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

net/publication/233345015

Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium in Subsurface Water of

Punjab State, India

Article  in  Human and Ecological Risk Assessment · March 2011

DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2011.552395

CITATIONS READS

36 184

11 authors, including:

Ajay Kumar Pramilla Sawant

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
53 PUBLICATIONS   329 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Raj Mangal Tripathi Manish K. Mishra

Department of Atomic Energy Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
160 PUBLICATIONS   1,996 CITATIONS    16 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

uranium extraction from seawater View project

AICRP on water management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ajay Kumar on 13 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre]
On: 27 July 2011, At: 04:37
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment:

An International Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bher20

Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium in

Subsurface Water of Punjab State, India
a a a b
Ajay Kumar , N. Usha , P. D. Sawant , R. M. Tripathi , Sanu S.
a a a a
Raj , Manish Mishra , Sabyasachi Rout , P. Supreeta , Jaspal
c c d
Singh , Sanjeev Kumar & H. S. Kushwaha
a
Health Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay,
Mumbai, India
b
Environmental Assessment Division, Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, India
c
Department of Physics, GNDU, Amritsar, Punjab, India
d
Health, Safety & Environment Group, Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, India

Available online: 11 Apr 2011

To cite this article: Ajay Kumar, N. Usha, P. D. Sawant, R. M. Tripathi, Sanu S. Raj, Manish Mishra,
Sabyasachi Rout, P. Supreeta, Jaspal Singh, Sanjeev Kumar & H. S. Kushwaha (2011): Risk Assessment
for Natural Uranium in Subsurface Water of Punjab State, India, Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment: An International Journal, 17:2, 381-393

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2011.552395

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
 demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011
 Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 17: 381–393, 2011
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1080-7039 print / 1549-7860 online
DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2011.552395

Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium in Subsurface

Water of Punjab State, India

Ajay Kumar,1 N. Usha,1 P. D. Sawant,1 R. M. Tripathi,2 Sanu S. Raj,1 Manish Mishra,1

Sabyasachi Rout,1 P. Supreeta,1 Jaspal Singh,3 Sanjeev Kumar,3 and H. S. Kushwaha4
1
Health Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai,
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

India; 2Environmental Assessment Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,

Trombay, Mumbai, India; 3Department of Physics, GNDU, Amritsar, Punjab, India;
4
Health, Safety & Environment Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay,
Mumbai, India

ABSTRACT
Traces of uranium were measured by laser fluorimeter in 235 subsurface water
samples collected from four districts of Punjab state in India. The concentration of
U in water samples ranged between <2–644 µg/L with a mean value of 73.1 µg/L.
The radiological risk was observed to be in the range of 5.55 × 10−6–1.78 × 10−3
with a mean value of 2.03 × 10−4, which is around 22% more than the maximum
acceptable level (l.67 × 10−4) as per guidelines of India’s Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board. The mean of chemical toxicity risk, expressed as life time average daily dose
(LADD) was worked out to be 5.56 µg/kg/day with a range of 0.15–48 µg/kg/day
by considering a bodyweight of 51.5 ± 8.5 kg, water ingestion rate of 4.05 L/d,
and life expectancy of 63.7 yrs for an adult Indian reference man and compared
with the reference dose (4.53 µg/kg/day). The average exposure level of U was
comparatively high and the chemical toxicity was expected to be more. The mean of
hazard quotient (LADD/ RfD) for all four districts was found to be greater than 1,
indicating that groundwater may not be suitable for consumption from a chemical
toxicity point of view.
Key Words: groundwater, uranium, laser fluorimeter, radiological risk, chemical
risk.

INTRODUCTION
Uranium is a ubiquitous element and is found mainly in the oxidation states of +3,
+4, +5, and +6. It is present in rocks, soil, natural materials, and in small quantities
in air, water, and food (USDOE 2001). Natural U and its daughter products content
in groundwater are often associated with the presence of granitic rocks (Michel

Received 4 January 2010; revised manuscript accepted 1 February 2010.

