Microsoft Word - 10-277-287-PJAEC-03082021-388-C-Revised Galley Pro


Cross Mark

ISSN-1996-918X

Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022) 277 – 287

http://doi.org/10.21743/pjaec/2022.12.10

Valuation of Groundwater Contaminated with Nitrates and
Human Health Risks (HHR) Between Villages of Sinjar and

Tal Afar Districts, Iraq

Mohammed Hazim Sabry Al-Mashhadany
College of Education for Pure Sciences, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq.

*Corresponding Author Email: Mohammedhazemm@uomosul.edu.iq
Received 03 August 2021, Revised 28 October 2022, Accepted 01 November 2022

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
Nitrates are one of the most common pollutants in groundwater. To assess the risk of exposure to
nitrates in drinking water for age groups, we monitored the concentration of nitrates in the
drinking water of the Al-Jazeera region. The climate of this region is characterized as dry and
semi-arid, and its inhabitants depended on the water in the aquifers as a source of drinking for
many years, without monitoring, treatment, or filtration system, as there is no public drinking
water network. A model was also used to assess the risks of nitrate pollution in groundwater to
human health. Samples were taken from 30 wells distributed equally over the three villages to
collect water samples and measure the concentration of nitrate ions in groundwater. The
concentration of nitrate ions in well water is less than 50 mgL-1 and ranged between (4.2 – 48.1)
mgL-1. The mathematical model results showed that the ages under 11 years and pregnant wo men
have a higher hazard quotient of nitrate value (HQ) than one except for wells No. 2 and 9, which
are higher than the permissible limits for drinking. As for age groups above 11, well water was
suitable for drinking, and the HQ value was mainly less than one. The reason for this age group's
lower chronic daily intake (CDI). In other words, the groundwater was suitable for adults and not
for children under 11 years and pregnant women.

Keywords: HQ, CDI, Nitrate, Cancer, Drinking water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

The issue of the environment and
environmental pollution has received the
attention of specialists and global public
opinion, and there have been many studies
that dealt with groundwater pollution after it
was contaminated with chemical, and
biological pollutants, which has contributed
greatly to the increase in diseases and the
deterioration of environmental components
[1]. The use of well water regardless of the
degree of pollution and the severity of their
use, leads to diseases that may be fatal, and
these diseases may not appear when using
water until some time has passed; pollution of

groundwater with nitrates is an important
problem for the rural population of the world,
as there are hundreds of wells and tens of
thousands of hectares of agricultural land
whose groundwater cannot be used for
drinking purposes due to nitrate pollution, as
in Morocco [2], Germany [3], and France [4,
5]. Therefore cannot use its water to exceed
the nitrate concentrations permissible limit
[6]. From the above, we note the magnitude of
the problem, considering the negative effects
of pollution on general human health and
infants in particular. The health effects of
nitrates in humans are most closely related to



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022) 278

infants, as their consumption of water
containing nitrates with milk leads to the
transformation in the stomach that can
combine with oxygen molecules in red blood
cells leading to oxygen depletion and the
possibility of suffocating the child. As for
adults, drinking water containing higher
concentrations of nitrates than infants may not
pose a health risk [7, 8]. However, some
studies indicate the possibility of bleeding in
the spleen due to the ingestion of water
containing large amounts of nitrates. World
health organization (WHO) standards state
that nitrate concentrations exceeding 50 mgL-1

