Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sobol sensitivity analysis for risk assessment of uranium in groundwater

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Environmental Geochemistry and Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The exposure to uranium (U) in the natural environment is primarily through ingestion (eating contaminated food and drinking water) and dermal (skin contact with U powders/wastes) pathways. This study focuses on the dose assessment for different age-groups using the USEPA model. A total of 156 drinking water samples were tested to know U level in the groundwater of the study region. Different age-groups were selected to determine the human health impact due to uranium exposure in the residing populations. To determine the relative importance of each input, a variance decomposition technique, i.e., Sobol sensitivity analysis, was used. Furthermore, different sample sizes were tested to obtain the optimal Sobol sensitivity indices. Three types of effects were evaluated: first-order effect (FOE), second-order effect (SOE) and total effect. The result of analysis revealed that 17% of the samples had U concentration above 30 µg l−1 of U, which is the recommended level by World Health Organization. The mean hazard index (HI) value for younger age-group was found to be less than 1, whereas the 95th percentile value of HI value exceeded for both age-groups. The mean annual effective dose of U for adults was found to be slightly higher than the recommended level of 0.1 m Sv year−1. This result signified that adults experienced relatively higher exposure dose than the children in this region. Sobol sensitivity analysis of FOE showed that the concentration of uranium (Cw) is the most sensitive input followed by intake rate (IR) and exposure frequency. Moreover, the value of SOE revealed that interaction effect of Cw − IR is the most sensitive input parameter for the assessment of oral health risk. On the other hand, dermal model showed Cw − F as the most sensitive interaction input. The larger value of SOE was also recorded for older age-group than for the younger group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdelouas, A. (2006). Uranium mill tailings: geochemistry, mineralogy, and environmental impact. Elements,2(6), 335–341.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aerb, D. (2004). Drinking water specifications in India. Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India: Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alam, M. S., & Cheng, T. (2014). Uranium release from sediment to groundwater: influence of water chemistry and insights into release mechanisms. Journal of contaminant hydrology,164, 72–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arogunjo, A., Höllriegl, V., Giussani, A., Leopold, K., Gerstmann, U., Veronese, I., et al. (2009). Uranium and thorium in soils, mineral sands, water and food samples in a tin mining area in Nigeria with elevated activity. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity,100(3), 232–240.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arzuaga, X., Rieth, S. H., Bathija, A., & Cooper, G. S. (2010). Renal effects of exposure to natural and depleted uranium: a review of the epidemiologic and experimental data. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B,13(7–8), 527–545.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Asaduzzaman, K., Khandaker, M. U., Amin, Y. M., & Mahat, R. (2015). Uptake and distribution of natural radioactivity in rice from soil in north and west part of peninsular Malaysia for the estimation of ingestion dose to man. Annals of Nuclear Energy,76, 85–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burmaster, D. E. (1991). Using Monte Carlo simulations in public health risk assessments: estimating and presenting full distributions of risk. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology,1(4), 491–512.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burmaster, D. E., & Lehr, J. H. (1991). It's time to make risk assessment a science. Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation,11(3), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabaux, F., Riotte, J., & Dequincey, O. (2003). U–Th–Ra fractionation during weathering and river transport. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry,52(1), 533–576.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Choppin, G., Liljenzin, J., & Rydberg, J. (2002). Behavior of radionuclides in the environment. Butterworth-Heinemann, London: Radiochem Nucl Chem.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A., Meece, D. E., Kohler, M., & Curtis, G. P. (2004). Approaches to surface complexation modeling of uranium (VI) adsorption on aquifer sediments. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,68(18), 3621–3641.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dewar, D. (2019). Uranium mining: Environmental and human health effects. Nuclear non-proliferation in international law-Volume IV (pp. 229–235). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durbin, P. W. (1984). Metabolic models for uranium. Biokinetics and analysis of uranium in man. Springfield: National Technical Information Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA, U. (2011). Exposure factors handbook 2011 Edition (Final). US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/052F.

