures [14]. In Iran, however, lack of a comprehensive carcinogenic risk assessment of PAHs on the soil and sediments is evident due to factors, including geography and the range of anthropogenic sources of PAHs, such as the presence of minor and major industries, major oil spills, and the need for monitoring and health risk assessment studies on the soil of different regions.

A notable drawback in health risk assessment is the lack of certainty of the obtained results. It originates from insufficient knowledge of the environment, humans, and the future, which lowers the risk assessment process accuracy and dynamic. Probabilistic uncertainty analysis is a technique that assigns a probability density function to each input parameter, then randomly selects values from each of the distribution and inserts them into the exposure equation. Repeated calculations produce a distribution of predicted values, reflecting the combined impact of variability in each input to the calculation [15].

Usually, the probabilistic approaches like Monte Carlo and sensitivity analysis estimate the uncertainties and stochastic properties of exposure in humans. Nowadays, it is has been successfully applied in assessing the potential adverse health effects of various contaminants [16]. However, cancer risk assessment (CRA) of PAHs for the soil and sediments using monte carlo simulation (MCS) has been studied in few regions of the world, such as villages along the Huai River, China [17]. In Iran, studies on PAH pollution on soil and sediments has gained increasing attention (Table 1); however, there is no study on PAH and health risk assessment which in the soil and sediments of industrial cities of Iran. Given what has been said and the impact of exposure to Soils and sediments contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) on human health, this study aimed to assess the cancer risks of different published monitoring data on PAH levels of the soil and sediments throughout Iran.

Table 1:

Parameter of incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR).

Exposure variable Definition Children Adult Unit
Male Female Male Female
CDIingestion CDI related to soil particle ingestion 9.36035E−08 1.05517E−07 6.079E−08 8.19692E−08 (mg kg−1 d−1)
CSsoil The sum of converted PAH concentrations in the soil based on toxic equivalents of BaP 0.10591 (mg kg−1)
IRds Dust and soil ingestion rate 200 100 (mg d−1)
EF Exposure frequency 350 350 (day year−1)
ED Exposure duration 6 30 (year)
BW Body weight of the exposed individual (kg) 18.6 16.5 71.6 53.1 kg
AT Averaging time of 365 d year−1 for 70 years for lifetime exposure of cancer risk (70 years × 365 days/year) 70 × 365 = 25,550 70 × 365 = 25,550 Day
CF Conversion factor 1 × 10E−06 1 × 10E−06 kg mg−1
CDIinhalation CDI via inhalation of soil particles 3.44131E−12 3.87929E−12 8.9397E−12 1.20543E−11 (mg kg−1 d−1)
HR The rate of air inhalation 10 20 (m3 d−1)
PEFsoil Soil particle emission factor 1.36 × 109 1.36 × 109
CDIdermal contact CDI for dermal contact of soil 3.04211E−08 3.42929E−08 4.58356E−07 6.18048E−07 (mg kg−1 d−1)
SA The exposed surface area of the skin that contacts soil (assuming that exposed skin surface is limited to the head, hands, and forearms) 2000 5,800 (cm2 d−1)
AF Relative skin adherence factor for soil 0.25 1 (mg cm−2)
ABS Dermal absorption fraction 0.13 0.13
BSAF Abbreviation of biota to sediment accumulation factor for fish in terms of BaP 0.54 0.54 (unit less)
CSfish The sum of converted PAH concentrations in terms of BaP in fish 0.100,087 (mg kg−1)
Flipid The lipid fraction of fish 0.07 0.07 (g lipid/g wet weight)
CSsedi The sum of converted PAH concentrations in terms of BaP in surficial sediment 0.056,715,199 (μg/kg dry weight)
OC The fraction of organic carbon in sediment 0.04 0.04 (g organic carbon/g dry weight)
CDIfood ingestion CDI associated with fish ingestion 2.21E−11 2.49E−11 5.34E−11 7.2E−11 (mg kg−1 d−1)
IRfish The fish ingestion rate 0.05 0.093 (kg d−1)

Objectives

  • – CRA of PAHs in the soil and sediments of different regions of Iran based on age and sex,

  • – Comparison of PAHs carcinogenic risks in the soil and sediments,

  • – Detecting emission sources of PAHs in the soil and sediments based on the amount of PAH isomers.

Methodology

This systematic review combined with a health risk assessment was carried out in two phases, including the identification of PAH studies by systematic review and assessing the health risk. PROSPERO was used for the registration of protocol (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), and the registration number is CRD42020200915.

Search strategy

Given that the primary hazard was the presence of PAHs in the soil and sediments of different regions, strategy search was based on the main hazard and purpose of the study. The present systematic review investigated the cancer risk assessment (CRA) of PAHs in the soil and sediments based on the collected data and classification of PAH surveys performed in different regions of Iran. The primary research question that constitutes the aim was, “What is the carcinogenic risk of PAHs in the soil and sediments of Iran?”. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate CRA of PAHs in the soil and sediments by performing systematic review approaches throughout Iran. The research articles concerned with PAH measurements in the soil and sediments in various regions of Iran were monitored and analyzed based on the search strategy design.

The search strategy included: (“Surface Soil” OR “Soil”) AND (“Sediments”) AND (“PAHs” OR “Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons” OR “Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds”) AND (“Chrysene” OR “Anthracene” OR “Phenanthrene” OR “Benzo[a]pyrene” OR “Naphthalene”) AND (“Surface Sediments” OR “Sediments” OR “Marine Sediments”) AND (“Iran” OR “Persian” OR “Persian Gulf” OR “Caspian Sea”) AND NOT (“Air”).

The search was carried out in PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Google Scholar databases based on the above search strategy. It was limited to English and Persian languages, and all articles published in national and international journals until August 2020 were included in this study.

Screening quality evaluation

In the initial screening, duplicate articles were removed and then the titles were screened, and two individuals investigated the abstract of all the returned results of the keyword search. In case of discrepancy, 137 articles were fully studied and re-evaluated. Then, the initial list of articles was prepared. A checklist was made to assert the quality of the included studies and evaluate them in accordance with the study aims and questions, which was appraised by STROBE checklist [18].