Address correspondence to Ajay Kumar, Health Physics Division, 3-318-H, Modular Lab
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400085, India. E-mail:
ajaykls@barc.gov.in

381
 A. Kumar et al.

1991; Ortega et al. 1996). A wide range of activity concentration of natural U in

groundwater has been reported. Very high values are in general associated with
highly mineralized, thermal and brine waters.
In soil, the most important oxidation states of U are +4 and +6. Uranium (+4)
dominates at Eh < 200 mV for water-logged/wet soils whereas U (+6) predominates
in sufficiently aerated soil (Abdelouas et al. 1998). Detailed investigations about the
speciation of U in soils are very scarce. Uranium (+4) is rather insoluble and can
form complexes by various inorganic ligands such as fluoride, chloride, sulphate,
and phosphate. However, the greater solubility of U (+6) as the uranyl (UO2 ++)
compounds, is due to its ability to form stable complexes with various organic and
inorganic ligands. The occurrence and distribution of uranyl species in surface and
subsurface water is controlled by the redox condition, pH, and CO2 partial pressure
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

(Giblin et al. 1981). At concentrations less than 10−6M, UO2 (OH)+ is the dominant
hydrolysis species in solution, while greater than this concentration, polymeric forms
such as (UO2 )2 (OH)2 2+, (UO2 )3 (OH)4 2+, and (UO2)3 (OH)5+ are more dominant.
The biokinetics, metabolism, and chemical toxicity of U including the toxic ef-
fects of this metal on kidney functions are well established (Domingo 1995). Under
some circumstances, the chemical toxicity of soluble U can even surpass its potential
radiotoxic effects. The toxicity of U is a function of the route of exposure, parti-
cle solubility, contact time, and route of elimination (ATSDR 1999). The United
Nations Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 1982) es-
tablished the limits for natural U in drinking water based on its chemical toxicity for
kidney rather than on hypothetical radiological toxicity for skeletal tissues. A level of
100 µg/L of U in drinking water was chosen reasonable, based on consideration
of renal toxicity with the application of a safety factor of 50 to 150 (Wrenn et al.
1985). The chemical toxic effects of different U compounds on reproduction and
development in mammals (rats) were investigated and it was reported that quantity
of sperm DNA strand breakage increases with increase in dose of U (Zhu et al.
1994). In addition, it was also noted that U causes skeletal abnormalities in fetal
rats. In literature, the chemical effects on human kidney induced by the chronic
ingestion of U in drinking water were studied for low exposure and high exposure
with the concentration ranging from <1 µg/L–781 µg/L. The chemical toxicity
due to intake of U by considering these levels, were in the range of 0.004 to 9 µg
per kg bodyweight per day (Zamora et al. 1998).
In 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) classified U as a
confirmed human carcinogen (group A) and has suggested that zero tolerance
only is a safe acceptable limit for the carcinogenic risk. At present, the USEPA
has proposed a realistic regulation level as maximum contaminant level (MCL)
of 30 µg/L (USEPA 1999b). Canada has proposed interim maximum acceptable
concentration (IMAC) of 20 µg/L. The World Health Organization (WHO 2004)
has strictly recommended a reference level of 15 µg/L, considered, being protective
for subclinical renal effects. The reference level is derived from epidemiological
studies, based on the assumption of a 60 kg adult consuming 2 liters of drinking
water per day and 80% allocation of the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) to drinking
water. The WHO has also established a TDI for U of 0.6 µg/kg bodyweight/day
(WHO 1998, 2003), which is based on adverse effects observed on kidneys of rats at
uptake of 60 µg U per kg per day (Gilman 1998).

382 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011

 Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium

In several developed countries, about 40% of the population uses groundwater

as a drinking water source and the size of the exposed population varies greatly. In
urban areas of India, people consume drinking water, only after proper treatments;
therefore the size of the exposed population is very small. But in rural area, people
use groundwater more often in the form of communal or individual wells for drink-
ing and agricultural purposes. However, in the Punjab state of India, only limited
data on concentrations of U exist and there is no literature available about the health
risk assessment and management for this radioactive element. Therefore, this study
mainly focuses on estimation of U content in subsurface water and consequently the
risk assessment to the population. The quantitative estimation of human risks by U
in groundwater may be expected to aid the establishment of regulation standards
and management schemes.
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

