ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img

Statistical Modeling of Global Geogenic Arsenic Contamination in Groundwater

View Author Information
Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
* Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected]; phone: +41 1 823-5465 ; fax: +41 1 823-5375.
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 10, 3669–3675
Publication Date (Web):April 16, 2008
https://doi.org/10.1021/es702859e

Copyright © 2008 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

  • Open Access

Article Views

13150

Altmetric

-

Citations

300
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (3 MB)
Supporting Info (1)»

Abstract

Contamination of groundwaters with geogenic arsenic poses a major health risk to millions of people. Although the main geochemical mechanisms of arsenic mobilization are well understood, the worldwide scale of affected regions is still unknown. In this study we used a large database of measured arsenic concentration in groundwaters (around 20,000 data points) from around the world as well as digital maps of physical characteristics such as soil, geology, climate, and elevation to model probability maps of global arsenic contamination. A novel rule-based statistical procedure was used to combine the physical data and expert knowledge to delineate two process regions for arsenic mobilization: “reducing” and “high-pH/oxidizing”. Arsenic concentrations were modeled in each region using regression analysis and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inferencing followed by Latin hypercube sampling for uncertainty propagation to produce probability maps. The derived global arsenic models could benefit from more accurate geologic information and aquifer chemical/physical information. Using some proxy surface information, however, the models explained 77% of arsenic variation in reducing regions and 68% of arsenic variation in high-pH/oxidizing regions. The probability maps based on the above models correspond well with the known contaminated regions around the world and delineate new untested areas that have a high probability of arsenic contamination. Notable among these regions are South East and North West of China in Asia, Central Australia, New Zealand, Northern Afghanistan, and Northern Mali and Zambia in Africa.

Synopsis

Probability maps of groundwater arsenic contaminaiton modeled on a global scale using statistical analysis based on measured arsenic data, physical variables, and known geochemical processes are presented.

Introduction

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

In many regions around the world, arsenic-rich groundwater is used for drinking water and irrigation purposes (1, 2). Long-term exposure to arsenic can affect human health and is considered to be a significant environmental cause of cancer (2, 3). Exposure to arsenic may also cause skin pigmentation, hyperkeratosis, and cardiovascular disease, and may affect the mental development of children, among other possible adverse effects (1, 4, 5). Due to its high toxicity at low concentrations (in the µg L−1 range), arsenic is a cause for concern in many regions of the world (6-9). However, the worldwide scale of affected regions is still unknown because groundwater quality has only been determined in certain regions. Hence, a global map, showing the areas with high probability of contamination is of great value for civil authorities and aid agencies in preventing the increase in consumption of arsenic-contaminated waters.
Solid-phase arsenic is widely distributed in nature and can be mobilized in groundwaters through a combination of natural processes and/or anthropogenic activities (6-11). At the global scale, natural processes are predominantly responsible for the elevated arsenic concentrations, although anthropogenic sources of arsenic, such as leaching from mine tailings, can be very important on the local scale. Regardless of the source of arsenic, its solubility is mostly controlled by pH and Eh (6), which in turn are governed by geology, climate, drainage, and topography (7, 11, 12). Two important chemical processes lead to arsenic mobilization through desorption and dissolution. These processes take place under two different physicochemical conditions: first, highly reducing aquifers where arsenic is predominantly present in its reduced state As(III), and second, high-pH aquifers where arsenic is relatively soluble in its oxidized state As(V) (6, 10). We, henceforth, refer to regions with these conditions as “reducing” and “high-pH/oxidizing” process regions, respectively.
Reducing aquatic environments, where arsenic is most probably released by reductive dissolution (6), are typically poorly drained and rich in organic matter content making them conducive to high microbial activity and, hence, low oxygen concentrations (13). We acknowledge that in reducing regions with higher sulfate concentrations, dissolved arsenic could be low due to microbial sulfate reduction and subsequent precipitation of arsenic sulfides (14). Oxidizing environments occur in arid and semiarid regions, again with poor drainage conditions (e.g., closed hydrologic basins), which may result in high evaporation rates leading to high salinity and high pH (6, 7). In such conditions anions including arsenate (AsO43−) are poorly sorbed to mineral surfaces and are thus quite soluble and mobile (6).
This study aims to provide a global overview of arsenic-affected groundwaters. We use the digitally available information on the global scale such as geology, soil, climate, and topographic data to (1) delineate the world into reducing and high-pH/oxidizing regions, (2) model arsenic concentration in each region, and (3) produce probability maps for the occurrence of arsenic in concentrations greater than the WHO guideline value of 10 µg L−1 (15). For these purposes the existing geochemical knowledge of the arsenic-releasing processes is combined with statistical methods using fuzzy logic and fuzzy neural networks. The outcomes are predictive models, which were tested and subsequently used to develop global probability maps for groundwater arsenic contamination.