  • Fisher, D. R., Kathren, R. L., & Swint, M. J. (1991). Modified biokinetic model for uranium from analysis of acute exposure to UF6. Health Physics,60(3), 335–342.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, P. M., Davis, J. A., & Zachara, J. M. (2006). The effect of calcium on aqueous uranium (VI) speciation and adsorption to ferrihydrite and quartz. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,70(6), 1379–1387.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, H., Jia, Y., Wanty, R. B., Jiang, Y., Zhao, W., Xiu, W., et al. (2016). Contrasting distributions of groundwater arsenic and uranium in the western Hetao basin, Inner Mongolia: Implication for origins and fate controls. Science of the Total Environment,541, 1172–1190.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hakonson-Hayes, A. C., Fresquez, P., & Whicker, F. (2002). Assessing potential risks from exposure to natural uranium in well water. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity,59(1), 29–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Homma, T., & Saltelli, A. (1996). Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models. Reliability Engineering & System Safety,52(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, D., Yang, J., Wei, X., Qin, J., Ou, S., Zhang, Z., et al. (2017). Probabilistic risk assessment of Chinese residents' exposure to fluoride in improved drinking water in endemic fluorosis areas. Environmental Pollution,222, 118–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D., Singh, A., & Jha, R. K. (2018a). Spatial distribution of uranium and basic water quality parameter in the capital of Bihar and consequent ingestion dose. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,25(18), 17901–179014.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D., Singh, A., Jha, R. K., Sahoo, S. K., & Jha, V. (2018b). Using spatial statistics to identify the uranium hotspot in groundwater in the mid-eastern Gangetic plain. India. Environmental Earth Sciences,77(19), 702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, D., Singh, A., Jha, R. K., Sahoo, S. K., & Jha, V. (2019). A variance decomposition approach for risk assessment of groundwater quality. Exposure and Health,11(2), 139–151.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kurttio, P., Auvinen, A., Salonen, L., Saha, H., Pekkanen, J., Mäkeläinen, I., et al. (2002). Renal effects of uranium in drinking water. Environmental Health Perspectives,110(4), 337.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kurttio, P., Komulainen, H., Leino, A., Salonen, L., Auvinen, A., & Saha, H. (2005). Bone as a possible target of chemical toxicity of natural uranium in drinking water. Environmental Health Perspectives,113(1), 68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kurttio, P., Harmoinen, A., Saha, H., Salonen, L., Karpas, Z., Komulainen, H., et al. (2006a). Kidney toxicity of ingested uranium from drinking water. American Journal of Kidney Diseases,47(6), 972–982.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kurttio, P., Salonen, L., Ilus, T., Pekkanen, J., Pukkala, E., & Auvinen, A. (2006b). Well water radioactivity and risk of cancers of the urinary organs. Environmental Research,102(3), 333–338.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leggett, R., & Harrison, J. (1995). Fractional absorption of ingested uranium in humans. Health Physics,68(4), 484–498.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Leggett, R., & Pellmar, T. (2003). The biokinetics of uranium migrating from embedded DU fragments. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity,64(2–3), 205–225.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liesch, T., Hinrichsen, S., & Goldscheider, N. (2015). Uranium in groundwater—fertilizers versus geogenic sources. Science of the Total Environment,536, 981–995.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsztein, J. L. (1982). An improved model for uranium metabolism in the primate. PhD Dissertation, New York University