As far as the study area is concerned, the estimation of natural U in subsurface

water, considering as measured source is used for risk assessment and if it is found in
excess it may cause serious health effects to the people. The health effects of U can be
divided into two types of risk: carcinogenic (radiological risk) and non-carcinogenic
(chemical risk) (Health Canada 1999a; WHO 1998).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sampling Sites and Sample Collection
For this study, 235 subsurface water (well, bore well, and hand pump) samples
were collected at different depths from four districts (Bathinda, Mansa, Faridkot, and
Firozpur) of Punjab state, in India, during September–October, 2009, because these
regions have thermal power plants, fertilizer factories, chemical factories, cement
factories, and farmers use plenty of fertilizers on their fields. Punjab is located in the
northwest of India between latitude 29◦ 30 N–32◦ 32 N and longitude 73◦ 55 –76◦ 50 E
at an average elevation of 300 m above sea level and between the great river systems
of the Indus and the Ganges. It covers a geographical area of around 50,362 km2,
which is 1.54% of India’s total geographical area. The temperature and relative
humidity in the area lie in the range of 34–49◦ C and 18–48% (during summers)
and 2–10◦ C and 60–73% (during winter), respectively. Average annual rainfall is
500 mm with 80% of the total rainfall being received during the period of June
to October. The soil of Punjab is loose, sandy, and calcareous and alluvial, which
is an admixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay in various proportions. The land is
predominantly used for agriculture, but several industries are also established in
the region. Hydrogeology of this region is characterized by unconfined and semi-
confined aquifers at a depth of 2.3 to 23.3 m below ground level. The depth of the
source of samples ranged between 10 to 200 meters.

Preliminary Process of Subsurface Water Samples

The collected subsurface water samples were filtered through 0.45 micron filter
paper, acidified with 0.01M of nitric acid (AR Grade, Merck, Mumbai, India) and
stored in, acid washed, 200 ml capacity polypropylene bottles.

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011 383

 A. Kumar et al.

Measurement and Standardization of Uranium in Subsurface Water

Uranium content in subsurface water was measured by laser fluorimeter tech-
nique (Quantalase Laser Fluorimeter, Indore, India). Quality assurance was made
by analysis of IAEA standard reference materials, spike recovery, replicate analysis,
and cross method checking. A 10 ml aliquot of filtered water sample was taken in
duplicate and the organic material in the sample was destroyed with wet digestion
(HClO4 and HNO3 ) on hot plates. The residue was dissolved in Millipore elix-3
water and mixed with fluorescence reagent to make the total volume 25 mL and
pH adjusted to 7.2. The sample solution was then poured into a cuvette for the
measurement of U concentration. The instrument was calibrated in the range of
1–100 µg/L using a stock solution of standard that was prepared by dissolving 1.78 g
of uranyl acetate dihydrate (CH3 COO)2 UO2 ·2H2 O) in 1 L of Millipore elix-3 wa-
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

ter containing 1 mL of HNO3 (70% pure). The blank sample containing the same
amount of fluorescing reagent was also measured for U concentration. Five per-
cent phosphoric acid in ultra pure water was used as fluorescence reagent. All the
reagents used for experimental work were of ultrapure/analytical grade (Merck,
Mumbai, India).

Methodology for Radiological Risk Assessment

For this study, two types of risks were evaluated, separately, because the human
health effects due to exposure of U can be classified as radiological risk (ionizing
radiation effects of uranium isotopes) and as chemical risk by virtue of its being a
heavy metal. Firstly, the radiological risk factor was evaluated based on the general
USEPA standard method. Using the risk factor (Equation (1)) and U level in sub-
surface water, the excess cancer risk was calculated with the help of Equation (2)
(USEPA 2000a).
Risk factor (per Bq/L) = risk coefficient(1.19 ×−9/Bq) × water ingestion rate (1)
(4.05 L/day) × total exposure duration (23250 days)
Excess Cancer Risk = U level in groundwater (Bq/L) × Risk factor (per Bq/L) (2)

where U level (Bq/L) = a measured value (µg/L) × conversion factor (0.025 Bq/
µg).