Materials and Methods

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Database Compilation

We compiled around 20,000 data points of measured arsenic concentrations in groundwaters from around the world and in addition, natural factors related to climate, geology, hydrology, soil properties, land use, and elevation on a global scale from various Internet sources (see Supporting Information, Tables S1 and S2). The latter data were brought in the same projection in a GIS environment (ArcGIS, ver. 9.1) and were used as proxies to model the subsurface conditions.
Arsenic concentrations are point measurements within vertical depths of the wells of 10−100 m, while the other information have coarser spatial resolution being generally greater than 30 arc seconds (∼1 km at the equator). The point measurements were aggregated vertically and horizontally to the same spatial resolution as the geology map. The geometric mean of the arsenic measurements was used to aggregate the arsenic data falling in the same pixels of the geological map units. Using this approach the number of arsenic data points was decreased to about 6000 pixel-based values. Proxy variables, as listed in Table 1, were deduced from the above-mentioned natural factors and used to model “reducing” and “high-pH/oxidizing” regions as discussed below.
Table 1. Definition of Relevant Variables in the Global Databasea
variable definition-unit type-format resolution
arsenic concentration (µg L−1) points  
elevation (m) continuous raster 30 (arc second)
slope (degree) continuous raster 30 (arc second)
geology age (million years) continuous raster 5 arc minute
ET evapotranspiration (mm year−1) continuous raster 0.5 degree
P precipitation (mm year−1) continuous raster 0.5 degree
ET/P   continuous raster 0.5 degree
runoff (mm year−1) continuous raster 0.5 degree
T temperature (°C) continuous raster 0.5 degree
irrigation irrigated areas (%) continuous raster 5 arc minute
Sol_CbN1 topsoil C/N ratio continuous raster 5 arc minute
clay1 topsoil clay content (%) continuous raster 5 arc minute
silt1 topsoil silt content (%) continuous raster 5 arc minute
sand1 topsoil sand content (%) continuous raster 5 arc minute
Sol_CbN2 subsoil C/N ratio continuous raster 5 arc minute
clay2 subsoil clay content (%) continuous raster 5 arc minute
silt2 subsoil silt content (%) continuous raster 5 arc minute
sand2 subsoil sand content (%) continuous raster 5 arc minute
CEC_S subsoil cation exchange capacity ranked raster 1:5000000
Drain_Code soil drainage code ranked raster 1:5000000
N_S subsoil nitrogen content ranked raster 1:5000000
OC_S subsoil organic carbon content ranked raster 1:5000000
pH_S subsoil pH ranked raster 1:5000000
Dist_Volc distance from volcanoes continuous raster 0.5 degree
Dist_Volc2 distance from volcanic rocks continuous raster 0.5 degree
Dist_Riv distance from rivers continuous raster 0.5 degree
a

CEC ranks from 10 (<20 meq/100 g clay) to 43 (>100 meq/100 g clay); Drain_Code ranks from 10 (extremely drained) to 87 (very poorly drained) (seeTable S3); N_S ranks from 10 (<0.02%) to 53 (>0.5%); OC_S ranks from 10 (<0.2%) to 54 (> 2%) (see Table S4); pH_S ranks from 10 (<4.5) to 54 (>8.5) (see Table S5). Bold variables were used as delineating variables. Topsoil refers to a depth of 0−30 cm, while subsoil is from 30 to 100 cm.

Rule Development and Process Region Delineation

In order to separately model the two conditions defined as “reducing” and “high-pH/oxidizing”, it was necessary to define regions in which either of these conditions were likely to prevail. Details of the delineation procedure are given in the Supporting Information.
In the first step, we defined what we call “delineating variables” that represent the critical conditions for identifying the type of process regions, using geochemical knowledge and statistical analysis. The information gained from geochemical expertise and literature review (6-11) is given in Table 2. Every variable and combination of all variables was statistically checked using supervised clustering and regression analysis for their significance in delineating process regions. The most significant variables, e.g., ratio of evapotranspiration over precipitation, drainage conditions, topographic slope, soil organic carbon content, and soil pH (Table 1) were used to develop rules to delineate different process regions.
Table 2. Characteristics of Reducing and Oxidizing Regions Based on Expert Opinions (4-13)
variablea reducing oxidizing
ET/P <1 >1
drainage condition imperfect to poor imperfect to poor
hydrologic basin deltas closed
slope flat flat
organic carbon high  
salinity low high
temperature high  
pH   high
geology young sediment young sediment
a

ET = evaptranspiration, P = precipitation.

In the second step, the qualifiers such as “high”, “low”, or “poor” (Table 2) were handled as fuzzy sets in a fuzzy inference system (FIS). FIS uses membership functions, fuzzy logic operators, and if−then rules to map a given input to an output (16-19). Fuzzy sets are sets whose elements have degrees of membership defined with membership functions valued in the real unit interval [0,1]. Rules were defined by continuous fuzzy sets for each of the delineating variables (ET/P < 1), (poor drainage condition), (high organic carbon), and (high pH). These sets were then used to calculate the maps of membership degree for each rule in the world. The overall membership for the combined set of rules is that of the rule that has the minimum membership value. This then determines the “possibility” of a pixel (10 km × 10 km) belonging to a reducing or a high-pH/oxidizing region. Using the developed FIS, we then constructed possibility maps of reducing and high-pH/oxidizing regions (see details of the procedure in Supporting Information).

Modeling Arsenic in each Process Region

In the third step, to develop a predictive model for arsenic in each process region, the following procedures were carried out: (i) the existing data set was split by stratified random sampling into two subsets for model training (85% of data) and model testing in each region, (ii) stepwise regression was used to identify the significant variables including those used to delineate process regions (see Table 1), and (iii) Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) was applied to relax the linearity assumption of the stepwise regression (see details of ANFIS in Supporting Information).
In the fourth and final step, the ANFIS models were linked to a Latin hypercube sampling (20) method to propagate the uncertainty of the model parameters on the results. This allowed the construction of the cumulative distribution function of arsenic concentrations in each pixel and, consequently, calculation of the probability of arsenic concentration exceeding the WHO guideline (15) at each pixel.