Selection criteria

The inclusion criteria consisted of cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies, ecologic studies, case-crossover, or time-series studies, WHO, and World Bank report, quantification of more than 10 PAHs in the soil and sediments of Iran in various regions, and clear statement of various levels of PAH isomers in samples in order to calculate Benzo[a]pyrene equivalent concentration (BaPeq). The exclusion criteria were review and meta-analysis articles, proceeding articles, and policy articles, letter to the editor, chapter in books, study conduct, a study out of Iran, non-English and Persian language articles, and articles that not reported the concentration of PAHs.

Data items

The “PECO” strategy for systematic exploratory review was: P (residents of polluted areas, men, women, adult, and children), E (exposure to the soil or sediments polluted with PAHs), C (preventive management strategy, continuous monitoring, source detection, and health risk assessment), and O (gastrointestinal and lung cancers, neurological disorders).

Data extraction

To conduct the systematic review, the following data were extracted from the selected articles by two individuals in the MS Excel form: first author’s name, study location, the year of the study, number of investigated PAHs, mean concentrations of PAHs, BaPeq value, number of the samples, and the type of sample (i.e., soil or sediment).

Assessing risk of bias and quality of evidence

The quality analysis and risk of bias of the included studies were performed by two reviewers (M HA—M RGH), respectively. The appraisal tool was utilized for cross-sectional studies (AXIS) listing (see Appendix Table S1). Each study was assessed on associate AXIS scores from one to three. The quality of articles was determined by summarizing the evaluation of five questions that are of specific importance in keeping with the authors: question 5 (representativeness), question 6 (selection process), question 8 (validity), question 9 (reliability), and question 13 (response). A study was judged “1” (high quality) if all five questions were answered in the affirmative; “2” (acceptable quality) if four of five questions were answered in the affirmative; and “3” (low quality) if at least two questions got negative or unclear answers [19].

Questions: (1) Were the aims/objectives of the study clear? (2) Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)? (3) Was the sample size justified? (4) Was the target/reference population clearly defined? (Is it clear who the research was about?) (5) Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base, so that it closely represented the target/reference population under investigation? (6) Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants representing the target/reference population under investigation? (7) Were measures undertaken to address and categorize non-responders? (8) Were the (a) risk factors and (b) outcome variables measured appropriate to the aims of the study? (9) Were the (a) risk factors and (b) outcome variables measured correctly using instruments/measurements that had been trialed, piloted or published previously? (10) Is it clear what was used to determine the statistical significance and/or precision estimates (e.g., p-value, confidence intervals)? (11) Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated? (12) Were the basic data adequately described? (13) Did the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias? (14) If appropriate, was information about non-responders described? (15) Were the results internally consistent? (16) Were the results of the analyses described in the presented methods? (17) Were the author’s discussions and conclusions justified by the results? (18) Were the limitations of the study discussed? (19) Were there any (a) funding sources or (b) conflicts of interest that may affect the author’s interpretation of the results? (20) Was the ethical approval or consent of participants attained?

*The overall study quality based on the evaluations of the questions 5, 6, 8, 9, and 13 was assessed with 1 = high quality (all answers positive), 2 = acceptable quality (all but one answer positive), or 3 = low quality (more than one negative or unclear answer)

Data analysis

Based on the previous steps, 137 research papers published until August 19th, 2020, were identified and inspected. After identifying articles from different databases, articles without inclusion criteria, similar articles, articles without numerical results, incomplete articles that were in the abstract and articles that lacked qualitative conditions were removed from the total number and 20 papers of which that were quotable were included in the study. The included studies were categorized into three groups based on the study locations, including northern, central, and southern regions of Iran (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Location map of the study area and sampling points.
Figure 1:

Location map of the study area and sampling points.

Health risk assessment

After the identification and classification, the health risk assessment was conducted. Health risk assessment have four principles, including: hazard identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. Which, hazard identification is the critical step in risk management and it can ensure the accuracy of the later steps. Regarding health hazards of PAHs to Iranian communities, PAHs surveys in different regions of Iran, as well as all PAHs studies published in Persian and English databases (scientific information databases, magiran, Google scholar, pubmed, scopus, science direct, and iranmedex) were selected.

Exposure and cancer risk assessment

Exposure assessment is the second step in the evaluation and management of risk. CRA tackles with carcinogenic or mutagenic agents causing cancer [20]. The primary PAH exposure routes to contaminated soil and sediment are dermal and ingestion (accidental, especially in children) and inhalation [21]. In sediments, however, only the route of ingesting fish tissue contaminated with PAHs is considered [22].

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposed the incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) as the model for exposure assessment of PAHs in the soil and sediments [23, 24]. The chronic daily intake (CDI) of PAHs denotes the PAHs in soil particles received by the exposure (i.e., respiratory organs and dermal layer) and is denoted by CDI. The CDI of PAHs in other mediums was neglected, since the study scope was the PAHs carried by soil particles. The CDI (mg kg−1 d−1) of PAHs via soil dust was estimated using the following formula.

The risk scenarios were devised for two age groups, including adults (21–70-year-old) and children (0–5-year-old) [24], [25], [26], [27].

(1) CDI ingestion = CS soil ×  IRds  ×  CF  ×  ED  ×  EF BW  ×  AT

(2) CDI inhalation = CS soil ×  HR  ×   ED  ×  EF PEF soil ×  BW  ×  AT

(3) CDI dermal contact = CS soil × CF × SA × AF × ABS × ED × EF BW × AT

PAH concentration in fish was calculated using the following equations.

(4) CS fish = CS soil × f lipid × BSAF OC soil

(5) CDI food ingestion = CS fish ×  IR fish ×  EF  ×  ED BW  × AT

Where CSfish and CSsoil are total concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs, expressed as BaPeq (mg/kg), in fish and soil, respectively. Flipid is the fraction of fish fat (0.07 g lipid/g wet, according to studies in Iran), BSAF is biota–sediment accumulation factor in fish for benzene (0.54) [28, 29], OCoil is the organic carbon fraction of sediments (0.04) [30].

CDIfood ingestion is the CDI of benzo[a]pyrene due to consumption of fish (mg/kg/day), IRfish is the daily intake of fish [31]. PAHs loss during cooking was not included in the formula [32].