Methodology for Chemical Toxicity Risk Assessment

Secondly, to evaluate the hazard quotient for U, the chemical toxicity risk as
lifetime average daily dose (LADD) was estimated with the help of Equation (4)
(USEPA 2000b; Health Canada 1999b; WHO 1998) and was compared with the
reference dose (RfD) of 4.48 µgkg−1day−1, which is calculated on the basis of the
maximum acceptable level of U (60 µg/l) in drinking water per guidelines of India’s
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB, DAE 2004). Here, the water ingestion
rate was set as 4.05 L day−1, which is the upperbound level of Indian adult daily
intake due to the high temperature and high humid climate of India (Jain et al.
1994), 350 days for exposure frequency (USEPA 1991), 63.7 years for total exposure
duration, that is, the average of all India life expectancy for both males and females
(Human Development Report, HDR India 2009), 23,250 days for average time

384 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011

 Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium

(HDR India 2009), and 51.5 ± 8.5 kg for bodyweight (Dang et al. 1994). The hazard
quotient (HQ) and chemical toxicity risk (LADD) were calculated through ingestion
of groundwater by the following formulas
LADD
HQ = (3)
RfD
LADD (UG/KG/DAY) = [Ci × IR × EF × LE]/[BW × AT] (4)

where Ci = Concentration of U in subsurface water (µg/L), IR = Ingestion rate

(L/day), EF = Exposure frequency (days/year), LE = Life expectancy (years), AT =
Average Time (days), BW = Bodyweight (kg), RfD = Reference Dose (µg kg−1 day−1),
LADD = lifetime average daily dose, (µg/kg/day).
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

Uncertainty Analysis
To analyze the uncertainty on estimation of excess cancer risk and lifetime average
daily dose (LADD), the input distributions on exposure frequency and bodyweight
were assumed as triangular distribution and normal distribution, respectively. Nor-
mality testing for U (concentration) distribution in all the four districts of Punjab
was tested by the Shapiro-Wilk statistical method as well as by box-and-whiskers plots.
Since mean and median values are significantly different, the U distribution cannot
be assumed as a normal distribution. Ingestion rate of drinking water, total exposure
duration, and averaging time were considered as constant input values as given in
Table 1. Finally, the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of the output distribution were
forecasted for excess cancer risk and LADD.

Statistical Methods
To study the distribution characteristics of U concentrations in subsurface water
of all the four districts in Punjab, normality testing was performed by two statistical
methods: the Shapiro-Wilk “W” test and the box-and-whiskers plot (Origin Software,
Version 8.1). The Shapiro-Wilk W statistical method is a semi-nonparametric analysis
of variance that detects a broad range of different types of normality in a sample of
data. The null hypothesis for this test is that “the data follows a normal distribution.”
At the significant level of 0.05, if the calculated probability value (W) is greater than

Table 1. Probability distribution of input parameters used to forecast excess

cancer risk and LADD.
Mean Value Standard
Input parameters (range) Deviation Distribution References
Uranium levels (µg/l) 73.1 5.8 — This study
IR (l/day) 4.05 — — Jain et al. (1995)
BW (kg) 51.5 8.5 Normal Dang et al. (1995)
EF (days/year) 350 (180–365) — Triangular USEPA (1991)
LE (Years) 63.7 — — HDR, India (2009)

USEPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency, EF: Exposure Frequency,

LE: Life Expectancy, HDR: Human Development Report, BW: Body Weight,
IR: Ingestion Rate.

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011 385

 A. Kumar et al.

a tabulated value, then the null hypothesis is rejected (i.e., the data do not follow
a normal distribution). The second statistical method applied to data was box-and-
whiskers plot (a nonparametric analysis), which is a powerful graphical summary of
distribution characteristics of data. The box (in the graph plot) covers the middle
half of the data and whiskers show the range of the data. Since mean and median
values obtained from the above methods were significantly different, therefore the
U concentration distribution cannot be assumed a normal distribution.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Uranium Levels in Subsurface Water
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