  • Liu, C., Shi, Z., & Zachara, J. M. (2009). Kinetics of uranium (VI) desorption from contaminated sediments: Effect of geochemical conditions and model evaluation. Environmental Science & Technology,43(17), 6560–6566.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, V. S., Maillot, F., Wang, Z., Catalano, J. G., & Giammar, D. E. (2014). Effect of co-solutes on the products and solubility of uranium (VI) precipitated with phosphate. Chemical Geology,364, 66–75.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, H. S., Komlos, J., & Jaffé, P. R. (2007). Uranium reoxidation in previously bioreduced sediment by dissolved oxygen and nitrate. Environmental Science & Technology,41(13), 4587–4592.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pinney, S. M., Freyberg, R. W., Levine, G. H., Brannen, D. E., Mark, L. S., Nasuta, J. M., et al. (2003). Health effects in community residents near a uranium plant at Fernald, Ohio, USA. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health,16(2), 139–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., & Chan, K.-S. (1999). A quantitative model-independent method for global sensitivity analysis of model output. Technometrics,41(1), 39–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., et al. (2008). Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senko, J. M., Istok, J. D., Suflita, J. M., & Krumholz, L. R. (2002). In-situ evidence for uranium immobilization and remobilization. Environmental Science & Technology,36(7), 1491–1496.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Senko, J. M., Suflita, J. M., & Krumholz, L. R. (2005). Geochemical controls on microbial nitrate-dependent U (IV) oxidation. Geomicrobiology Journal,22(7–8), 371–378.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smedley, P., Smith, B., Abesser, C., & Lapworth, D. (2006). Uranium occurrence and behaviour in British groundwater. British Geological Survey Groundwater Systems & Water Quality Programme Commissioned Report CR/06/050. British Geological Survey, Keyworth: Nottigham.

  • Smith, R. L. (1994). Use of Monte Carlo simulation for human exposure assessment at a superfund site. Risk Analysis,14(4), 433–439.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sobol, I. M. (1993). Sensitivity estimates for nonlinear mathematical models. Mathematical modelling and computational experiments,1(4), 407–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staff, E. (2001). Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for superfund sites, peer review graft. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER (Vol. 9355, pp. 9354–9324).

  • Tang, T., Reed, P., Wagener, T., & Van Werkhoven, K. (2006). Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions,3(6), 3333–3395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne, M. (2020). Assessment Modelling and the evaluation of radiological and chemical impacts of uranium on humans and the environment. Uranium in plants and the environment (pp. 193–216). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA. (1992). Guidelines for exposure assessment. Federal Register,57(104), 22888–22938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan, H., Xia, J., Zhang, L., She, D., Xiao, Y., & Zou, L. (2015). Sensitivity and interaction analysis based on Sobol’method and its application in a distributed flood forecasting model. Water,7(6), 2924–2951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetterlind, J., Richer De Forges, A., Nicoullaud, B., & Arrouays, D. (2012). Changes in uranium and thorium contents in topsoil after long-term phosphorus fertilizer application. Soil Use and Management,28(1), 101–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. (2004). IPCS Risk Assessment Terminology. Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrenn, M., Durbin, P. W., Howard, B., Lipsztein, J., Rundo, J., Still, E. T., et al. (1983). Metabolism of ingested uranium and radium. Salt Late City: Utah University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamora, M. L., Tracy, B., Zielinski, J., Meyerhof, D., & Moss, M. (1998). Chronic ingestion of uranium in drinking water: a study of kidney bioeffects in humans. Toxicological Sciences,43(1), 68–77.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, C.-S., Song, X.-M., Xia, J., & Tong, C. (2013). An efficient integrated approach for global sensitivity analysis of hydrological model parameters. Environmental Modelling & Software,41, 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X. Y., Trame, M., Lesko, L., & Schmidt, S. (2015). Sobol sensitivity analysis: A tool to guide the development and evaluation of systems pharmacology models. CPT Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology,4(2), 69–79.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are profoundly grateful to Board of Research and Nuclear Sciences (BRNS Project Ref. No.: 36(4)/14/10/2014-BRNS) under Department of Atomic Energy, India, for providing financial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, Bihar, 800005, India

    Deepak Kumar, Anshuman Singh & Pappu Kumar

  2. Department of Mathematics, National Institute of Technology Patna, Bihar, 800005, India

    Rishi Kumar Jha

  3. Environmental Assessment Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, 400085, India

    Sunil Kumar Sahoo & Vivekanand Jha

Authors
  1. Deepak Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anshuman Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pappu Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rishi Kumar Jha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sunil Kumar Sahoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vivekanand Jha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deepak Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for this content and do not represent the official views of the BRNS under DAE, India.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, D., Singh, A., Kumar, P. et al. Sobol sensitivity analysis for risk assessment of uranium in groundwater. Environ Geochem Health 42, 1789–1801 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-020-00522-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-020-00522-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation