**4. Pollution evaluation indices**

The third factor exhibits 13.7% of the total variance with positive loading on Cu. The concentration of the copper varies from 0.056 to 0.43 mg/l. The groundwater quality standard of copper maximum permissible limit is 2 mg/l. All groundwater samples are less then maximum

Cluster analysis (CA) was applied to group objects (cases) into categories or clusters on the basis of similarities within a cluster and dissimilarities between different clusters with respect to distance between objects [13, 14]. Hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis was performed on the normalized data set using Euclidean distances as a measure of similarity and Ward's method to obtain dendrograms. Three main clusters can be distinguished in the dendrogram shown in **Figure 3**. **Table 4** shows that the increases of electrical conductivity from the first cluster to the last cluster. Cluster analysis confirmed and completed the results

The first cluster was composed of the wells 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13, and concerns 39% of the total water samples. The mean of electrical conductivity for this cluster is 1164 μS/cm, which presented low concentrations of all heavy metals compared with others clusters (**Figure 4(a)** and **(h)**).

permissible level of Cu [12].

24 Achievements and Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management

obtained by factor analysis.

**Figure 4.** Plot of heavy metals in the three clusters.

**3.2. Cluster analysis**

The degree of pollution in groundwater samples were assessed employing two methods; degree of contamination (Cdeg) and heavy metal evaluation index (HEI) as reported in the literature [15, 16].

The quality of groundwater was evaluated by calculating contamination index (Cdeg). The degree of contamination is used as a reference of estimating the extent of metal pollution [17]. This index may be classified into three categories as follows: low (Cdeg < 1), medium (Cdeg = 1–3) and high (Cdeg > 3) [15, 18, 19]. The contamination index was computed from the following equation:

$$\mathcal{C}\_{\text{deg}} = \sum\_{\beta=1}^{n} \mathcal{C}\_{\beta} \tag{1}$$

$$\mathbf{C}\_{\boldsymbol{\beta}} = \frac{\mathbf{C}\_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}}{\mathbf{C}\_{\boldsymbol{\omega}}} - \mathbf{1} \tag{2}$$

where, "*Cfi* " is contamination factor for the *i*th component, "*CAi*" is analytical value for the *i*th component, and "*CNi*" is upper permissible concentration of the *i*th component (*N* denotes the "normative value").

The heavy metal evaluation index gives an overall quality of groundwater with respect to heavy metals [19]. This index was computed using the relationship:

$$HEI = \sum\_{i=1}^{n} \frac{H\_c}{H\_{\text{max}}} \tag{3}$$

where, "*HC*" and "*HMAC*" are the measured value and maximum admissible concentration (MAC) of the *i*th parameter, respectively.

The estimated pollution evaluation indices for the selected heavy metals in the three clusters are shown in **Table 5**. In the first cluster, mean values of HEI and Cdeg indices were observed to be 29 and 22 (**Table 5**), respectively, which indicated that the water samples of this cluster were contaminated with low degree of pollution by heavy metals, especially Cd and Pb [19]. The mean values of HEI and Cdeg of the second cluster and the last cluster were respectively


**Table 5.** Description of pollution evaluation indices for selected heavy metals (μg/l) in groundwater samples.

39, 32, 34 and 27 (**Table 5**), revealing high level of pollution with Al, Cd and Pb. Overall, relatively higher heavy metals pollution is observed in the water samples of the second and third cluster than the first cluster.

#### **5. Human health risk assessment**

Human health risk assessment was defined as the processes of estimating the probability of occurrence of an event and the probable magnitude of adverse health effects over a specified time period [20, 21]. Exposure of human beings to the metals could occur via three main pathways including direct ingestion, inhalation and dermal absorption through skin; however, ingestion and dermal absorption are common routes for water exposure [22–25].

The numeric expressions for risk assessment have been obtained from USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) methodology [22].