In most natural waters, U is present in concentrations between 0.1 and 10 µg/L

and concentrations greater than 1 mg/L can occur in water associated with U-
ore deposits (Osmont and Cowart 1992). The proposed USEPA drinking water
guideline for U is 30 µgL−1 (USEPA 2000a) from radiochemical toxicity, indicating
that U concentrations in natural waters are usually not high enough to constitute a
health risk. In typical ground or surface water, carbonate and phosphate ions form
U-complexes, making the total dissolved U concentration much more than it would
be in a carbonate and phosphate-free water (Drever 1997). India has also proposed
the guidelines for permissible limits for natural U in drinking water and it has been
fixed to a maximum level of 60 µgL−1.
Uranium concentration in all subsurface water samples ranged between <2 µg/
L–644 µg/L with a mean value of 73.1 µg/L. The results of U concentrations
with different statistical parameters (mean, median, minimum, maximum, different
percentiles, etc.) in all the four districts are given in Table 2. Variation in the results
of mean concentration of U in subsurface water samples between the Bathinda and
Mansa districts was observed to be around 6%. However, in the case of the Faridkot
and Firozpur districts, this variation was around 19.1%.
In Bhatinda, 50% of total subsurface water samples were greater than the per-
missible limit (>60 µgL) per India’s guidelines (AERB, DAE 2004) for drinking
water, whereas Mansa, Faridkot, and Firozpur showed 42.5%, 36.7%, and 31.1%
of the total subsurface samples beyond the permissible limit, respectively. Among
the four districts, Bathinda showed the higher mean concentration of U. Overall,
42.1% of the total water samples was observed to be beyond the permissible limits
of India’s AERB (AERB, DAE 2004). Shown in Figure 1 is a pie chart of different
concentration intervals of U content in subsurface water samples of all the four
districts in Punjab state. Uranium concentrations were also measured in raw water
(pre-treatment) and treated (post-treatment) water supplied from centralized re-
verse osmosis (RO) plants installed in 15 villages. The RO-treated subsurface water
samples showed 99.9% reduction in U concentration and were well less than the
permissible limits.
In order to study the vertical distribution of U content, subsurface water samples
were taken at different depths. In Bathinda, bore wells at the depth of <100 ft
showed maximum mean concentration of U, whereas Mansa and Faridkot showed
at the depth range of 100–200 ft. In the case of Firozpur, maximum concentration
was observed to be at the depth of >300 ft, which may be due to different soil

386 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011

 Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

Table 2. Uranium concentrations of subsurface water in four districts (Bathinda, Mansa, Faridkot, and Firojpur)
of Punjab state in India (all data in µg/L.
Districts Mean IQR
(No. of samples) concentration of U Median P5 P95 P25 P75 (P75 -P25 ) Minimum Maximum
Bhatinda (80) 80.83 ± 5.3 56.02 4.5 164.225 28.50 108.67 80.17 2 644
Mansa (80) 75.83 ± 6.7 47.25 5 216.95 25.15 104.65 79.50 < 0.2 498
Faridkot (30) 68.56 ± 8.3 38.35 3.25 242.9 16.50 81.70 65.20 16.5 473.5
Firozpur (45) 62.12 ± 7.3 54.8 3.4 142.5 27.40 95.70 68.30 2.8 184.4

P5 = 5th Percentile; P25 = 25th Percentile; P75 = 75th Percentile; P95 = 95th Percentile.
IQR: Inter quartile Range.

387
 A. Kumar et al.
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

Figure 1. Pie chart of different concentration interval of U content in subsurface

water samples of all the four districts in Punjab state.

types, soil texture, different rocks, rocks weathering, or different levels of surface
mineralization. Depicted in Figure 2 is the graphical representation of mean con-
centrations of U in all subsurface water at different depths ranges in the Bathinda,
Mansa, Faridkot, and Firozpur districts of Punjab state. From the data, it is obvious
that as the depth increases, the concentration of U decreases. It was also observed
that, up to the depth of 200 ft, all districts showed higher mean concentration of U
except the Firozpur district, which may be due to leaching through soil by heavy use
of fertilizers in the fields and/or due to wastes released from thermal power plants,
fertilizer factories, chemical factories, or cement factories.