Results and Discussion

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Process Region Delineation

Based on the statistical analysis the following rules were found to delineate the process regions as shown in Figure S3.
If (ET/P < 1) then a region is considered humid, else the region is arid. Where ET is evapotranspiration (mm y−1), and P is precipitation (mm y−1).
If (Drain_Code ≥ 60) then drainage condition is poor, else drainage condition is good. Where Drain_Code is the drainage condition ranging from 10 (extremely drained) to 87 (very poorly drained) (see Table S3). In this rule, poor drainage includes mostly Histosols, Gleysols, and Fluvisols (according to FAO soil Map (21)) which implies gentle slopes and the presence of recent (Quaternary) sediments.
If (OC_S ≥ 30) then subsoil (30−100 cm) organic carbon content is high, else it is low. Where OC_S is the organic carbon content of the subsoil ranging from 10 (<0.2 kg m−3) to 54 (>2 kg m−3) (see Table S4).
If (pH_S ≥ 40) then pH is high, else it is low. Where pH_S is the soil pH rank where ≥40 is greater than 7.2 (see Table S5).
Based on the above, the process regions were defined as follows:
If (region is humid) and (drainage condition is poor) and (subsoil organic content is high) then the condition is considered as reducing.
If (region is arid) and (drainage condition is poor) and (subsoil pH is high) then the condition is considered as high-pH/oxidizing.

Influencing Variables and Arsenic Model Results

Table 3 shows the relative significance of the variables in the arsenic model. The occurrence of arsenic under reducing aqueous conditions is most closely correlated to climatic parameters (ET/P and T), geological parameters (Drain_Code, Dist_Volc, Dist_Volc2), and drainage conditions (Drain_Code), followed by soil parameters (Silt, pH_S, and Sol_CbN2) and proximity to surface water (Dist_Riv). The occurrence of arsenic under high-pH/oxidizing aqueous conditions is most closely correlated to soil parameters (clay and silt), and drainage condition (Drain_Code), followed by climatic conditions (precipitation and temperature), topography (elevation), and geological factors (Dist_Volc and Drain_Code).
Table 3. Significant Variables for Developing Arsenic Predictive Model for Process Regionsa
reducing condition high-pH/oxidizing condition
variable t-value p-value variable t-value p-value
ET −17.88 <10−40 clay2 −13.56 <10−40
T 13.53 <10−40 silt1 10.41 <10−40
ET/P 7.08 <10−40 clay1 7.34 <10−40
Dist_Volc 5.8 <10−40 Drain_Code −6.67 <10−40
Drain_Code 5.5 <10−40 T 5.55 <10−40
silt2 5.31 <10−40 Dist_Volc 5.19 <10−40
silt1 −5.13 <10−40 elevation 4.82 <10−40
Dist_Volc2 −4.06 <10−40 P 3.57 <10−40
Sol_CbN2 3.23 <10−40 irrigation 2.56 0.01
pH_S −2.93 <10−40      
Dist_Riv −2.6 0.01      
a

ET = evapotranspiration; T = temperature; P = precipitation; Dist_Volc = distance from volcanoes; Drain_Code = drainage code; silt2 = subsoil silt content; silt1 = topsoil silt content; Dist_Volc2 = distance from volcanic rocks; Sol_CbN2 = carbon to nitrogen ration of subsoil; pH_S = subsoil soil pH; clay1 = topsoil clay content; clay2 = subsoil clay content; t-value indicates the relative importance of a variable (the larger in absolute values the more important a variable), and p-value indicates if a variable was rated important by chance or not (a value closer to zero is more desirable).

Note that some of these variables act as surrogates for some important but as yet unavailable influencing variables. For example, poorly drained areas (Drain_Code ≥ 60) correlate well with young sediments and flat areas (slope <1%), while areas of good drainage (Drain_Code < 60) correlate with volcanic rocks, or old sediments (see Table S7). Thus, Drain_Code is used as a proxy for a geological condition. Similarly, silt represents to some extent the transport and deposition of fresh materials in the river basin. As silt is produced only by mechanical weathering, it is highly reactive and therefore provides active absorption sites for arsenic species. Also distance to river (Dist_Riv) acts as an indicator for the deposition of fresh sediments. The soil parameter pH_S is important in the model since it has an influence on the redox potential of As-bearing species (22) and can facilitate higher arsenic occurrences (23). Climatic variables are also quite important in the reducing region. Evapotranspiration is negatively correlated with arsenic because larger ET indicates areas of larger precipitation or irrigation leading to greater groundwater recharge and smaller arsenic concentration, while ET/P, which is positively correlated with arsenic, indicates a smaller groundwater recharge. In high-pH/oxidizing region precipitation and temperature have similar effects where both seem to increase groundwater pH leading to larger arsenic concentration. Clay content appears prominently in the oxidizing model; which may modify drainage and hence leaching to groundwater. However, its exact role is not quite clear. Use of easily available information (surrogates) to estimate hard-to-obtain variables, often referred to as pedotransfer functions, is widely practiced in natural sciences (24).
The results of the arsenic model training and testing for both process regions are shown in Figure 1. In the reducing region, 77% of the variation in groundwater concentration in the training data set was explained using ANFIS, compared to 63% based on linear regression. For the test data set these were 65% and 59%, respectively. In high-pH/oxidizing region, however, ANFIS explained 68% of the variation in the training set (51% linear regression), while 65% was explained for the test data set (56% for linear regression).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Scatter plot of measured versus predicted arsenic concentration in (a) reducing and (b) high-pH/oxidizing process regions for training and testing of the neuro-fuzzy model.