(6) Rx  =  CDIx × CSFx

Table 1 describes the risk assessment parameters. USEPA (1989) reported that cancer risk (r) due to PAH exposure can be determined by multiplying the CDI and cancer potency factor known as cancer slope factor (CSF), which is calculated by BaP (the most potent carcinogen) as the reference dose. The CSF for ingestion, inhalation, and dermal routes is 7.3, 3.85, and 25 (mg/kg), respectively.

Ultimately, the total cancer risk (r) for exposed residents is determined by the sum of carcinogenic health risks of ingestion, inhalation, and dermal exposure routes.

For soil,

(7) R soil = r ingestion + r inhalation + r dermal contact

And for sediments,

(8) R sediments = r food ingestion + r dermal contact

The USEPA considered that an R greater than 10E−06 as unacceptable and corrective action was needed [20]. Based on the New York State Department of Health remark, the qualitative interpretation for the obtained ILCR value is as follows: R≤10E−06 indicates very low risk, 10E−04<R<10E−06 low risk, 10E−04<R<10E−03 medium risk, 10E−03<R<10E−01 high risk, and R≥10E−01 indicates very high risk [33].

In the third step, to assess PAH toxicity, mean concentrations were determined in sampling areas. Given that each PAH congener has a specific cancer potency and high cancer potency quota of BaP compared to other PAHs, potency equivalency factor (PEF) is used to convert the cancer potency individual PAHs into their respective BaP equivalent (BaPeq). This approach, known as a toxic equivalent factor (TEF), is both specific and suitable for CRA of PAHs [34]; since it can show the toxicity of each PAH relative to BaP as the reference (Supplementary Table S1). BaP has the maximum TEF value (TEF = 1).

(9) TEQ BaP eq = ∑ ( PEFi × Ci )

  • PEFi = equivalency factor potency for a PAH compound

  • TEQBaPeq  = toxic equivalents of a benzo[a]pyrene reference compound (or) BaP equivalent concentration for all PAH compounds

  • Ci = concentration of individual PAH compound

Petry et al. [35] used the TEF approach for environmental health risk assessment due to PAH exposure.

Toxic equivalent factor of different PAHs are; Nap = 0.001, Fluoranthene = 0.001, Acenaphthene = 0.001, Acenaphthylene = 0.001, Fluorene = 0.001, Phenanthrene = 0.001, Anthracene = 0.001, Pyrene = 0.001, Benz(a)anthracene = 0.1, Chrysene = 0.01, Benzo(b)fluoranthene = 0.1, Benzo(k)fluoranthene = 0.1, Benzo(a)pyrene = 1, Ideno(1,2,3-cd)P = 0.1, Dibenz(a,h)anthracene = 1 and for Benzo(g,h,i)perylene = 0.01 [36].

Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis

Health risk assessment is an intricate process as it generates levels of uncertainty due to a multitude of effective parameters and addressing such uncertainties. The inclusion of uncertainties in risk assessment provides a more realistic view of the status. Various methods, such as Monte-Carlo Simulation (MCS) or modeling methods are utilized to address uncertainty issues. In this study to oracle crystal ball software (version 11.1.34190) with 10,000 iterations was used with 90% confidence intervals for MCS modeling. One of the optional applications of oracle crystal ball software (version 11.1.34190) is calculating sensitivity analysis which can determine the weight of each parameter in the risk assessment.

The MCS method, as a common approach in uncertainty analysis, is based on randomization and repetition of risk variables in CRA. Therefore, this method was used in this study to perform risk assessment accurately and provide a distribution of results. It is also based on presenting randomized results relative to the uncertainties occurred in a study. Each risk variable is simulated using their probability distribution and the corresponding output is obtained. This process is frequently repeated and the use of generated data, levels, and variability of results is investigated. The uncertainty value of the output is then determined using statistics or probability distribution for uncertainty [37, 38].

Results

Out of 24 papers, published from 2000 to 2019, 20 papers included in the systematic review due to the qualitative criteria (Figure 2), and four papers investigated PAHs in soils of seven vast regions of Iran, and 16 papers surveyed PAHs in sediments of 22 critical locations in Iran (Supplementary Table S1). Therefore, concentrations of different PAH isomers in the soil and sediments were determined for the southern, central, and northern Iran regions (Figure 1).

Figure 2: Flowchart of the database search, selection, and review process of articles.
Figure 2:

Flowchart of the database search, selection, and review process of articles.

There were various concentration range of PAHs in the soil and sediments of Iran. The mean concentration of PAHs for papers conducted in Tehran, Hormozgan, Khuzestan, and Isfahan provinces (central regions) was 725.77 μg/g and the highest and lowest levels were found in Isfahan city (2000.82 µg/kg) and Deh Namak district, Semnan province (114 µg/kg), respectively [39], [40], [41], [42]. The highest amount of PAHs (87.27 mg/kg) was reported in Ahmadi et al.’s [43] study on surface soils of petroleum industries located at Masjed Soleiman which was excluded from the study; since it was conducted in an industrial site. This amount is relatively high according to the WHO standards, which classifies PAH levels of more than 1 g/kg, 2–5 mg/kg, and 50–100 µg/kg in industrial sites, soils polluted by auto exhausts, and unpolluted areas, respectively, in the high concentration category [43].

Numerous studies have investigated PAHs in the soil and sediments and other media. Dhananjayan et al. (2012) associated high PAH levels in bottled water to high water solubility and high accumulation of high molecular PAHs in the soil and sediments [44].

PAH measurements in soil samples of Iran showed that 42% of the regions had moderate levels of contamination; whereas 58% were found with high pollution levels. The mean concentration of PAHs in four studies in seven regions was 725.77 × 10−3 μg/kg. Moreover, from 16 studies that surveyed PAHs in sediments of 23 regions in Iran, nine regions had moderate pollution, eight regions with high pollution, and two regions were recognized with very high pollution levels (critical). The highest PAH concentrations were found in sediments of industrial sites located at Asaluyeh (14,844 μg/kg) as well as PAHs in sediments of Khur Musa (1847.7 μg/kg) and Shadegan Ponds (1749.5 μg/kg). These results were consistent with studies conducted in southern Italy (∑PAHs: 9–31,774 ng/g), Qatar (∑PAHs: 0.55–92 ng/g) [45], and the Gulf of Aden in Yemen (∑PAHs: 2.2–604.4 ng/g) [46].