can be dangerous for adults and children; also,
a low nitrate content can become hazardous
when the water containing it boils because
nitrites and nitrates are not evaporable [9, 10].
The concentration of nitrates in groundwater
and surface water is normally low. Still, it
may reach High levels due to various nitrogen
sources, whether (agricultural or animal) on
the earth's surface, in the soil layer, or the
shallow layers under the soil, which is
transmitted by the filtration process, surface
runoff, or others [11, 12]. When the added
quantities of chemical fertilizers exceed
certain proportions, this often happens through
repeated, unexamined, and random additions
in many countries, leading to many negative
effects, directly or indirectly, on the biological
system in particular and the environment in
general. The direct repercussions of chemical
fertilizers are Direct damage to the living
components of the ecosystem, including
human, animal, and plant health. As for the
indirect effects, they negatively affect the vital
parts of the ecosystem (water, air, and soil).
They occur in a defect in the composition of
these natural components and the natural
balance between them. On the other hand, the
leakage of nitrates into the groundwater is one
of the most important risks of pollution with
nitrogen fertilizers [13, 14].
In some countries where groundwater is the
main source of drinking. Some reports

indicate groundwater pollution increases the
risk of cancer of the pancreas, brain, large
intestine, bladder, and thyroid [15, 16].
Geospatial technology, such as satellite
remote sensing, geographic information
systems (GIS), and satellite navigation system,
are widely used in groundwater research. The
most common applications of geospatial
technology in groundwater research include
identifying and mapping groundwater
exploration areas and producing spatial and
sensitive groundwater quality for pollution
maps using GIS [17].

Among the studies that were
conducted was to measure the concentration
of nitrates in groundwater, which are
dangerous to human health: Noor and others
studied the nitrate ion concentration in the
groundwater of several wells in the city of
Mosul, whose concentration ranged between
(0.39-10.88 mgL-1) attributed this to pollution
with wastewater [18], and the study of
Al-Saffawi and Awad of the village of
Abuwajnah Village in the Zammar sub-district
in Nineveh Governorate indicated that there is
no risk of drinking water by rural consumers
due to its low concentrations, as its HQ value
ranged between (0.0228 - 0.1125) [19].

The study aims to find out the
suitability of drinking water for different age
groups by applying the nitrate model.

Material and Methods
Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted on
groundwater in the northwestern part of
Nineveh Governorate (Al-Jazirah region). It
includes the Kakhirta village, the village of
Ein Al-Hussan and the village of Shoueira,
where various agricultural and animal
activities are spread that depend on the
groundwater sources in the area for drinking
and various uses [1, 20].



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022)279

Sample Collection

Samples were collected regularly for
five months to cover part of the area, and GPS
determined the coordinates of each well. From
there, they were projected onto the map as
identified 30 wells. Table 1 shows the number
of wells and samples collected from the sites
according to geographical division. The total
number of samples taken was 150 during the
study period, with a sample from each well for
each month.

Table 1. Coordi nates (E, N) and al titude of the studied wells.

Sample Preparation

At 220 nm, the nitrate ion absorbs UV
light, but not at 275 nm. Because dissolved
organic stuff absorbs light at 220 nm, this is
achieved by measuring the absorbance of a
water sample at 275 nanometers, a wavelength
at which organic matter can absorb
electromagnetic radiation but not by nitrates.
Once known, an experimental correction
factor at 220 nm can discriminate between
nitrate and organic matter. There are two
phases to sample preparation. The sample will
first be filtered to prevent UV light from being
scattered by suspended particles in the water
sample. To avoid interferences caused by the
absorption of OH

-
or CO3

2-
, both of which

may absorb at 220 nm, the samples were
acidified with 1 N HCl. Up to 1000 CaCO3
mgL

-1
, acidification should preclude

interference from these ions. Hydrochloric
acid is employed because Cl- does not absorb
light in the spectrum's 250 – 290 nm region.
Samples were collected for five replicates of
each sample in pyrex glass containers of 250
ml capacity and routinely followed the
standard method for taking samples from the
source as they filled the sample. The air was
expelled inside the package, sealed after
washing the container twice or three from the
same source, and transferred to the Industrial
Chemistry Lab at the University of Mosul.
The measurement was carried out according to
the (Ultraviolet screening method) by taking a
known volume of the well-filtered sample,
then adding to it (1 mL) of HCl (1 N) acid and
measured at wavelengths of 220 and 275 nm
using a UV spectrophotometer [21].