Probability Maps

Probability maps in Figure 2a and b depict the probability of the occurrence of groundwater total arsenic concentrations exceeding the WHO guideline in reducing and high-pH/oxidizing regions, respectively. It is important to note that low-probability-areas do not exclude existence of arsenic contamination. Similarly, in areas with high probability of contamination clean aquifers may also be found. Groundwaters with a high probability of arsenic contamination appear to be widespread across the world. The predicted areas resulting from “reducing” and “high pH/oxidizing” conditions are reported in Table 4 along with the references that have reported similar results.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Modeled global probability of geogenic arsenic contamination in groundwater for (a) reducing groundwater conditions, and (b) high-pH/oxidizing conditions where arsenic is soluble in its oxidized state.

Table 4. State of Arsenic Contamination in Groundwaters in Different Countries of the World
predicted contaminated regions with reported contamination predicted contaminated regions with no measurements or reported contamination
country condition % areab country condition % areab
Bangladesh (2) reducing 35.4 Estonia reducing 37.2
Cambodia (25, 26) reducing 45.8 Amazon basina reducing 32.6
Vietnam (8, 9, 25) reducing 15.8 Lithuania both 35.0
Taiwan (27) reducing 8.2 Congo reducing 30.1
Nepal (28) reducing 3.2 Russia both 14.8
Romania (29) reducing 3.5 Myanmar both 9.2
USA (7, 10, 23) both 8.3 Poland both 8.8
Argentina (30) oxidizing 4.9 Cameroon both 14.0
India (31) both 6.4 Ukraine oxidizing 7.0
China (4, 32) both 2.5 Byelarus oxidizing 3.3
Hungary (29) reducing 7.4 Zambia oxidizing 7.0
Finland (33) unknown 34.7 Nigeria oxidizing 9.0
Greece (34) unknown 0.1 Angola oxidizing 5.5
      Kenya oxidizing 2.4
      Ethiopia oxidizing 5.3
a

Average values for Peru, Brazil, and Colombia.

b

% Area in each country with probability of arsenic contamination >0.75.

The well-known contaminated regions in South East Asia, such as Bangladesh and India (6, 31), Nepal (28), Cambodia and Vietnam (8, 9, 12, 25, 26), China (4, 32), and Taiwan (27), correspond well with the predicted regions of high arsenic concentrations. Other predicted areas with high probability of arsenic such as those in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua, for which no measurements were available to us, are reported to have high arsenic contamination (35). A large area in Amazon River Basin is predicted to have large probability of contamination, but in this region the risk to human health is small as groundwater is not a major source of water use. The predicted regions with high probability of arsenic contamination in Mexico, Chile, and Argentina (6), and the southwest United States (7, 10) are in agreement with the reported literature. Our predicted maps also show a high probability of arsenic contamination in Northern European countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Estonia, and Lithuania. To our knowledge there is no report on the contamination of groundwaters with arsenic in Russia and Ukraine, although in surface waters of the Barents region elevated concentrations of arsenic have been observed (36). In addition, in the Siberian Arctic elevated concentrations of arsenic are reported in the rivers and suspended particulate (37) and in soils, vegetation, and fish (38). The risk of geogenic groundwater contamination to human health is probably very small in the Barents region as people do not depend on groundwater as a source of drinking water (36).
A closer comparison between the modeled and measured data points with arsenic concentrations exceeding the WHO guideline is shown in Figure 3 for the United States and in Figure 4 for Bangladesh. There are regions such as the areas of southern New Hampshire and Maine, where the probability map underestimates contamination. There are, however, other detailed studies (23) that have reported small probabilities for this region of the U.S.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Probability map of arsenic concentration exceeding guideline value of 10 µg L−1 in the United States. Black dots indicate a pixel (10 km × 10 km) with mean measured arsenic concentration greater than 10 µg L−1

Figure 4

Figure 4. Probability map of arsenic concentration exceeding the guideline value of 10 µg L−1 in Bangladesh. Black dots indicate a pixel (10 km × 10 km) with mean measured arsenic concentration greater than 10 µg L−1.

Implications and Reliability

It is important to note that validating a probability map without extensive additional measurements is not possible. However, we compared our results with as many studies as we could find in the published literature and found a quite good correspondence between the model prediction and measurements. One such example is based on a recent publication (32) where reported cases of arsenicosis (10,096 cases) in eight Chinese provinces (Supporting Information, Figure S6) were correlated with the percentage of contaminated wells (445,638 tested wells). In Figure S7 the percentage of arsenicosis and also the percentage of contaminated wells are plotted against the probability of arsenic contamination greater than 40% where a positive correlation can be observed. This comparison is important because it is a successful model verification that links our predictions to cases of arsenicosis in a location for which we had no data in our database.
As there are few regional or national arsenic maps around, we believe our global maps have the credibility of having a large database, physical variables, and a sound statistical analysis behind it. The weaknesses of the modeling work, perhaps not surprisingly, also lie in the size and quality of the databases. The measured arsenic points come from different sources and were measured with different accuracies; they were taken at different depths and are not distributed equally around the world. The geological information, which is important to geogenic processes, was too coarse and did not provide detailed (three-dimensional) information. For example, although it is known that arsenic contamination in reducing conditions in Asia is related to very young Holocene sediments (<104 yr), the available geological database used in this study does not distinguish rocks less than 65 million years (Cenozoic period). For this reason, geological variables were mostly furnished through surface information proxies. Despite these shortcomings, the arsenic models in both reducing and high-pH/oxidizing conditions performed quite well in training and testing, indicating it is possible to capture most of the variation in groundwater arsenic with the proxy variable used in this study. Probability maps give an overview of the spatial pattern of the likely contaminated and uncontaminated areas. They are not meant to represent arsenic concentrations of individual groundwater wells. The maps developed here are useful to policy makers, global organizations, local governments, and NGOs. The maps send a message that many untested areas may be subject to arsenic contamination. Although such information may be available in some countries, in most of the world arsenic is not routinely measured in groundwaters. This is particularly important as the risk of contamination to human health will increase as a result of increasing groundwater demand.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