Evaluation of PAH concentrations in different regions of Iran showed high mean concentrations of PAHs in northern regions of the Persian Gulf, as well as Shadegan Ponds. Four indicators were used to identify the pollution sources in northern, southern, and central regions of Iran.

Given that Phe and Pyr are more thermodynamically stable than their isomers, including anthracene and fluoranthene, the sediments PAHs were mainly from petrogenic activities. Therefore, a Phe/Ant ratio of <10 and a Flu/Pyr ratio of >1 indicate that the PAH contamination had a pyrolytic origin; whereas the PAH from petrogenesis was characterized by a Phe/Ant ratio of >10 and a Flu/Pyr ratio of <1 (84–85).

The mean concentrations of PAHs in the soil and sediments were used to diagnose PAHs origin (Table 2).

Table 2:

The emission sources of PAHs in north, south, and central Iran, and in the soil and sediments.

No (PAHS) PAH ratios The emission source, according to the ratio of PAHS isomers Soil Sediments Central Iran Southern Iran Northern Iran
1 LMW/HMW < 1 Combustion – pyrogenic 0.48 0.998 0.604 1.23 0.25
LMW/HMW > 1 Petrogenic
2 Py/Fluo < 1 Combustion – pyrogenic 0.974 0.877 1.2 0.93 0.3
Py/Fluo > 1 Petrogenic
3 Ant/(Ant + Phe) < 0.1 Petrogenic 0.577 0.23 0.34 0.26 0.282
Ant/(Ant + Phe) ≥ 0.1 Combustion – pyrogenic
4 Fluo/(Fluo + Py) < 0.4 Petrogenic 0.504 0.53 0.45 0.47 0.717
0.4 ≤ Fluo/(Fluo + Py) < 0.5 Petrogenic or combustion
Fluo/(Fluo + Py) ≥ 0.5 Biomass and coal
5 BaA/(BaA + Chr) < 0.2 Petrogenic 0.43 0.51 0.141 0.53 0.5
0.2 ≤ BaA/(BaA + Chr) < 0.35 Petrogenic or combustion
BaA/(BaA + Chr) ≥ 0.35 Biomass and coal
6 InP/(InP + BgP) < 0.2 Petrogenic 0.56 0.55 0.5 0.52 0.71
0.2 ≤ InP/(InP + BgP) < 0.5 Petrogenic or combustion
InP/(InP + BgP) ≥ 0.5 Biomass and coal

Yunker et al. demonstrated that a Ph/An ratio lower than 10 and a Flu/Flu + Pyr ratio greater than 0.5 suggest a pyrogenic source and a Ph/An ratio greater than 10 and Flu/Flu + Pyr lower than 0.4 indicate a petrogenic source. An An/An + Ph ratio lower than 0.1 and IP/IP + BghiP and BaA/BaA + Chr ratios lower than 0.2 suggest a petrogenic source whereas An/An + Ph greater than 0.1 and BaA/BaA + Chr greater than 0.35 and IP/IP + BghiP greater than 0.5 represent a pyrogenic source [26, 47]. Table 2 reveals the emission sources of PAHs in southern, northern, and central Iran as well as in environmental soil and sediments.

In general, it was found that the source of PAHs in Iranian soils is fossil fuel combustion and in Iranian sediments is both petrogenic and fossil fuels [48, 49]. Among these compounds, BghiP and IP are known as the specific tracers of traffic and petrogenic sources, such as incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and rubber wastes [50]. Also, PAHs, such as BaP, Bkf, BbF, Chr, and BaA are known to be the indicators of diesel emissions; whereas Phe, Fl, BeP, Pyr, Flu, and Ant are markers of oil combustion [20, 51, 52].

Health risk assessment

Health risk assessment is a process that estimates the hazard risk of a contaminant posed to human health in the present and future exposures. Given the variety of PAH isomers, PAHs health risk assessment is conducted by Benzo[a]pyrene as a basis [53]. This is due to BaP high cancer potency that its carcinogenesis is used as a reference dose for other PAHs [40]. Some studies have stated that high BaPeq levels in sediments stem from oil rigs, oil ports, and the shipbuilding industry are caused by the existence of open-pit mines and substance leakage from oil tankers [54]. Therefore, the shipbuilding industry in northern and southern shores and oil ports may have increased BaP concentrations in monitoring samples of the soil and sediments in various regions of Iran.

In the present systematic review, the carcinogenic health risk assessment due to PAHs exposure in children and adults were calculated according to Eqs. (1–8) using each group’s parameters, including exposure duration (ED), adherence factor (AF), body weight (BW), surface area of the skin (SA), exposure frequency (EF), and the rate of air inhalation (HR). Furthermore, the uncertainty analysis was carried out using MCS [55], [56], [57]. Given that, Iran is located on the arid part of the Earth and due to soil erosion, the soil texture is very week and wind speed on this area is 32 km/h, in this study a scenario was considerate that this situation can inhalable the soil as the dust.

To investigate and determine the carcinogenic health risk assessment of PAHs in sediments, the dermal and ingestion (through eating fish) routes were considered as the exposure pathways. The mean health risks for both age groups according to gender were estimated with 90% confidence using MCS via Oracle Crystal Ball add-in in MS Excel.

It is noteworthy to state that eating food contaminated with PAHs might lead to gastrointestinal cancer. Consuming fish contaminated with PAHs is the most important route of human exposure to PAHs in sediments. In southern regions, 90% potential cancer risk of sediments ranged between 1.43E−07 to 3.96E−05 ± 2.19E−06 for men and 1.97E−07 to 5.33E−05 ± 2.95E−06 for Women. Also, 90% potential cancer risk of sediments for male children ranged between 9.61E−9 and 2.63E−06 ± 1.45E−07 and for female children 1.08E−08 to 2.97E−06 ± 1.64E−07 (Figure 3a–d). Nevertheless, activation of monitoring programs is essential for reducing cancer risks. The blue part in Figure 3 shows the amount of carcinogenic risk which exists between 90th and 10th percentile.

Figure 3: The cancer risk of PAHs in sediments and soil for (a, e) adult males, (b, f) adult females, (c, g) male children, and (d, h) female children with a 90% confidence interval.
Figure 3:

The cancer risk of PAHs in sediments and soil for (a, e) adult males, (b, f) adult females, (c, g) male children, and (d, h) female children with a 90% confidence interval.