Assessment of the Human Health Risk of
Nitrates (HHR) by Drinking Water for the
Studied Wells

Well water was evaluated for the
studied area HHR, according to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency

Well E N Al titude (m)

1 42̊ 34ʹ88ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ90ʹʹ 406

2 42̊ 34ʹ71ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ87ʹʹ 406

3 42̊ 34ʹ93ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ73ʹʹ 407

4 42̊ 34ʹ45ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ68ʹʹ 406

5 42̊ 34ʹ59ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ45ʹʹ 407

6 42̊ 34ʹ95ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ60ʹʹ 407

7 42̊ 35ʹ01ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ34ʹʹ 407

8 42̊ 34ʹ68ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ31ʹʹ 407

9 42̊ 34ʹ70ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ12ʹʹ 407

K
ak

h
ir

ta
v
il

la
g
e

10 42̊ 35ʹ00ʹʹ 36˚55ʹ06ʹʹ 407

11 42̊ 21ʹ79ʹʹ 36˚31ʹ16ʹʹ 335

21 42̊ 21ʹ53ʹʹ 36˚31ʹ43ʹʹ 335

13 42̊ 21ʹ42ʹʹ 36˚31ʹ64ʹʹ 335

14 42̊ 21ʹ47ʹʹ 36˚30ʹ26ʹʹ 332

51 42̊ 21ʹ26ʹʹ 36˚31ʹ26ʹʹ 332

61 42̊ 21ʹ11ʹʹ 36˚31ʹ11ʹʹ 342

71 42̊ 20ʹ87ʹʹ 36˚32ʹ02ʹʹ 348

81 42̊ 21ʹ13ʹʹ 36˚32ʹ08ʹʹ 348

91 42̊ 22ʹ19ʹʹ 36˚30ʹ54ʹʹ 327

E
in

A
l-

H
us

sa
n

vi
ll

ag
e

20 42̊ 22ʹ18ʹʹ 36˚31ʹ02ʹʹ 335

12 42˚22'86'' 36˚28'61'' 324

22 42˚24'04'' 36˚29'34'' 313

23 42˚24'24'' 36˚28'75'' 317

24 42˚24'26'' 36˚27'66'' 318

25 42˚24'94'' 36˚26'57'' 310

26 42˚25'01'' 36˚25'01'' 308

27 42˚22'80'' 36˚26'08'' 320

28 42˚25'59'' 36˚30'07'' 325

29 42˚26'53'' 36˚29'59'' 319

S
h
o
u

ei
ra

v
il

la
g
e

30 42˚26'32'' 36˚26'80'' 304



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022) 280

(USEPA), which is widely used to determine
the risks of nitrates to human health. A special
model was used to calculate the nitrate
concentration in well water. This model
calculates the CDI and the HQ or the
following equations:
CDI = Sw × IS × ES × DE / BZ × ZT
HQ = CDI / DN

CDI stands for chronic daily intake
(mg/kg day), and Sw stands for nitrate content
in drinking water (mgL

-1
). DE indicates the

exposure period in years and IS represents the
average daily intake of water (liters) for
different ages of adults, children, and babies.
The local population in the study region relies
on groundwater for drinking. Therefore, the
frequency of exposure (ES) is 365 days/year.
BZ: Average body weight in kg, meantime

values (ZT) in days, DN represents the
reference dose of nitrates (1.6 mg/kg/d), and
these data are obtained from Risk Information
Systems. If the HQ values are more than one,
then it is considered hazardous to human
health, and water is not suitable for drinking,
but when it is equal to or less than one,
drinking water is not dangerous and can be
used for drinking [22, 23].

Inverse Distance Weighting

Used the (IDW) method to predict the
spatial distribution of nitrates in the
groundwater of 30 wells, one of the
geostatistical methods and one of the most
advanced techniques. Fig 2, 3 and 4 show the
distribution of nitrates in groundwater over the
area of each village [24].