Sumalance iou \"superium\ (\*\*Kaxos)\ \*\*menu0u0u0gy\*\* [22].\tag{4}
$$Exp\_{\text{ing}} = \frac{C\_{\text{mtr}} \times IR \times EF \times ED}{BW \times AT} \tag{4}$$

(0.001 l/cm<sup>3</sup>

(μg/kg/day).

in water samples.

); and Kp: dermal permeability coefficient. These parameter values are taken from

Assessment of Heavy Metals Contamination in Groundwater: A Case Study of the South of Setif…

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ *ing*/*derm RfDing*/*derm*

**Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3**

**Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3**

**HQing HQderm HQing HQderm HQing HQderm**

**RfDing RfDderm Exping Expderm Exping Expderm Exping Expderm**

Al 1000 200 1.163 2.36E−03 1.791 3.64E−03 1.949 3.96E−03 Cd 0.5 0.025 1.980 4.03E−03 2.389 4.86E−03 1.886 3.84E−03 Cu 40 8 6.883 1.40E−02 6.160 1.25E−02 10.246 2.08E−02 F 60 60 2.294 4.67E−03 4.180 8.50E−03 6.380 1.30E−02 Fe 700 140 8.737 1.78E−02 9.554 1.94E−02 5.154 1.05E−02 Pb 1.4 0.42 1.823 1.48E−03 3.206 2.61E−03 3.426 2.79E−03 Zn 300 60 4.180 5.10E−03 5.029 6.14E−03 4.840 5.91E−03

Al 1.16E−03 1.18E−05 1.79E−03 1.82E−05 1.95E−03 1.98E−05 Cd 3.96E+00 1.61E−01 4.78E+00 1.94E−01 3.77E+00 1.53E−01 Cu 1.72E−01 1.75E−03 1.54E−01 1.57E−03 2.56E−01 2.60E−03 F 3.82E−02 7.78E−05 6.97E−02 1.42E−04 1.06E−01 2.16E−04 Fe 1.25E−02 1.27E−04 1.36E−02 1.39E−04 7.36E−03 7.49E−05 Pb 1.30E+00 3.53E−03 2.29E+00 6.21E−03 2.45E+00 6.64E−03 Zn 1.39E−02 8.50E−05 1.68E−02 1.02E−04 1.61E−02 9.84E−05 ∑HIing/derm 5.50 0.17 7.32 0.2 6.61 0.16

**Table 6.** Summary of the health risk assessment for selected metals through ingestion pathway and dermal absorption

*HQing*/*derm* (7)

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75734

(6)

27

The characterization of non-carcinogenic risks such as hazard quotients (HQ) and hazard

*i*=1 *n*

where, HQing/derm: Hazard quotient via ingestion/dermal route (unitless); HIing/derm: Hazard index via ingestion/dermal route (unitless); and RfDing/derm: ingestion/dermal reference dose

It is generally accepted that HI below1 is considered to mean no significant risk of non-carcinogenic effects, and if the value of cancer risk is between 10−4 and 10−6, it is believed that the

reference values or pooled from the statistical data of local population [23, 24].

index (HI) is carried out using USEPA guidelines [22, 23]:

*HQing*/*derm* <sup>=</sup> *Exp*

*HIin*g/*derm* = ∑

carcinogenic risk is acceptable [26, 27].

$$
\begin{aligned}
\text{W} & \quad \text{BW} \times \text{AT} \\\\
\text{Exp}\_{\text{dem}} &= \frac{\text{C}\_{\text{water}} \times SA \times K\_p \times ET \times EF \times ED \times CF}{BW \times AT}
\end{aligned}
\tag{5}
$$

where, Exping: exposure dose through ingestion of water (μg/(kg day)); Expderm: exposure dose through dermal absorption (μg/(kg day)); Cwater: concentration of metals estimated in groundwater (μg/l); IR: ingestion rate (2.2 l/day); EF: exposure frequency (365 days/year); ED: exposure duration (30 years); BW: average body weight (70 kg); AT: averaging time (25,550 days); SA: exposed skin area (18,000 cm2 ); ET: exposure time (0.58 h/day); CF: unit conversion factor (0.001 l/cm<sup>3</sup> ); and Kp: dermal permeability coefficient. These parameter values are taken from reference values or pooled from the statistical data of local population [23, 24].