The simulation result for PAHs carcinogenic risk in the soil included the 90% interval for carcinogenic risk of PAHs in adult males was between 5.12E−06 and 1.76E05, with the mean value of 5.57E−08. For adult females, the interval was between 6.88E−06 and 2.39E−05 and the mean value was 7.51E−08. In children, the 90% interval was between 6.15E−07 and 2.14E−06 with the mean value of 6.75E−09 for males and between 7.00E−07 and 2.41E−06 with the mean value of 7.61E−09 for females (Figure 3a–d).

As shown in Figure 3 blue part shows the amount of carcinogenic risk which exist between 90th and 10th percentile. The higher risk values in females compared to males in southern Iran is due to the occurrence of oil spills in agricultural and pasturage lands, where bioavailability has increased exposure, especially in female farmers and ranchers.

The cancer risk of soil with high PAH concentrations can increase the overall risk of cancer simultaneously in both soil and sediment sources in different age and gender groups. To calculate the overall PAH carcinogenic risk in all regions of Iran, PAH carcinogenicity was studied using risk algebraic aggregation, from different soil and sediment sources through gastrointestinal, respiratory, and dermal pathways in adults and children age groups and according to gender.

Figure 4 reveals 90% of the potential cancer risk of PAHs in the soil and sediments through three ways including gastrointestinal, respiratory, and skin. By observing confidence factor, the overall risk in the adult age group; for males and females ranged between 6.75E−06 to 5.25E−05 (±2.19E−04) and 9.11E−06 to 7.08E−05 (±2.95E−04), respectively. Also, the overall risk in the age group of children; for males and females ranged between 7.72E−07 to 4.27E−06 (±1.46E−05) and 8.70E−07 to 4.81E−06 (±1.64E−05), respectively. The blue part of Figure 4 shows the amount of carcinogenic risk which exists between 90th and 10th percentile.

Figure 4: Final cancer risk in the soil and sediments in (a) adult males, (b) adult females, (c) male children and (d) female children with 90% confidence interval.
Figure 4:

Final cancer risk in the soil and sediments in (a) adult males, (b) adult females, (c) male children and (d) female children with 90% confidence interval.

The risk was calculated for each region and the results of cancer risk assessment in the soil and sediments in most parts of Iran except the southern (only for adult females) and central (for both genders) regions were acceptable (Table 3).

Table 3:

The ILCRs and cancer risk of PAHs exposure routes in the soil and sediments of central, northern, and southern Iran.

Media Geographical direction Gender Adults Children References
ILCR ing ILCR derm ILCR inh Cancer risk ILCR ing ILCR derm ILCR inh Cancer risk
Soil Center of Iran Male 5.22E−07 1.35E−05 4.05E−11 1.40E−05* 8.03E−07 8.94E−07 1.56E−11 1.70E−06 [41]
Female 7.04E−07 1.82E−05 5.46E−11 1.89E−05* 9.06E−07 1.01E−06 1.76E−11 1.91E−06
Soil South of Iran Male 2.49E−07 6.43E−06 1.93E−11 6.68E−06 3.84E−07 4.27E−07 7.44E−12 8.11E−07 [40]
Female 3.36E−07 8.67E−06 2.61E−11 9.01E−06 4.32E−07 4.81E−07 8.38E−12 9.14E−07
Sediments South of Iran Male 1.00E−09 8.32E−06 – 8.32E−06 4.14E−10 5.52E−07 – 5.52E−07 [58]
Female 1.35E−09 1.12E−05 – 1.12E−05* 4.67E−10 6.22E−07 – 6.23E−07
Sediments North of Iran Male 3.58E−10 4.96E−06 – 4.96E−06 1.48E−10 3.29E−07 – 3.29E−07 [59]
Female 4.83E−10 6.69E−06 – 6.69E−06 1.67E−10 3.71E−07 – 3.71E−07

  1. The highest risks in each group are highlighted.

Contribution of individual exposure routes

According to the cancer risk assessment for each of the routes of exposure with the soil and sediments in children and adults, it was observed that there was a significant difference between the risk scores of gastrointestinal and inhalation exposure [60].

In the soil, the maximum dermal exposure occurred in children, the dermal exposure was 53% and the accidental exposure was 47% (soil eating), also for adults, the dermal exposure was 96%, and the ingestion exposure to soil was 4%. High levels of cancer risk from dermal paths was observed in adults (10E−05 to 10E−06), which was higher than the cancer risk in children (10E−06 to 10E−07).

The risk of soil eating in children was significantly higher than in adults, which can be due to frequent contact and exposure to the mouth. Given that the risk was less than 10E−06, it alone could not threaten children’s health in the study region by soil eating. Moreover, inhalation exposure was negligible in both groups.

For sediments, the mean cancer risk through food intake for both age groups was 1.61 E−10 (children) and 3.90E−10 (adults); while the mean cancer risk through dermal exposure was 4.07 E−07 (Children) and 6.14 E−06 (adults). The results are consistent with the studies conducted by Yang et al. [61].

Higher exposure in adults and lower weight in children increases the risk of PAHs exposure in adults. However, management programs are required to reduce the exposure.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate each input parameter effect on the final risk result for soil and sediment media in different age groups using a tornado plot to determine which parameter is effective in reducing or increasing the cancer risk of PAHs (Figure 4).

The tornado plot shows that the PAH concentrations in the soil are 83.5 and 92.9%, respectively, in the adults and children at risk of cancer. The high concentration effect in children is due to the low weight of children, which in risk equations reduces the effect of children’s body weight compared to adults. However, in adults, the effects of SA, AF, and ABS parameters, which have an increased risk, is 3 times more than the effect of these parameters on the risk of cancer in children, which can be compared to the body weight (Figure 5a, b).

Figure 5: Sensitivity analysis of the cancer risk parameters: (a) from soil for adults, (b) from soil for children, (c) from sediments for adults, and (d) from sediments for children.
Figure 5:

Sensitivity analysis of the cancer risk parameters: (a) from soil for adults, (b) from soil for children, (c) from sediments for adults, and (d) from sediments for children.