Additional data, tables, and figures. Supporting material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Author
    • C. Annette Johnson - Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Manouchehr Amini - Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
    • Karim C. Abbaspour - Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
    • Michael Berg - Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
    • Lenny Winkel - Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
    • Stephan J. Hug - Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
    • Eduard Hoehn - Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
    • Hong Yang - Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland

Acknowledgment

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

We are grateful to all the colleagues who have provided us with arsenic data. A list of their contributions appears in the Supporting Information, Table S1.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 38 other publications.

  1. 1
    Kapaj, S.; Peterson, H.; Liber, K.; Bhattacharya, P. Human health effects from chronic arsenic poisoning- a review J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A 2006, 41, 2399 2428
  2. 2
    Smith, A. H.; Lingas, E. O.; Rahman, M. Contamination of drinking-water by arsenic in Bangladesh: a public health emergency Bull. World Health Organisation 2000, 78, 1093 1103
  3. 3
    Rich, C. H.; Biggs, M. L.; Smith, A. H. Lung and kidney cancer mortality associated with arsenic in drinking water in Cordoba, Argentina Int. J. Epidemiol. 1998, 27, 561 569
  4. 4
    Xia, Y.; Liu, J. An overview on chronic arsenism via drinking water in PR China Toxicology 2004, 198, 25 29
  5. 5
    Saha, K. C. Review of Arsenicosis in West Bengal, India- A clinical perspective. Critical Reviews Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 30 (2) 127 163
  6. 6
    Smedley, P. L.; Kinniburgh, D. G. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters Appl. Geochem. 2002, 17, 517 568
  7. 7
    Welch, A. H.; Westjohn, D. B.; Helsel, D. R.; Wanty, R. B. Arsenic in ground water of the United States: occurrence and geochemistry Ground Water 2000, 38, 589 604
  8. 8
    Berg, M.; Tran, H. C.; Nguyen, T. C.; Pham, H. V.; Schertenleib, R.; Giger, W. Arsenic contamination of groundwater and drinking water in Vietnam: A human health threat Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35 (13) 2621 2626
  9. 9
    Buschmann, J.; Berg, M.; Stengel, C.; Winkel, L; Sampson, M. L.; Trang, P. T. K.; Viet, P. H. Contamination of drinking water resources in the Mekong delta Floodplains: Arsenic and other trace metals pose serious health risks to population Environ. Int. 2008,

    in press. (DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2007.12.025)

  10. 10
    Welch, A. H.; Oremland, R. S.; Davis, J. A.; Watkins, S. A. Arsenic in groundwater: a review of current knowledge and relation to CALFED solution area with recommendations for needed research San Francisco Estuary Watershed Sci. 2006, 4 (2) 1 32
  11. 11
    Nordstrom, D. K. Worldwide occurrences of arsenic in groundwater Science 2002, 296, 2143 2144
  12. 12
    Buschmann, J.; Berg, M.; Stengel, C.; Sampson, M. L. Arsenic and Manganese Contamination of Drinking Water Resources in Cambodia: Coincidence of Risk Areas with Low Relief Topography Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 2146 2152
  13. 13
    Rowland, H. A .L.; Polya, D. A.; Lloyd, J. R.; Pancost, R. D. Characterization of organic matter in a shallow, reducing, arsenic-rich aquifer, West Bengal Org. Geochem. 2006, 37, 1101 1114
  14. 14
    Kirk, M. F.; Holm, T. R.; Park, J.; Jin, Q. S.; Sanford, R. A.; Fouke, B. W.; Bethke, C. M. Bacterial sulfate reduction limits natural arsenic contamination in groundwater Geology 2004, 32 (11) 953 956
  15. 15
    . Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, 2nd ed.; World Health Organization: Geneva, 1998; Addendum to Volume 2.
  16. 16
    Steeb, W. H.; Hardy, Y. The Nonlinear Workbook: Chaos, Fractal, Cellular Automata, 3rd ed.; World Scientific: NJ, 2005; 588 pp.
  17. 17
    Hines, J. W. Matlab Supplement to Fuzzy and Neural Approaches in Engineering; John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1997.
  18. 18
    Jang, J. S. R. ANFIS: Adaptive-Network-based Fuzzy Inference Systems IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, and Cybernetics 1993, 23 (3) 665 685
  19. 19
    Jang, J. S. R.; Gulley, N.The Fuzzy Logic Toolbox for Use with MATLAB; The Mathworks Inc., 1995.
  20. 20
    McKay, M. D.; Beckman, R. J.; Conover, W. J. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code Technometrics 1979, 21 (2) 239 245
  21. 21

    FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). The digital soil map of the world and derived soil properties; CD-ROM, Version 3.5, Rome, 1995