The characterization of non-carcinogenic risks such as hazard quotients (HQ) and hazard index (HI) is carried out using USEPA guidelines [22, 23]:

$$HQ\_{ngyleru} = \frac{Exp\_{mgileru}}{RfD\_{mgileru}}\tag{6}$$

$$H\mathcal{I}\_{\log\downarrow\text{ferm}} = \sum\_{i=1}^{n} H\mathcal{Q}\_{\log\downarrow\text{dem}}\tag{7}$$

where, HQing/derm: Hazard quotient via ingestion/dermal route (unitless); HIing/derm: Hazard index via ingestion/dermal route (unitless); and RfDing/derm: ingestion/dermal reference dose (μg/kg/day).

It is generally accepted that HI below1 is considered to mean no significant risk of non-carcinogenic effects, and if the value of cancer risk is between 10−4 and 10−6, it is believed that the carcinogenic risk is acceptable [26, 27].

39, 32, 34 and 27 (**Table 5**), revealing high level of pollution with Al, Cd and Pb. Overall, relatively higher heavy metals pollution is observed in the water samples of the second and third

**Table 5.** Description of pollution evaluation indices for selected heavy metals (μg/l) in groundwater samples.

**Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 MAC Mean HEI Cdeg Mean HEI Cdeg Mean HEI Cdeg**

Al 30 37 1.2 0.2 57 1.9 0.9 62 2.1 1.1 Cd 3 63 21 20 76 25.3 24.3 60 20 19 Cu 2000 219 0.1 −0.9 196 0.1 −0.9 326 0.2 −0.8 F 1500 73 0.05 −0.95 133 0.1 −0.9 203 0.1 −0.9 Fe 300 278 0.9 −0.1 304 1 0 164 0.5 −0.5 Pb 10 58 5.8 4.8 102 10.2 9.2 109 10.9 9.9 Si — 14,890 — — 20,850 — — 31,780 — — Zn 3000 133 0.04 −0.96 160 0.05 −0.95 154 0.05 −0.95 ∑ HEI/Cdeg 29 22 39 32 34 27

Human health risk assessment was defined as the processes of estimating the probability of occurrence of an event and the probable magnitude of adverse health effects over a specified time period [20, 21]. Exposure of human beings to the metals could occur via three main pathways including direct ingestion, inhalation and dermal absorption through skin; however,

The numeric expressions for risk assessment have been obtained from USEPA Risk Assessment

where, Exping: exposure dose through ingestion of water (μg/(kg day)); Expderm: exposure dose through dermal absorption (μg/(kg day)); Cwater: concentration of metals estimated in groundwater (μg/l); IR: ingestion rate (2.2 l/day); EF: exposure frequency (365 days/year); ED: exposure duration (30 years); BW: average body weight (70 kg); AT: averaging time (25,550 days);

*BW* <sup>×</sup> *AT* (4)

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ *BW* <sup>×</sup> *AT* (5)

); ET: exposure time (0.58 h/day); CF: unit conversion factor

ingestion and dermal absorption are common routes for water exposure [22–25].

cluster than the first cluster.

MAC: maximum admissible concentrations.

26 Achievements and Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management

**5. Human health risk assessment**

Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) methodology [22].

SA: exposed skin area (18,000 cm2

*Expin*<sup>g</sup> <sup>=</sup> *Cwater* <sup>×</sup> *IR* <sup>×</sup> *EF* <sup>×</sup> *ED* \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

*Expderm* <sup>=</sup> *Cwater* <sup>×</sup> *SA* <sup>×</sup> *Kp* <sup>×</sup> *ET* <sup>×</sup> *EF* <sup>×</sup> *ED* <sup>×</sup> *CF*


**Table 6.** Summary of the health risk assessment for selected metals through ingestion pathway and dermal absorption in water samples.