Figure 1. Village sites i n the study area in Ni neveh Governorate [23, 24]

Kakhirta
village

Ein Alhussan
village

Shawira
village

Tal Afar
district



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022)281

Figure 2. Spati al distri bution of nitrates i n the Kakhi rta vill age

Figure 3. Spati al distri bution of nitrates i n the Ei n Al -Hussan vill age



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022) 282

Figure 4. Spati al di stri bution of nitrates i n the Shoueira vill age

Results and Discussion

Nitrogen fertilization is one of the
most important agricultural applications that
contribute to the pollution of groundwater,
which causes health risks, including the
carcinogenic effect. So, the amount of nitrates
that a person takes in a day should not exceed
200 mg, since nitrates in the body are
transformed into nitrites and are toxic through
the formation of amines (nitrosamines) [25],
which in turn cause liver cancer or esophageal
cancer, Nitroso compounds are formed in the
human body due to the intake of nitrates [26].
After drinking water containing nitrates, about
20% is converted to nitrite by bacteria in the
digestive system. The nitrates in the acid

conditions of the stomach turn into nitroso-
acid (HNO2), which reacts with the amines to
form N-nitroso compounds (NOCs) that may
cause cancer when present in high
concentrations [27].

The results in this study showed values
of nitrate concentration in well water, which
ranged between (4.2 - 48.1) mgL

-1
, and their

means do not exceed 47 mgL-1, meaning it is
less than 50 mgL

-1
Table 2, The rise is due to

the intrusion of animal and agricultural waste
into the groundwater. As a result of the



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022)283

biodegradation processes by microorganisms,
the amino acids are transformed into ammonia
and then into nitrates by the nitrification
process, as in the following equation:

 42 NHRNH

  324 NONONH

Table 2. Ni trate ion val ues for the studied water wells (mgL-1).

Wells Mi n Max Mean ± SD

1 19.3 48.0 40.7±12.0

2 4.2 31.0 24.5±11.4

3 20.0 47.0 41.1±11.8

4 18.9 45.2 37.4±10.5

5 20.2 48.0 41.5±11.9

6 20.0 48.0 41.4±11.9

7 17.6 45.2 38.9±11.9

8 20.0 45.8 36.9±12.1

9 6.5 34.8 26.8±12.0

K
ak

h
ir

ta
v
il

la
g
e

10 19.9 46.5 40.7±11.6

11 45.5 47.7 46.6±0.8

12 45.5 47.6 46.7±0.8

13 45.7 47.1 46.4±0.6

14 46.1 47.4 46.7±0.6

15 43.0 45.4 44.4±1

16 39.6 45.8 43.4±2.9

17 43.8 46.8 45.1±1.2

18 44.2 46.2 45.1±0.9

19 45.5 47.2 46.3±0.7

E
in

A
l-

H
u
ss

an
V

il
la

g
e

20 45.8 47.0 46.4±0.6

21 43.2 46.3 44.8±1.3

22 43.3 46.5 45.2±1.3

23 46.1 47.6 46.8±0.6

24 45.6 47.4 46.6±0.7

25 45.7 47.6 46.5±0.8

26 45.0 47.7 46.5±1

27 46.1 48.1 47.0±0.8

28 45.3 47.6 46.7±0.9

29 45.3 47.7 46.6±0.9

S
h
o
u
ei

ra
V

il
la

g
e

30 44.2 45.9 44.9±0.8

These values are considered
permissible for drinking according to the

standards of the World Health Organization
(WHO). The harmful effect of the nitrate ion
appears through the presence of
methemoglobinemia in the blood of infants.
Thus nitrates are reduced to nitrite by the
reductase enzyme, both inside and outside the
human body; the formed nitrite binds with
hemoglobin to form methemoglobinemia
(MetHb), which cannot transport oxygen to
various body tissues as a result of the
oxidation of iron (Fe