The most significant parameter in the risk of PAH-induced cancer in sediments is BSAF, which is 61.2 and 58.6% in adults and children, respectively, due to higher per capita fish consumption (Figure 5c and d).

Investigating uncertainty factors

There is always uncertainty in health risk assessment due to insufficient knowledge. In most risk assessment studies, the MCS test is used to minimize uncertainty.

Given that PAH concentrations in this study were the result of various studies in different laboratories, it was assumed that the difference in data quality was related to different sampling methods, PAH extraction methods, and different study quantifications, contributing to the uncertainty of risk assessment. In sediments, the unknown effects of PAHs durability have a tremendous contribution to uncertainty, although bioavailability and optimal extraction of part of PAH effectively reduce the error caused by aging effects [62].

Another critical factor is the uncertainty of the PEF values calculated based on experiments performed on animals (not humans), so that their values vary according to the routes of exposure.

Limitations

A lack of accurate sampling hindered the survey. Particularly, the authors did not have access to specific, accurate information on the reviewed papers, e.g., sampling accuracy and the fish ingestion rate that can vary in the north and south of Iran. Hence, to be more conclusive, this information may be needed to compare each based on the physicochemical properties of the study area. Although PAHS concentration in this study resulted from various studies in different laboratories, the calculation of exposure risk in different regions of Iran. The study of activities related to oil extraction and movement shows the need to codify and implement management and engineering correction strategies. Therefore, establishing a monitoring system is mandatory, which is one of the limitations observed in the present study.

Conclusions

In this systematic review study, in order to assess the carcinogenic risk of aromatic compounds in the soil and sediments, the monitoring concentrations of PAHs in studies conducted in different regions of Iran, simulated using the Monte Carlo method.

Furthermore, the studies incompleteness due to the lack of monitoring PAHs in the soil of most regions of Iran was one of the authors’ main concerns. Based on the available findings, the results of cancer risk assessment in the soil and sediments in most parts of Iran were negligible. However, the results showed that the total carcinogenic risk of exposure to sediment of southern regions for women was 1.12E−05, and the total carcinogenic risk of exposure to soils of central regions for both male and female adults was 1.40E−05 and 1.89E−05; respectively; which were within acceptable or tolerable limits. On the other hand, based on the results of input studies, petrogenic fuels and fossil fuels are the source of PAH in the sediments of the studied areas and the source of PAH in Iranian soils is the combustion of fossil fuels. Therefore, preventive and control measures are necessary to reduce the risk of exposure to PAHs in the sediments of coastal areas of Iran.

Corresponding author: Mohsen Hesami Arani, Research Center for Environmental Health Technology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; and Department of Environmental Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, E-mail:

Funding source: Research Center for Environmental Health Technology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Award Identifier / Grant number: 1400-1-61-20503

  1. Research funding: This research project has been financially supported by Research Center for Environmental Health Technology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Grant Number: 1400-1-61-20503) (Ethics Code: IR.IUMS.REC.1400.130).

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  5. Ethical approval: Not applicable.

References

1. Tarafdar, A, Chawda, S, Sinha, A. Health risk assessment from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) present in dietary components: a meta-analysis on a global scale. Polycycl Aromat Comp 2020;40:850–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/10406638.2018.1492426.Search in Google Scholar

2. Sun, R-X, Lin, Q, Ke, C-L, Du, F-Y, Gu, Y-G, Cao, K, et al.. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in surface sediments and marine organisms from the Daya Bay, South China. Mar Pollut Bull 2016;103:325–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.009.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Singare, PU. Studies on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in surface sediments of Mithi River near Mumbai, India: assessment of sources, toxicity risk and biological impact. Mar Pollut Bull 2015;101:232–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.09.057.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Tang, L, Tang, X-Y, Zhu, Y-G, Zheng, M-H, Miao, Q-L. Contamination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in urban soils in Beijing, China. Environ Int 2005;31:822–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2005.05.031.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Amjadian, K, Sacchi, E, Mehr, MR. Heavy metals (HMs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soils of different land uses in Erbil metropolis, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. Environ Monit Assess 2016;188:605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5623-6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Mai, B, Qi, S, Zeng, EY, Yang, Q, Zhang, G, Fu, J, et al.. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the coastal region off Macao, China: assessment of input sources and transport pathways using compositional analysis. Environ Sci Technol 2003;37:4855–63. https://doi.org/10.1021/es034514k.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Maltby, L, Boxall, AB, Forrow, DM, Calow, P, Betton, CI. The effects of motorway runoff on freshwater ecosystems: 2. Identifying major toxicants. Environ Toxicol Chem: Int J 1995;14:1093–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620140621.Search in Google Scholar

8. Humans IWGotEoCRt. Some non-heterocyclic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and some related exposures. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 2010;92:1.Search in Google Scholar

9. James, K, Peters, RE, Cave, MR, Wickstrom, M, Siciliano, SD. In vitro prediction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon bioavailability of 14 different incidentally ingested soils in juvenile swine. Sci Total Environ 2018;618:682–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.244.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Keshavarzi, B, Abbasi, S, Moore, F, Mehravar, S, Sorooshian, A, Soltani, N, et al.. Contamination level, source identification and risk assessment of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in street dust of an important commercial center in Iran. Environ Manag 2018;62:803–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1079-5.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

11. Wang, J, Zhang, X, Ling, W, Liu, R, Liu, J, Kang, F, et al.. Contamination and health risk assessment of PAHs in soils and crops in industrial areas of the Yangtze River Delta region, China. Chemosphere 2017;168:976–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.10.113.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Chen, C-W, Chen, C-F. Distribution, origin, and potential toxicological significance of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments of Kaohsiung Harbor, Taiwan. Mar Pollut Bull 2011;63:417–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.04.047.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Omidi, F, Fallahzadeh, RA, Dehghani, F, Harati, B, Barati Chamgordani, S, Gharibi, V. Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risk assessment of exposure to volatile organic compounds (BTEX) using Monte-Carlo simulation technique in a steel industry. Health Saf Work 2018;8:299–308.Search in Google Scholar

14. Halvani, G, Ehrampoush, MH, Ghaneian, MT, Dehghani, A, Hesami Arani, M. Applying job hazard analysis and William Fine methods on risks identification and assessment of jobs in hot rolling steel, Iran. J Maz Univ Med Sci 2017;26:293–303.Search in Google Scholar