Risk Assessment Due to Oral Ingestion of Uranium in Groundwater

Radiological risk
The present study focuses on the U concentration in the groundwater of each
measured area and estimated the excess cancer risk. The radiological risk (excess
cancer risk) due to ingestion of natural U in drinking water at an average 4.05 L /day
over the average of all India lifetime expectancy of 63.7 years for both males and
females was observed to be in the range of 5.55 × 10−6–1.78 × 10−3 with a mean value
of 2.03 × 10−4, which was around 22% greater than the maximum acceptable level
(l.67 × 10−4) per India’s guidelines (AERB, DAE 2004). Over a lifetime consump-
tion of groundwater at an average 4.05 L/day with the present U level, the mean of
excess cancer risk in all districts appeared to be about 2 per 10,000 people, and in
the worst case of the 95th percentile rose to about 5 per 10,000 people at risk of de-
veloping cancer. At the 5th percentile, no statistically significant radiological risk was
found among all areas but in the case of the 95th percentile, the Mansa and Farid-
kot districts showed higher radiological risk (about 6–7 per 10,000 people) than the
Bhatinda and Firozpur districts (4–5 per 10,000). The median value of excess cancer
risk for all areas was observed to be lower than the maximum acceptable level of radi-
ological risk proposed by India’s AERB. Excess cancer risk with different percentiles

388 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011

 Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium

100
Bhatinda 100 Mansa
Mean Uranium Conc. (µg/L)

80
80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
<100 ft. 100–200 ft. 200–300 ft. >300 ft. <100 ft. 100–200 ft. 200–300 ft. >300 ft.
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

80
240
Mean Uranium Conc. (µg/L)

70
210
Faridkot 60 Firozpur
180
50
150
40
120
30
90
60 20

30 10

0 0
<100 ft. 100–200 ft. 200–300 ft. >300 ft. <100 ft. 100–200 ft. 200–300 ft. >300 ft.
Depth range (ft.) Depth range (ft.)
Figure 2. Graphical representation of mean concentration of uranium in all sub-
surface water at different depths range of Bathinda, Mansa, Faridkot,
and Firozpur districts in Punjab state.

(5th–95th) due to ingestion of U in subsurface water of the four districts of Punjab

is given in Table 3.

Chemical toxicity risk

Since U is a heavy metal and therefore the chemical toxicity is taken into account
with two important target organs, the kidneys and the lungs. The chemical toxicity
effects mainly on the kidney occur in general at lower exposure levels than the
radiologic toxic effects (Cantaluppi and Degetto 2000).
To evaluate the chemical toxicity risk of U, the lifetime average daily dose (LADD)
of U through drinking water intake was estimated at different percentiles and com-
pared with the reference dose (RfD) of 4.53 µg kg−1day−1, which is calculated on
the basis of the maximum acceptable level of U (60 µg/L) in drinking water per
India’s AREB guidelines (AREB, DAE 2004) and thereby produced a hazard quo-
tient. The mean chemical toxicity risk defined as life time daily dose (LADD) was
calculated to be 5.56 µg/kg/day with a range of 0.15 µg/kg/day–48 µg/kg/day by
considering the bodyweight as 51.5 ± 8.5 kg of an adult Indian reference person.

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011 389

 Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

390
Table 3. Excess cancer risk with different percentile (5th–95th) due to ingestion of uranium in subsurface water
of four districts of Punjab.
Point Median
Districts estimate (mean) (50th percentile) P5 P95 P25 P75
−4 −4 −4 −4 −4
Bhatinda 2.26 × 10 1.56 × 10 1.26 × 10 4.6 × 10 0.79 × 10 3.05 × 10−4
Mansa 2.12 × 10−4 1.32 × 10−4 1.40 × 10−4 6.1 × 10−4 0.70 × 10−4 2.93 × 10−4
Faridkot 1.92 × 10−4 1.07 × 10−4 0.91 × 10−4 6.8 × 10−4 0.46 × 10−4 2.30 × 10−4
Firozpur 1.74 × 10−4 1.54 × 10−4 0.95 × 10−4 4.0 × 10−4 0.77 × 10−4 2.68 × 10−4

P5 = 5th Percentile; P25 = 25th Percentile; P75 = 75th Percentile; P95 = 95th Percentile.
 Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium

Table 4. Chemical toxicity risk (LADD1 and HQ) with different percentile
(5th–95th) due to ingestion of uranium in subsurface water of four
districts of Punjab.
Point
estimate
(mean) Median P5 P95 P25 P75