+2
to Fe

+3
), Fig. 5. This

creates a health problem known as a blue baby
syndrome. Children over three months old are
more likely to have this disease, as they get
large amounts of nitrates by consuming
drinking water through artificial feeding; the
effect of nitrates on this group of children
appears more than on adults because of low
concentrations of nitrates cause them disease.
The study showed that all water samples from
wells for ages under six years are not suitable
for drinking due to exceeding the HQ value of
one, which ranged between (1.0910 - 2.0939).
The HQ value of more than one exceeded
80%. For ages between 6-11 years, it ranged
between (0.6894 - 1.3242), which poses a
threat to health safety, whereas, for ages above
11 years, the HQ value was less than one and
varied between (0.5026 - 1.0145) and thus be
suitable for drinking, shown in Table 3
[28-32].

Figure 5. Hemoglobi n converts to Methemoglobi nemi a i n the
blood



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022) 284

Table 3. CDI and HQ val ues for well water.

Age Groups
Wells

< 1.0 6 - 11 11-16 16-18 18-21 21 -65 > 65

CDI 2.8976 1.8326 1.3359 1.0919 1.4039 1.3525 1.3882
1

HQ 1.8110 1.1454 0.8349 0.6825 0.8775 0.8453 0.8676
CDI 1.7442 1.1031 0.8041 0.6573 0.8451 0.8141 0.8356

2
HQ 1.0901 0.6894 0.5026 0.4108 0.5282 0.5088 0.5223

CDI 2.9271 1.8512 1.3495 1.1031 1.4182 1.3663 1.4023
3

HQ 1.8294 1.1570 0.8434 0.6894 0.8864 0.8539 0.8765
CDI 2.6650 1.6854 1.2286 1.0043 1.2912 1.2439 1.2767

4
HQ 1.6656 1.0534 0.7679 0.6277 0.8070 0.7774 0.7980

CDI 2.9541 1.8683 1.3619 1.1132 1.4313 1.3788 1.4153
5

HQ 1.8463 1.1677 0.8512 0.6958 0.8945 0.8618 0.8845

CDI 2.9492 1.8652 1.3597 1.1114 1.4289 1.3766 1.4129
6

HQ 1.8432 1.1657 0.8498 0.6946 0.8931 0.8604 0.8831

CDI 2.7708 1.7524 1.2774 1.0442 1.3425 1.2933 1.3275
7

HQ 1.7318 1.0952 0.7984 0.6526 0.8391 0.8083 0.8297
CDI 2.6252 1.6603 1.2103 0.9893 1.2719 1.2253 1.2577

8
HQ 1.6407 1.0377 0.7564 0.6183 0.7949 0.7658 0.7860

CDI 1.9057 1.2052 0.8786 0.7181 0.9233 0.8895 0.9130
9

HQ 1.1911 0.7533 0.5491 0.4488 0.5771 0.5559 0.5706
CDI 2.8999 1.8340 1.3370 1.0928 1.4050 1.3536 1.3893

K
ak

hi
rt

a
V

il
la

g
e

10
HQ 1.8125 1.1463 0.8356 0.6830 0.8782 0.8460 0.8683

CDI 3.3210 2.1003 1.5311 1.2515 1.6091 1.5501 1.5910
11

HQ 2.0756 1.3127 0.9569 0.7822 1.0057 0.9688 0.9944

CDI 3.3289 2.1053 1.5347 1.2545 1.6129 1.5538 1.5948
12

HQ 2.0805 1.3158 0.9592 0.7840 1.0080 0.9711 0.9968

CDI 3.3056 2.0906 1.5240 1.2457 1.6016 1.5429 1.5837
13

HQ 2.0660 1.3066 0.9525 0.7786 1.0010 0.9643 0.9898

CDI 3.3243 2.1024 1.5326 1.2527 1.6107 1.5517 1.5926
14

HQ 2.0777 1.3140 0.9579 0.7830 1.0067 0.9698 0.9954

CDI 3.1653 2.0019 1.4593 1.1928 1.5336 1.4774 1.5165
15

HQ 1.9783 1.2512 0.9121 0.7455 0.9585 0.9234 0.9478
CDI 3.0881 1.9530 1.4237 1.1637 1.4962 1.4414 1.4794

16
HQ 1.9300 1.2206 0.8898 0.7273 0.9351 0.9009 0.9247

CDI 3.2099 2.0301 1.4799 1.2096 1.5552 1.4983 1.5378
17

HQ 2.0062 1.2688 0.9249 0.7560 0.9720 0.9364 0.9611
CDI 3.2156 2.0337 1.4825 1.2118 1.5580 1.5009 1.5405

18
HQ 2.0097 1.2710 0.9266 0.7573 0.9737 0.9381 0.9628

CDI 3.2992 2.0866 1.5210 1.2433 1.5985 1.5399 1.5806
19

HQ 2.0620 1.3041 0.9507 0.7770 0.9991 0.9625 0.9879

CDI 3.3030 2.0889 1.5228 1.2447 1.6003 1.5417 1.5824

E
in

A
l-

H
us

sa
n

V
il

la
ge

20
HQ 2.0643 1.3056 0.9517 0.7779 1.0002 0.9636 0.9890

CDI 3.1908 2.0180 1.4711 1.2024 1.5460 1.4894 1.528721
HQ 1.9943 1.2613 0.9194 0.7515 0.9662 0.9309 0.9554
CDI 3.2202 2.0366 1.4846 1.2135 1.5602 1.5030 1.5427

22
HQ 2.0126 1.2729 0.9279 0.7584 0.9751 0.9394 0.9642
CDI 3.3331 2.1080 1.5367 1.2560 1.6149 1.5557 1.5968

23
HQ 2.0832 1.3175 0.9604 0.7850 1.0093 0.9723 0.9980
CDI 3.3179 2.0984 1.5297 1.2503 1.6076 1.5487 1.5896

24
HQ 2.0737 1.3115 0.9560 0.7815 1.0047 0.9679 0.9935
CDI 3.3133 2.0955 1.5275 1.2486 1.6053 1.5465 1.5873

25
HQ 2.0708 1.3097 0.9547 0.7804 1.0033 0.9666 0.9921
CDI 3.3152 2.0967 1.5284 1.2493 1.6063 1.5465 1.5883

26
HQ 2.0720 1.3104 0.9553 0.7808 1.0039 0.9666 0.9927
CDI 3.3502 2.1188 1.5445 1.2625 1.6232 1.5637 1.6050

27
HQ 2.0939 1.3242 0.9653 0.7891 1.0145 0.9773 1.0031
CDI 3.3265 2.1038 1.5336 1.2536 1.6117 1.5527 1.5937

28
HQ 2.0790 1.3149 0.9585 0.7835 1.0073 0.9704 0.9960
CDI 3.3174 2.0981 1.5294 1.2501 1.6073 1.5484 1.5893

29
HQ 2.0734 1.3113 0.9559 0.7813 1.0046 0.9678 0.9933
CDI 3.1991 2.0233 1.4749 1.2056 1.5500 1.4932 1.5327

S
h
o
u

ei
ra

V
il

la
g
e

30
HQ 1.9995 1.2646 0.9218 0.7535 0.9688 0.9333 0.9579



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022)285

Finally, the use of chemical fertilizers
is increasing, resulting from the increase in the
proportion of nitrogen and the lack of
vegetation during the winter to the disruption
of the nitrogen cycle. This led to groundwater
supplies with high concentrations of nitrates,
which slowly seep nitrates into the soil at a
rate of 1 meter annually until it reaches the
underground water level. However, a large
amount of nitrogen enters groundwater
through surface runoff and seepage every year
[33, 34].

Good agricultural practices should be
encouraged to avoid excessive nitrogenous
fertilizers. Large quantities of nitrogen
fertilizers will increase nitrate concentrations
in groundwater by losing a large proportion of
the fertilizer used by leaching into the soil
[35, 36].