    .
  22. 22
    Stumm, W.; Morgan, J. J. Aquatic Chemistry, 3rd ed.; John Wiley Inc.: New York, 1996.
  23. 23
    Twarakavi, N. K. C.; Kaluarachchi, J. J. Arsenic in the shallow ground waters of conterminous United States: assessment, health risk, and costs from MCL compliance J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 275 294
  24. 24
    Fielding, A. H. Machine Learning Methods for Ecological Applications; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, 1999.
  25. 25
    Berg, M.; Stengel, C.; Trang, P. T. K.; Viet, P. H.; Sampson, M. L.; Leng, M.; Samreth, S.; Fredericks, D. Magnitude of arsenic pollution in the Mekong and Red River Deltas - Cambodia and Vietnam Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 372, 413 425
  26. 26
    Polya, D. A.; Gault, A. G.; Diebe, N. Arsenic hazard in shallow Cambodian groundwaters Mineral. Mag. 2005, 69 (5) 807 823
  27. 27
    Lin, Y. B.; Lin, Y. P.; Liu, C. W.; Tan, Y. C. Mapping of spatial multi-scale sources of Arsenic variation in groundwater of ChiaNan floodplain of Taiwan Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 370, 168 181
  28. 28
    Neku, A.; Tandukar, N. An overview of arsenic contamination in groundwater of Nepal and its removal at household level J. Phys. IV 2003, 107, 941 944
  29. 29
    Lindberg, A. L.; Goessler, W.; Gurzau, E. Arsenic exposure in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia J. Environ. Monit. 2006, 8, 203 208
  30. 30
    Smedley, P. L.; Kinniburgh, D. G.; Macdonald, D. M. J. Arsenic associations in sediments from the loess aquifer of La Pampa, Argentina Appl. Geochem. 2005, 20 (5) 989 1016
  31. 31
    Chakraborti, D.; Rahman, M. M.; Paul, K. Arsenic calamity in the Indian subcontinent, What lessons have been learned Talanta 2002, 58, 3 22
  32. 32
    Yu, G.; Sun, D.; Zheng, Y. Health Effects of Exposure to Natural Arsenic in Groundwater and Coal in China: An Overview of Occurrence Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115 (4) 636 642
  33. 33
    Kurttio, P.; Pukkala, E.; Kahelin, H.; Auvinen, A.; Pekkanen, J. Arsenic concentrations in well water and risk of bladder and kidney cancer in Finland Environ. Health Perspect. 1999, 107, 705 710
  34. 34
    Kelepertsis, A.; Alexakis, D.; Skordas, K. Arsenic, antimony and other toxic elements in drinking water of Eastern Thessaly in Greece and its possible effects on human health Environ. Geol. 2006, 50, 76 84
  35. 35
    Bundschuh, J.; Armienta, M. A.; Bhattacharya, P.; Matschullat, J.; Birkle, P.; Rodriguez, R. Natural Arsenic in Groundwaters of Latin America; 2006.

    Available at

    http://www.lwr.kth.se/Personal/personer/bhattacharya_prosun/As-2006.htm.
  36. 36
    Salminen, R.; Chekushin, V.; Tenhola, M. Geochemical atlas of eastern Barents region J. Geochem. Exploration 2004, 83, 1 530
  37. 37
    Gordeev, V. V.; Rachold, V.; Vlasova, I. E. Geochemical behaviour of major and trace elements in suspended particulate material of the Irtysh river, the main tributary of the Ob river, Siberia Appl. Geochem. 2004, 19, 593 610
  38. 38
    Allen-Gil, S. M.; Ford, J.; Lasorsa, B. K.; Monettie, M.; Vlasova, T.; Landers, D. H. Heavy metal contamination in Taimyr Peninsula, Siberian Arctic Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 301, 119 138

Cited By

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article is cited by 300 publications.