Districts LADD HQ LADD HQ LADD HQ LADD HQ LADD HQ LADD HQ

Bhatinda 6.06 1.34 4.20 0.77 0.33 0.06 12.32 2.25 2.14 0.39 8.15 1.49
Mansa 5.70 1.26 3.54 0.65 0.38 0.07 16.27 2.98 1.87 0.34 7.85 1.40
Faridkot 5.14 1.13 2.88 0.53 0.24 0.05 18.21 3.34 1.24 0.23 6.12 1.13
Firozpur 4.66 1.03 4.11 0.75 0.26 0.05 10.68 1.96 2.06 0.37 7.18 1.31
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

1
Expressed as µg kg−1 day−1
P5 = 5th Percentile; P25 = 25th Percentile; P75 = 75th Percentile; P95 = 95th Percentile.
LADD: Life Time Average daily Dose, HQ: Hazard Quotient.

The mean of hazard quotient (LADD/RfD) was also found to be greater than 1 for
all the areas, which may not be acceptable from the chemical toxicity point of view.
However, in the case of the median of hazard quotient or LADD, all areas showed
less than acceptable limits indicating that subsurface water is fit for consumption
from a chemical toxicity point of view. In the worst case based on very conservative
assumptions, at the 95th percentile, the average exposure dose was determined to be
14.10 µgkg−1day−1, which is 5–6 times greater than the RfD. The LADD was observed
to be highest in Faridkot and Mansa at the 95th percentile. The average exposure
level of U was comparatively high and the chemical toxicity in turn is also presumed
to be greater. Therefore groundwater in those areas may not be considered safe for
drinking purposes. It is also suggested that periodic monitoring of water quality and
management are needed for those areas where U was detected in high concentra-
tions. Chemical toxicity risks (LADD1 and HQ) with different percentiles (5th–95th)
due to ingestion of U in subsurface water of the four districts of Punjab are given in
Table 4.

CONCLUSIONS
At the 5th percentile, no statistically significant radiological risk was found among
all districts but in the case of the 95th percentile, the Mansa and Faridkot dis-
tricts showed the greater radiological risk (about 6–7 per 10,000 people) than the
Bhatinda and Firozpur districts (4–5 per 10,000). The mean hazard quotient for all
districts was also found to be greater than 1. However, in the case of the median
hazard quotient or LADD, all districts showed less than the permissible limits. In
the worst case, based on a very conservative assumption (at 95th percentile), the
average exposure dose was determined to be 5–6 times greater than the RfD. The
LADD was observed to be greater in the Faridkot and Mansa districts at the 95th
percentile than the Bhatinda and Firozpur districts. It was also observed that, up to
a depth of 200 ft, all districts showed greater mean concentration of U except the

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011 391

 A. Kumar et al.

Firozpur district, which may be due to leaching through soil by farmers’ heavy of use
of fertilizers on the fields. Over a lifetime consumption of groundwater at an aver-
age 4.05 L/day with present U levels, the mean excess cancer risk in all districts was
found to be 2.03 × 10−4 (about 2 per 10,000 people) whereas at the 95th percentile
(worst case) it rose to 5 × 10−4 (about 5 per 10,000). At the 50th percentile (me-
dian), both radiological risk (carcinogenicity) and chemical risk (non-carcinogenic
toxicity for kidney toxicity), were observed to be well within acceptable limits. It is
suggested that a periodic monitoring of water quality and proper management of
water supplies by installing reverse osmosis units in villages should occur where U is
detected in high concentrations.
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors sincerely acknowledge the guidance and help provided by Dr. P.K.
Sarkar, Head, Health Physics Division, BARC, Trombay, Mumbai, and Dr A.G. Hegde,
Head, Evironmental Studies Section, BARC, Mumbai. The authors thank Professor
B.S. Bajwa, HOD, Department of Physics, Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU), Am-
ritsar, Prof. Lakhwant Singh, Department of Physics, GNDU, Amritsar, for providing
necessary facilities, good hospitalities, help in sampling, and for encouragement.
The authors are also grateful for financial support given by the Board of Research
in Nuclear Science (BRNS), Mumbai, under the memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between GNDU, Amritsar, Punjab and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Trombay, Mumbai.