Conclusion

Nitrate concentrations for all well
water in the study area were within the

permissible limits, less than 50 mgL
-1

according to WHO standards. The study relied
on the nitrate ion model, which requires age

groups, body weight, exposure rate, and

human consumption of drinking water
containing nitrate concentrations. The study
showed that the main HQ values were
inappropriate for ages under 11 years and

therefore posed a health risk to children,

while older ages were good and safe to drink
and did not pose a health risk in cancerous
diseases. It also showed that the main reason

for the high concentration of nitrates in
groundwater is farmers' excessive use of
nitrogen fertilizers, animal waste, and

wastewater. We must try to keep the current

nitrate levels from rising. By reducing
agricultural fertilizers, future generations
will pay the price for the current bad
practices in agriculture. International water

quality guidelines allow a maximum of

25 mgL
-1

for infants and pregnant women and

50 mgL
-1

for adults. Individuals with weaker
immune systems, such as children and the
elderly, are more vulnerable to the harmful
consequences of nitrate pollution.

Acknowledgement

I thank the University of Mosul and
the College of Education for Pure Sciences for
providing the facilities and completing the
paper.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict
of interest.

References

1. M. H. S. Al-Mashhadany, Materials
Today, 42 (2021) 2756.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.12.717.

2. M. Lahmar, N. El Khodrani, S. Omrania,
H. Dakak, R. Moussadek, A. Douaik, in
E3S Web of Conferences, (2020) 01001.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/2020150
0100.

3. G. Sundermann, N. Wägner, A.
Cullmann, C. R. von Hirschhausen and
C. Kemfert, DIW Weekly Report, 10
(2020) 61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18723/diw_dwr:202
0-8-1.

4. M. Parvizishad, A. Dalvand, A. H.
Mahvi and F. Goodarzi, Health Scope, 6
(2017) 43.
DOI: 10.5812/jhealthscope.14164.

5 J.-C. Roux, Sci. Total Environ., 171
(1995) 3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-
9697(95)04695-X.

6. A.-A. Y. Al-Saffawi, Pak. J. Anal.
Environ. Chem., 20 (2019) 75.
http://dx.doi.org/10.21743/pjaec/2019.06.10



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022) 286

7. N. Adimalla, Human Ecol. Risk Assess.
J., 26 (2020) 310.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1
508329.

8. M. Yousefi, S. Ghalehaskar, F. B.
Asghari, A. Ghaderpoury, M. H.
Dehghani and M. Ghaderpoori, Regul.
Toxicol. Pharmacol., 107 (2019)
104408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104
408.

9. S. K. Gupta, R. Gupta, A. Gupta, A.
Seth, J. Bassin and A. Gupta, Environ.
Health Perspect. J., 108 (2000) 363.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1289%2Fehp.00108
363.

10. M. H. Ward, R. R. Jones, J. D. Brender,
T. M. De Kok, P. J. Weyer and B. T.
Nolan, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health, 15 (2018) 1557.
https://dx.doi.org/10.3390%2Fijerph150
71557.

11. N. Adimalla, P. Li and H. Asakura,
Human Ecol. Risk Assess., 25
(2018) 1107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1
460579.

12. K. Nakagawa, H. Amano, H. Asakura
and R. Berndtsson, Environ. Earth Sci.,
75 (2016) 234.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-
4971-9.

13. F. Edition, WHO Chronicle, 38 (2011)
104.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/
9789241549950

14. A. Javid, A. A. Roudbari, A. Mashayekh
-Salehi, M. Ghanbarian and M.
Ghanbarian, Int. J. Water, 14 (2020) 1.
http://doi.org/10.5812/jhealthscope.14164.

15. N. Espejo-Herrera, K. P. Cantor, N.
Malats, D. T. Si lve ma n , A. Tardón, R .
Cía-Closas, C. Se r r a, M. Kogevinas
and C. M. Villanueva. Environ. Res.,
137 (2015) 299.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.1
0.034

16. M. H. Ward, B. A. Kilfoy, P. J. Weyer,
K. E. Anderson, A. R. Folsom and J. R.
Cerhan, Epidemiology, 21 (2010) 389.
http://doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181d6201d.

17. A. A. Elnazer, E.-M. M. Seleem, S. A.
Zeid, I. S. Ismail, H. A. Bahlol and S. A.
Salman, Environ. Geochem. Health, 12
(2021) 100517.
http://doi:10.1016/j.gsd.2020.100517.

18. N. A. Al-Hamdany, Y. M. Al-Shaker
and A. Y. Al-Saffawi, Biochem. Cell.
Arch., 2 (2020) 6063.
https://connectjournals.com/03896.2020.
20.6063.

19. A. Al-Hamdani, A. Kaplan and A. Al-
Saffawi, J. Physics: Conf. Ser., 1999
(2021) 012028.
http://doi:10.1088/1742-
6596/1999/1/012028.

20. A. Y. T. Al-Saffawi, B. S. U. Ibn
Abubakar, L. Y. Abbass and A. K.
Monguno, Nigerian J. Technol., 39
(2020) 632.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/njt.v39i1.35.

21. APHA. (2017). Standard method for
examination of water and waste water.
23rd ed., Washington, DC, USA.
https://doi.org/10.2105/SMWW.2882.089.

22. Q. Zhang, P. Xu and H. Qian, Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health, 16 (2019)
4246.
http://doi:10.3390/ijerph16214246.

23. N. Adimalla and P. Li, Human Ecol. Risk
Assess., 25 (2019) 81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1
480353.

24. K. Sathees , B. Sangeetha, Groundw.
Sustain. Dev., 10 (2020) 100297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2019.100297.

25. A. Rahman, N. Mondal and K. Tiwari,
Sci. Rep., 11 (2021) 1.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-
88600-1.

26. I. D. Buller, D. M. Patel, P. J. Weyer, A.
Prizment, R. R. Jones and M. H. Ward,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18
(2021) 68221.



Pak. J. Anal. Environ. Che m. Vol. 23, No. 2 (2022)287

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136822
27. R. Alex, A. Kitalika, E. Mogusu and K.

Njau, J. Geofluids, 2021 (2021) 1.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6673013.

28. M. H. S. Al-Mashhadany, Earth Environ.
Sci., 722 (2021) 012029.
htttp://doi:10.1088/1755-
1315/722/1/012029.

29. S. S. Herrmann, K. Granby and L.
Duedahl-Olesen, Food Chem., 174
(2015) 516.
http://doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.11.101

30. D. Karunanidhia, P. Aravinthasamya, T.
J. Subramanib and K. Srinivasa-
moorthy, J. Human Ecol., 25 (2019) 21.
https://doi:org/10.1080/10807039.2019.1
568859.

31. A. J. A. Jaafer and A. Y. T. Al-Saffawi,
J. Plant Arch., 20 (2020) 3221.

32. M. Nujiae, and M. H. Stanae, Sci. J.
Nutr. Diet, 6 (2017) 63.

33. M. H. S. Al-Mashhadany, J. A. A.
Mamaree and A. Y. T. Al-Saffawi, J.
Plant Arch., 20 (2020) 3928.

34. L. Huljek, D. Dario Perkoviæ and Z.
Kovaè, J. Maps, 15(2) (2019) 570.
http://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2019.1
642248.

35. Y. Guimei, W. Jiu, L. Lei, L. Yun, Z. Yi
and W. Songsong, J. BMC Public
Health, 20 (2020) 3.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-
08583-y.

36. R. A. A. Al-Shanona, N. M. Sadeq and
A. Y. T. Al-Saffawi, J. Environ. Stud.,
18 (2018) 14.
https://dx.doi.org/10.21608/jesj.2018.20
4149.