  1. Sheik Saleem Pasha, Amrita Banerjee, Sreejesh Sreedharan, Soumendra Singh, Noufal Kandoth, Katherine A. Vallis, Samir Kumar Pal, Sumit Kumar Pramanik, Amitava Das. Ultrasensitive Reagent for Ratiometric Detection and Detoxification of iAsIII in Water and Mitochondria. Inorganic Chemistry 2022, 61 (33) , 13115-13124. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.2c01761
  2. Aurelien O. Meray, Savannah Sturla, Masudur R. Siddiquee, Rebecca Serata, Sebastian Uhlemann, Hansell Gonzalez-Raymat, Miles Denham, Himanshu Upadhyay, Leonel E. Lagos, Carol Eddy-Dilek, Haruko M. Wainwright. PyLEnM: A Machine Learning Framework for Long-Term Groundwater Contamination Monitoring Strategies. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (9) , 5973-5983. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c07440
  3. Craig T. Connolly, Mason O. Stahl, Beck A. DeYoung, Benjamin C. Bostick. Surface Flooding as a Key Driver of Groundwater Arsenic Contamination in Southeast Asia. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (2) , 928-937. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05955
  4. Xindi C. Hu, Beverly Ge, Bridger J. Ruyle, Jennifer Sun, Elsie M. Sunderland. A Statistical Approach for Identifying Private Wells Susceptible to Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamination. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2021, 8 (7) , 596-602. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00264
  5. Melinda L. Erickson, Sarah M. Elliott, Craig J. Brown, Paul E. Stackelberg, Katherine M. Ransom, James E. Reddy, Charles A. Cravotta, III. Machine-Learning Predictions of High Arsenic and High Manganese at Drinking Water Depths of the Glacial Aquifer System, Northern Continental United States. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (9) , 5791-5805. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c06740
  6. Melissa A. Lombard, Molly Scannell Bryan, Daniel K. Jones, Catherine Bulka, Paul M. Bradley, Lorraine C. Backer, Michael J. Focazio, Debra T. Silverman, Patricia Toccalino, Maria Argos, Matthew O. Gribble, Joseph D. Ayotte. Machine Learning Models of Arsenic in Private Wells Throughout the Conterminous United States As a Tool for Exposure Assessment in Human Health Studies. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (8) , 5012-5023. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05239
  7. Dhiraj Dutta, Rama Dubey, Jyoti Prasad Borah, Amrit Puzari. Smart pH-Responsive Polyaniline-Coated Hollow Polymethylmethacrylate Microspheres: A Potential pH Neutralizer for Water Purification Systems. ACS Omega 2021, 6 (15) , 10095-10105. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.1c00083
  8. Zhen Tan, Qiang Yang, Yan Zheng. Machine Learning Models of Groundwater Arsenic Spatial Distribution in Bangladesh: Influence of Holocene Sediment Depositional History. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (15) , 9454-9463. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03617
  9. Prem Singh, Sumit Sharma, Kalpana Chauhan, Rakesh Kumar Singhal. Fabrication of Economical Thiol-Tethered Bifunctional Iron Composite as Potential Commercial Applicant for Arsenic Sorption Application. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2018, 57 (39) , 12959-12972. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b03273
  10. Joel E. Podgorski, Pawan Labhasetwar, Dipankar Saha, Michael Berg. Prediction Modeling and Mapping of Groundwater Fluoride Contamination throughout India. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (17) , 9889-9898. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01679
  11. Chennu Sudhakar, Avula Anil Kumar, Radha Gobinda Bhuin, Soujit Sen Gupta, Ganapati Natarajan, Thalappil Pradeep. Species-Specific Uptake of Arsenic on Confined Metastable 2-Line Ferrihydrite: A Combined Raman-X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Investigation of the Adsorption Mechanism. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2018, 6 (8) , 9990-10000. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b01217
  12. Qiantao Shi, Chuanyong Jing, Xiaoguang Meng. Competing Interactions of As Adsorption and Fe(III) Polymerization during Ferric Coprecipitation Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (13) , 7343-7350. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01845
  13. Mamun Rashid, George E. Sterbinsky, Miguel Ángel Gracia Pinilla, Yong Cai, Kevin E. O’Shea. Kinetic and Mechanistic Evaluation of Inorganic Arsenic Species Adsorption onto Humic Acid Grafted Magnetite Nanoparticles. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2018, 122 (25) , 13540-13547. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b12438
  14. Y. Georgiou, J. A. Perman, A. B. Bourlinos, Y. Deligiannakis. Highly Efficient Arsenite [As(III)] Adsorption by an [MIL-100(Fe)] Metal–Organic Framework: Structural and Mechanistic Insights. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2018, 122 (9) , 4859-4869. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b11247
  15. Joseph D. Ayotte, Laura Medalie, Sharon L. Qi, Lorraine C. Backer, and Bernard T. Nolan . Estimating the High-Arsenic Domestic-Well Population in the Conterminous United States. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (21) , 12443-12454. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02881
  16. Samantha C. Ying, Michael V. Schaefer, Alicea Cock-Esteb, Jun Li, and Scott Fendorf . Depth Stratification Leads to Distinct Zones of Manganese and Arsenic Contaminated Groundwater. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (16) , 8926-8932. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b01121
  17. Jiří Tuček, Robert Prucek, Jan Kolařík, Giorgio Zoppellaro, Martin Petr, Jan Filip, Virender K. Sharma, and Radek Zbořil . Zero-Valent Iron Nanoparticles Reduce Arsenites and Arsenates to As(0) Firmly Embedded in Core–Shell Superstructure: Challenging Strategy of Arsenic Treatment under Anoxic Conditions. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 2017, 5 (4) , 3027-3038. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.6b02698
  18. Anran Cheng, Rebecca Tyne, Yu Ting Kwok, Louis Rees, Lorraine Craig, Chaipat Lapinee, Mitch D’Arcy, Dominik J. Weiss, and Pascal Salaün . Investigating Arsenic Contents in Surface and Drinking Water by Voltammetry and the Method of Standard Additions. Journal of Chemical Education 2016, 93 (11) , 1945-1950. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00025