REFERENCES
Abdelouas A, Lutze W, and Nuttall E. 1998. Chemical reactions of uranium in ground water
at a mill tailings site. J Contaminant Hydrol 34(4):343–61
AERB, DAE (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Department of Atomic Energy). 2004. Drink-
ing Water Specifications in India. Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Mumbai, India
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry). 1999. Toxicological Profile for
Uranium. US Department of Health and Human Services, US Public Health Services,
Atlanta, GA, USA
Cantaluppi C and Degetto S. 2000. Civilian and military uses of depleted uranium: Environ-
ment and health problem. Ann Chim 90:665–76
Dang HS, Jaiswal DD, Parmeshwran M, et al. 1994. Physical, Anatomical, Physiological and
Metabolic Data for Reference Indian Man-A Proposal. BARC/1994/E/03. Board of Re-
search in Nuclear Sciences, Mumbai, India
Domingo JL. 1995. Prevention by chelating agents of metal-induced development toxicity.
Reprod Toxicol 9:105–13
Drever JL. 1997. The Geochemistry of Natural Waters–Surface and Groundwater Environ-
ments, 3rd edit, pp 436. Prentice Hall Publishing, New Jersey, USA
Giblin AM, Batts BD, and Swaine DJ. 1981. Laboratory simulation studies of uranium mobility
in natural waters. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 45:699–709
Gilman AP, Villeneuve DC, Secours VE, et al. 1998. Uranyl nitrate: 28-day and 91-day toxicity
studies in the Sprague-Dawley rat. Toxicol Sci 41:117–28

392 Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011

 Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium

HDR (Human Development Report). 2009. National Resource Centre for Urban Poverty and
All India Institute of Local Self Government. Mumbai, India
Health Canada. 1999a. Uranium in Drinking Water. Document for Public Comment Prepared
by Federal Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water. Ottawa, ON, Canada
Health Canada. 1999b. Summary of Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Pre-
pared by Federal- Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water of the Federal-Provincial-
Territorial Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. Ottawa, ON, Canada
Jain SC, Mehta SC, Kumar B, et al. 1995. Formulation of the reference Indian adult anatomic
and physiological data. Health Physics 68(4):509–22
Michel J. 1991. Relationship of radium and radon with geological formations. In: Richard
Cothern CR and Rebers PA (eds), Radon, Radium and Uranium in Drinking Water, 2nd
edit, pp 83–96. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA
Ortega X, Valles I, and Serrano I. 1996. Natural radioactivity in drinking water in Catalonia
Downloaded by [Bhabha Atomic Research Centre] at 04:37 27 July 2011

(Spain). Environ Internat 22 (suppl 1):S 347–54

Osmont JK and Cowart JB. 1992. Ground water. In: Ivanovich M and Harmon RS (eds),
Uranium-Series Disequilibrium: Applications to Earth, Marine and Environmental Sci-
ences, pp 290–333. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK
UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). 1982.
Ionizing Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects. New York, NY, USA
USDOE (US Department of Energy). 2001. Depleted Uranium: Human Health Fact Sheet.
Washington, DC, USA
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. EPA Standard Default Exposure Fac-
tors. Washington, DC, USA
USEPA. 1999b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation; Radon-222; Proposed Rule.
Washington, DC, USA
USEPA. 2000a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Radionuclides, Final Rule.
Washington, DC, USA
USEPA. 2000b. Preliminary Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis, Revised National Pri-
mary Drinking Water Standards for Radionuclides; Review Draft. Washington, DC, USA
WHO (World Health Organisation). 1998. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, vol 2,
2nd edit, p 283. Addendum to: Health Criteria and Other Supporting Information,
WHO/EOS/98.1. Geneva, Switzerland
WHO. 2004. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 3rd edit. Geneva, Switzerland
Wrenn ME, Durbin PW, Howard B, Lipsztein J, Rundo J, Still ET, and Willis DL. 1995.
Metabolism of ingestell U and Ra. Health Physics 48:601–633
Zamora ML, Tracy BL, Zielinski JM, et al. 1998. Chronic ingestion of uranium in drinking
water: A study of kidney bio effects in humans. Toxicolog Sci 43(1):68–77
Zhu SP, Hu QY, and Lun MY. 1994. Studies on reproductive toxicity induced by enriched
uranium. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 28:219–22 (in Chinese)

Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011 393

View publication stats