The health risk assessment parameters for the selected heavy metals in the groundwater samples of the three clusters via oral and dermal routes were described in **Table 6**. In the three clusters, the estimated mean levels of Exping and Expderm in the water samples are observed in the order of Fe > Cu > Zn > F > Pb > Cd > Al and Fe > Cu > F > Zn > Cd > Al > Pb, respectively. The results indicated that Fe, Cu, Zn and F are the major contributors to the ingestion and dermal exposures to the inhabitants, while Cd, Al and Pb are the least participants. Among the selected metals, Cd and Pb (HQing > 1) posed adverse health risks and potential non-carcinogenic health risks to the inhabitants, while rest of the metals caused little or no adverse effects to the residents via ingestion route. However, the mean levels of HQderm for the selected metals are found to be lower than unity, indicating that the metals would not pose any adverse effect and non-carcinogenic health risk to the consumers via dermal contact.

**3.** Landfill and industrial waste discharge in these areas

landscape where they occur must be taken in management.

**5.** The hydrological process and functions within the basins as well as in the larger terrestrial

Assessment of Heavy Metals Contamination in Groundwater: A Case Study of the South of Setif…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.75734

29

**1.** At the international level, there are guidelines to promote the inclusion of polluted areas in

**2.** At the national level, put in place processes of tight control and cross-sectoral harmonization of policy objectives and to raise awareness of the role and value of polluted areas. **3.** The water sector must establish a dynamic political, legislative and institutional environment that takes due account of polluted areas to ensure that the sector has the capacity and

1 Laboratory of Applied Research in Hydraulics, University of Mustapha Ben Boulaid Batna,

[1] Momodu MA, Anyakora CA. Heavy metal contamination of ground water: The Surulere case study. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences. 2010;**2**:39-43

[2] Öztürk M, Özözen G, Minareci O, Minareci E. Determination of heavy metals in fish, water and sediments of Avsar Dam Lake in Turkey. Iranian Journal of Environmental

[3] Belkhiri L, Mouni L, Narany TS, Tiri A. Evaluation of potential health risk of heavy metals in groundwater using the integration of indicator kriging and multivariate statistical

[4] Marcovecchio JE, Botte SE, Freije RH. Heavy metals, major metals, trace elements. In: Nollet LM, editor. Handbook of Water Analysis. 2nd ed. London: CRC Press; 2007

methods. Groundwater for Sustainable Development. 2017;**4**:12-22

2 Laboratoire de Gestion et Valorisation des Ressources Naturelles et Assurance Qualité, Faculté des Sciences de la Nature et de la Vie et Sciences de la Terre, Université de Bouira,

information to participate constructively in the protection of polluted areas.

 and Lotfi Mouni2 \*Address all correspondence to: belkhiri.la@gmail.com; belkhiri\_laz@yahoo.fr

**4.** Use of fertilizers in an abusive manner

the management of shared watersheds.

\*, Ammar Tiri1

Health Science & Engineering. 2009;**6**:73-80

Orientations

**Author details**

Lazhar Belkhiri1

Algeria

Algeria

**References**

Hazard index via ingestion intake (HIing) and dermal contact (HIderm) are computed to assess the overall non-carcinogenic risk posed by selected metals via ingestion and dermal contact of water as a whole. Among the selected metals, Cd and Pb contributed the most to the mean value of HIing (6.48), suggesting that these metals deserved serious health concern via ingestion path. However, the mean value of HIderm (0.18) is found to be less than unity, demonstrating that the selected metals posed little or no hazard to residents through dermal contact. Since the largest contributors to chronic non-carcinogenic risks were Cd and Pb in the present investigation, therefore, special attention should be paid to Cd and Pb management in the studied area.