15. Guerra, K, Konz, J, Lisi, K, Neebrem, C. Exposure factors handbook. Washington DC: USEPA; 2010.Search in Google Scholar

16. Wu, B, Zhang, Y, Zhang, X-X, Cheng, S-P. Health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the source water and drinking water of China: quantitative analysis based on published monitoring data. Sci Total Environ 2011;410:112–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.046.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Sun, H, Zhang, Q, Xu, Y. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons concentrations in drinking water in villages along the Huai River in China and their association with high cancer incidence in local population. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/762832.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

18. Von Elm, E, Altman, DG, Egger, M, Pocock, SJ, Gøtzsche, PC, Vandenbroucke, JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:573–7. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

19. Downes, M, Brennan, M, Williams, H, Dean, R. Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open 2016;6:e011458. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

20. Vickers, NJ. Animal communication: when I’m calling you, will you answer too? Curr Biol 2017;27:R713–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.064.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

21. Yu, B, Xie, X, Ma, LQ, Kan, H, Zhou, Q. Source, distribution, and health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban street dust from Tianjin, China. Environ Sci Pollut Control Ser 2014;21:2817–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-013-2190-z.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. Zhao, Z, Zhang, L, Cai, Y, Chen, Y. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) residues in several tissues of edible fishes from the largest freshwater lake in China, Poyang Lake, and associated human health risk assessment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2014;104:323–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2014.01.037.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. EPA, A. Risk assessment guidance for superfund. Volume I: human health evaluation manual (Part E, supplemental guidance for dermal risk assessment). EPA: Washington DC; 2004, EPA/540/R/99.Search in Google Scholar

24. EPA U. Field applications of in situ remediation technologies: ground-water circulation wells. EPA: Washington DC; 1998. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-04/documents/gwcirc.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

25. Probabilistic Risk Assessment. Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume III - part A, process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment. Washington DC: Office of Emergency and Remedial Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2001.Search in Google Scholar

26. Means, B. Risk-assessment guidance for superfund. Volume 1. Human health evaluation manual. Part A. Interim report (Final). Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste; 1989.Search in Google Scholar

27. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Exposure factors handbook: 2011 ed. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington DC. Springfield, VA: The National Technical Information Service; 2011, EPA/600/R-09/052F. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/efh. US Environmental Protection Agency.Search in Google Scholar

28. Burkhard, LP, Lukasewycz, MT. Some bioaccumulation factors and biota‐sediment accumulation factors for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in lake trout. Environ Toxicol Chem: Int J 2000;19:1427–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620190527.Search in Google Scholar

29. Workgroup USEPABA. Bioaccumulation testing and interpretation for the purpose of sediment quality assessment: status and needs. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 2000. Available from: archive.epa.gov/water/archive/polwaste/web/pdf/bioaccum.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

30. U.S. EPA. Methodology for assessing health risks associated with multiple pathways of exposure to combustor emissions. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1998, EPA/600/R-98/137.Search in Google Scholar

31. Chu, Y-L, Chimeddulam, D, Sheen, L-Y, Wu, K-Y. Probabilistic risk assessment of exposure to leucomalachite green residues from fish products. Food Chem Toxicol 2013;62:770–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.10.002.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

32. EPA, A. Risk assessment guidance for superfund. Volume I: human health evaluation manual (part A). Washington DC: EPA; 1989, EPA/540/1-89/002. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/201509/documents/rags_a.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

33. SITE, GC. Hopewell precision area groundwater contamination site town of east fishkill. New York: Dutchess County; 2012.Search in Google Scholar

34. Li, G, Wu, S, Wang, L, Akoh, CC. Concentration, dietary exposure and health risk estimation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in youtiao, a Chinese traditional fried food. Food Contr 2016;59:328–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.06.003.Search in Google Scholar

35. Petry, T, Schmid, P, Schlatter, C. The use of toxic equivalency factors in assessing occupational and environmental health risk associated with exposure to airborne mixtures of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Chemosphere 1996;32:639–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-6535(95)00348-7.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

36. Nisbet, IC, Lagoy, PK. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1992;16:290–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2300(92)90009-x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

37. Eckhardt, K, Breuer, L, Frede, H-G. Parameter uncertainty and the significance of simulated land use change effects. J Hydrol 2003;273:164–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1694(02)00395-5.Search in Google Scholar

38. Thomas, KV, Bijlsma, L, Castiglioni, S, Covaci, A, Emke, E, Grabic, R, et al.. Comparing illicit drug use in 19 European cities through sewage analysis. Sci Total Environ 2012;432:432–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.069.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

39. Khoshand, A, Tabiatnejad, B, Siddiqua, S, Kamalan, H, Fathi, A. Assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contamination in surface soil along Tehran-semnan road, Iran. AUT J Civ Eng 2017;1:77–86.Search in Google Scholar

40. Mohit, A, Keshavarzi, B, Moore, F. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in urban soils of Ahvaz metropolis; contamination, composition, distribution, potential sources, and cancer risk. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2019;25:935–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1456900.Search in Google Scholar

41. Moore, F, Akhbarizadeh, R, Keshavarzi, B, Khabazi, S, Lahijanzadeh, A, Kermani, M. Ecotoxicological risk of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in urban soil of Isfahan metropolis, Iran. Environ Monit Assess 2015;187:207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4433-6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

42. Mousavi, S, Shakeri, A, Nakhaei, M. Contamination, source apportionment and health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soils of Bandar Abbas county central district. Iran J Health Environ 2017;10:271–80.Search in Google Scholar

43. Ahmadi, A, Hosseini, AA. Evaluation and determination of amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in top soils of Masjed Soleyman oil and gas factories (case study: Haft Shahidan dissalination and operating sactory). Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2018;20:17–28.Search in Google Scholar

44. Dhananjayan, V, Muralidharan, S, Peter, VR. Occurrence and distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water and sediment collected along the Harbour Line, Mumbai, India. Int J Oceans Oceanogr 2012;2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/403615.Search in Google Scholar

45. Hassan, HM, Castillo, AB, Yigiterhan, O, Elobaid, EA, Al-Obaidly, A, Al-Ansari, E, et al.. Baseline concentrations and distributions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in surface sediments from the Qatar marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 2018;126:58–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.093.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

46. Mostafa, AR, Wade, TL, Sweet, ST, Al-Alimi, AKA, Barakat, AO. Distribution and characteristics of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediments of Hadhramout coastal area, Gulf of Aden, Yemen. J Mar Syst 2009;78:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2009.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

47. Yunker, MB, Macdonald, RW, Vingarzan, R, Mitchell, RH, Goyette, D, Sylvestre, S. PAHs in the Fraser River basin: a critical appraisal of PAH ratios as indicators of PAH source and composition. Org Geochem 2002;33:489–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0146-6380(02)00002-5.Search in Google Scholar

48. Davis, S, Albright, T. An investigation of the effect of balanced scorecard implementation on financial performance. Manag Account Res 2004;15:135–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2003.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

49. Kwon, H-O, Choi, S-D. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soils from a multi-industrial city, South Korea. Sci Total Environ 2014;470:1494–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.08.031.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

50. Pampanin, DM, Sydnes, MO. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons a constituent of petroleum: presence and influence in the aquatic environment. Hydrocarbon 2013;5:83–118. https://doi.org/10.5772/48176.Search in Google Scholar

51. Park, SS, Kim, YJ, Kang, CH. Atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Seoul, Korea. Atmos Environ 2002;36:2917–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(02)00206-6.Search in Google Scholar

52. Soltani, N, Keshavarzi, B, Moore, F, Tavakol, T, Lahijanzadeh, AR, Jaafarzadeh, N, et al.. Ecological and human health hazards of heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in road dust of Isfahan metropolis, Iran. Sci Total Environ 2015;505:712–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.097.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

53. Keshavarzifard, M, Moore, F, Keshavarzi, B, Sharifi, R. Distribution, source apportionment and health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in intertidal sediment of Asaluyeh, Persian Gulf. Environ Geochem Health 2018;40:721–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-017-0019-2.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

54. Zhao, Z-B, Liu, K, Xie, W, Pan, W-P, Riley, JT. Soluble polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in raw coals. J Hazard Mater 2000;73:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3894(99)00178-8.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

55. Yoon, E, Park, K, Lee, H, Yang, J-H, Lee, C. Estimation of excess cancer risk on time-weighted lifetime average daily intake of PAHs from food ingestion. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2007;13:669–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807030701226871.Search in Google Scholar

56. Duan, X, Shen, G, Yang, H, Tian, J, Wei, F, Gong, J, et al.. Dietary intake polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and associated cancer risk in a cohort of Chinese urban adults: inter-and intra-individual variability. Chemosphere 2016;144:2469–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.11.019.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

57. Man, YB, Kang, Y, Wang, HS, Lau, W, Li, H, Sun, XL, et al.. Cancer risk assessments of Hong Kong soils contaminated by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. J Hazard Mater 2013;261:770–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.11.067.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

58. Raeisi, A, Arfaeinia, H, Seifi, M, Shirzad-Siboni, M, Keshtkar, M, Dobaradaran, S. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in coastal sediments from urban and industrial areas of Asaluyeh Harbor, Iran: distribution, potential source and ecological risk assessment. Water Sci Technol 2016;74:957–73. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2016.265.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

59. Nasrollahzadeh Saravi, H, Pourgholam, R, Unesipour, H, Makhlough, A. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (16PAHs) at the sediments and edible tissue of liza saliens and rutilus frisii kutum in Caspian Sea. J Maz Univ Med Sci 2012;22:79–90.Search in Google Scholar

60. Tarafdar, A, Sinha, A. Cancer risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the soils and sediments of India: a meta-analysis. Environ Manag 2017;60:784–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0920-6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

61. Vorkamp, K, Rigét, FF. A review of new and current-use contaminants in the Arctic environment: evidence of long-range transport and indications of bioaccumulation. Chemosphere 2014;111:379–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.04.019.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

62. Yang, X, Yu, L, Chen, Z, Xu, M. Bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and their potential application in eco-risk assessment and source apportionment in urban river sediment. Sci Rep 2016;6:23134. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23134.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Supplementary Material

The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0080).

Received: 2021-07-19
Accepted: 2021-09-26
Published Online: 2021-10-27
Published in Print: 2022-12-16

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Review Articles
  3. Arsenic exposure promotes the emergence of cardiovascular diseases
  4. Glyphosate effects on the female reproductive systems: a systematic review
  5. Association between mobile phone use and hearing impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  6. Neurological susceptibility to environmental exposures: pathophysiological mechanisms in neurodegeneration and multiple chemical sensitivity
  7. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions
  8. Study of solid waste (municipal and medical) management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a review study
  9. Health effects associated with phthalate activity on nuclear receptors
  10. Environmental impact assessment of plastic waste during the outbreak of COVID-19 and integrated strategies for its control and mitigation
  11. Cancer risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the soil and sediments of Iran: a systematic review study
  12. Letter to the Editor
  13. Coherent MM-wave EMFs produce penetrating effects via time-varying magnetic fields: response to Foster & Balzano
  14. Book Review
  15. Arnold R. Eiser: Preserving brain health in a toxic age: new insights from neuroscience, integrative medicine and public health
https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2021-0080
Keywords for this article
environmental pollution; human health risk assessment; Monte Carlo; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); sediments; sensitivity analysis; soil

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Review Articles
  3. Arsenic exposure promotes the emergence of cardiovascular diseases
  4. Glyphosate effects on the female reproductive systems: a systematic review
  5. Association between mobile phone use and hearing impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  6. Neurological susceptibility to environmental exposures: pathophysiological mechanisms in neurodegeneration and multiple chemical sensitivity
  7. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions
  8. Study of solid waste (municipal and medical) management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a review study
  9. Health effects associated with phthalate activity on nuclear receptors
  10. Environmental impact assessment of plastic waste during the outbreak of COVID-19 and integrated strategies for its control and mitigation
  11. Cancer risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the soil and sediments of Iran: a systematic review study
  12. Letter to the Editor
  13. Coherent MM-wave EMFs produce penetrating effects via time-varying magnetic fields: response to Foster & Balzano
  14. Book Review
  15. Arnold R. Eiser: Preserving brain health in a toxic age: new insights from neuroscience, integrative medicine and public health
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 26.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2021-0080/html
Scroll to top button