#### **6. Conclusion**

In this study, the mean concentrations of heavy metals in groundwater sources in decreasing order was as follows: Si > Fe > Cu > Zn > F > Pb > Cd > Al. Factor analysis method identified three factors responsible for data structure explaining 75.69% of total variance in groundwater. Three major water clusters resulted from the cluster analysis. CA confirmed and completed the results obtained by FA. The mean values of HEI and Cdeg indices indicated that the water samples of the first cluster were contaminated with low degree of pollution by heavy metals, especially Cd and Pb. The mean values of HEI and Cdeg of the second and the third cluster revealing high level of contamination with Al, Cd and Pb. Non-carcinogenic health risk assessment was computed to assess the adverse health effects on the population. The hazard quotients (via ingestion) of Cd and Pb were found to be higher than the safe limits, posing threat to the consumers. However, no risk related to the dermal contact was associated with the measured metal levels. In the face of this type of pollution, which has an adverse effect on human health, a number of recommendations and guidelines have been drawn from this study to support the rational use of polluted areas, which are listed as follows:

Recommendations


#### Orientations

The health risk assessment parameters for the selected heavy metals in the groundwater samples of the three clusters via oral and dermal routes were described in **Table 6**. In the three clusters, the estimated mean levels of Exping and Expderm in the water samples are observed in the order of Fe > Cu > Zn > F > Pb > Cd > Al and Fe > Cu > F > Zn > Cd > Al > Pb, respectively. The results indicated that Fe, Cu, Zn and F are the major contributors to the ingestion and dermal exposures to the inhabitants, while Cd, Al and Pb are the least participants. Among the selected metals, Cd and Pb (HQing > 1) posed adverse health risks and potential non-carcinogenic health risks to the inhabitants, while rest of the metals caused little or no adverse effects to the residents via ingestion route. However, the mean levels of HQderm for the selected metals are found to be lower than unity, indicating that the metals would not pose any adverse

Hazard index via ingestion intake (HIing) and dermal contact (HIderm) are computed to assess the overall non-carcinogenic risk posed by selected metals via ingestion and dermal contact of water as a whole. Among the selected metals, Cd and Pb contributed the most to the mean value of HIing (6.48), suggesting that these metals deserved serious health concern via ingestion path. However, the mean value of HIderm (0.18) is found to be less than unity, demonstrating that the selected metals posed little or no hazard to residents through dermal contact. Since the largest contributors to chronic non-carcinogenic risks were Cd and Pb in the present investigation, therefore, special attention should be paid to Cd and Pb management in the studied area.

In this study, the mean concentrations of heavy metals in groundwater sources in decreasing order was as follows: Si > Fe > Cu > Zn > F > Pb > Cd > Al. Factor analysis method identified three factors responsible for data structure explaining 75.69% of total variance in groundwater. Three major water clusters resulted from the cluster analysis. CA confirmed and completed the results obtained by FA. The mean values of HEI and Cdeg indices indicated that the water samples of the first cluster were contaminated with low degree of pollution by heavy metals, especially Cd and Pb. The mean values of HEI and Cdeg of the second and the third cluster revealing high level of contamination with Al, Cd and Pb. Non-carcinogenic health risk assessment was computed to assess the adverse health effects on the population. The hazard quotients (via ingestion) of Cd and Pb were found to be higher than the safe limits, posing threat to the consumers. However, no risk related to the dermal contact was associated with the measured metal levels. In the face of this type of pollution, which has an adverse effect on human health, a number of recommendations and guidelines have been drawn from this

study to support the rational use of polluted areas, which are listed as follows:

**1.** Broad dissemination of the water code, in a vulgarized way, to sensitize citizens who act

**2.** A research study and advocate in the field of pollution, because it presents a means of

effect and non-carcinogenic health risk to the consumers via dermal contact.

28 Achievements and Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management

**6. Conclusion**

Recommendations

prevention.

out of ignorance.