  19. Laura E. Erban, Steven M. Gorelick, and Scott Fendorf . Arsenic in the Multi-aquifer System of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam: Analysis of Large-Scale Spatial Trends and Controlling Factors. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48 (11) , 6081-6088. https://doi.org/10.1021/es403932t
  20. Ningfang Yang, Lenny H. E. Winkel, and Karen H. Johannesson . Predicting Geogenic Arsenic Contamination in Shallow Groundwater of South Louisiana, United States. Environmental Science & Technology 2014, 48 (10) , 5660-5666. https://doi.org/10.1021/es405670g
  21. Robert Prucek, Jiří Tuček, Jan Kolařík, Jan Filip, Zdeněk Marušák, Virender K. Sharma, and Radek Zbořil . Ferrate(VI)-Induced Arsenite and Arsenate Removal by In Situ Structural Incorporation into Magnetic Iron(III) Oxide Nanoparticles. Environmental Science & Technology 2013, 47 (7) , 3283-3292. https://doi.org/10.1021/es3042719
  22. Xin-Yao Yu, Ren-Xia Xu, Chao Gao, Tao Luo, Yong Jia, Jin-Huai Liu, and Xing-Jiu Huang . Novel 3D Hierarchical Cotton-Candy-Like CuO: Surfactant-Free Solvothermal Synthesis and Application in As(III) Removal. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2012, 4 (4) , 1954-1962. https://doi.org/10.1021/am201663d
  23. Qiang Yang, Hun Bok Jung, Robert G. Marvinney, Charles W. Culbertson, and Yan Zheng . Can Arsenic Occurrence Rates in Bedrock Aquifers Be Predicted?. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46 (4) , 2080-2087. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203793x
  24. Qiqi Liang, Dongye Zhao, Tianwei Qian, Kimberly Freeland, and Yucheng Feng . Effects of Stabilizers and Water Chemistry on Arsenate Sorption by Polysaccharide-Stabilized Magnetite Nanoparticles. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2012, 51 (5) , 2407-2418. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie201801d
  25. Lenny H. E. Winkel, C. Annette Johnson, Markus Lenz, Tim Grundl, Olivier X. Leupin, Manouchehr Amini, and Laurent Charlet . Environmental Selenium Research: From Microscopic Processes to Global Understanding. Environmental Science & Technology 2012, 46 (2) , 571-579. https://doi.org/10.1021/es203434d
  26. Dohyeong Kim, Marie Lynn Miranda, Joshua Tootoo, Phil Bradley, and Alan E. Gelfand . Spatial Modeling for Groundwater Arsenic Levels in North Carolina. Environmental Science & Technology 2011, 45 (11) , 4824-4831. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103336s
  27. Robert Tobias and Michael Berg . Sustainable Use of Arsenic-Removing Sand Filters in Vietnam: Psychological and Social Factors. Environmental Science & Technology 2011, 45 (8) , 3260-3267. https://doi.org/10.1021/es102076x
  28. Grady Hanrahan. Computational Neural Networks Driving Complex Analytical Problem Solving. Analytical Chemistry 2010, 82 (11) , 4307-4313. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac902636q
  29. Qi Li, Nickolas Joseph Easter and Jian Ku Shang . As(III) Removal by Palladium-Modified Nitrogen-Doped Titanium Oxide Nanoparticle Photocatalyst. Environmental Science & Technology 2009, 43 (5) , 1534-1539. https://doi.org/10.1021/es8025837
  30. Laura Lawaczeck, Julia Rudolph, Valentina Norz, Igor Tsaur, Steffen Rausch. The role of planetary health in urologic oncology. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 2024, 49 , 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2024.2350631
  31. Luz C. Sanchez Peña, Angel Barrera Hernández, Luz M. Del Razo. Decreased Arsenic Disposition and Alteration of its Metabolic Profile in mice Coexposed to Fluoride. Biological Trace Element Research 2024, 202 (4) , 1594-1602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-023-03764-3
  32. Ruxue Liao, Wenwu Chen, Peiran Liu, Li Wang, Qian Xia, Xiaoyan Yang, Yanjun He, Qinglin Guo. Mineral transformation, element transport and hydrological impact in weathering at the Bingling Temple Grottoes: Implications for weathering in alkaline environments in NW China. CATENA 2024, 239 , 107966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2024.107966
  33. Andrews Obeng Affum, Edward Ebow Kwaansa-Ansah, Shiloh Dede Osae. Estimating groundwater geogenic arsenic contamination and the affected population of river basins underlain mostly with crystalline rocks in Ghana. Environmental Challenges 2024, 15 , 100898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2024.100898
  34. Jeffrey Paulo H. Perez, Dominique J. Tobler, Liane G. Benning. Synergistic inhibition of green rust crystallization by co-existing arsenic and silica. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 2024, 26 (3) , 632-643. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3EM00458A
  35. Abdur Rashid, Muhammad Ayub, Xubo Gao, Seema Anjum Khattak, Liaqat Ali, Chengcheng Li, Ajaz Ahmad, Sardar Khan, Jörg Rinklebe, Parvaiz Ahmad. Hydrogeochemical characteristics, stable isotopes, positive matrix factorization, source apportionment, and health risk of high fluoride groundwater in semiarid region. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2024, 40 , 134023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.134023
  36. Jing-Rong Jhuang, Chih-Hung Lee, Chun-Ju Chiang, Chien-Jen Chen, Wen-Chung Lee. Reduced burden of Arsenic-Related cancers after water mitigation in Taiwan. Environment International 2024, 185 , 108542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108542
  37. Junrong Chen, Zhenzhen Zhang, Jinhua Zhou, Tianjing Zeng, Hongbo Xiao, Ting Yang, Tao Xu, Lizhi Wang, Wenlei Wang. Pyridine-assisted electrodeposition of Au(1 1 1)-dominant gold nanonetworks on glassy carbon electrode for anodic stripping voltammetry analysis of As(III), Se(IV) and Cu(II). Microchemical Journal 2024, 42 , 110311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2024.110311
  38. Zhiming Yang, Shaobo Liu, Xiaofei Tan, Hailan Yang, Xinjiang Hu, Yanling Gu, Chuang Li. Tuned bimetallic MOFs with balanced adsorption and non-radical oxidizing activities for efficient removal of arsenite. Separation and Purification Technology 2024, 330 , 125359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2023.125359
  39. Binggan Wei, Shuhui Yin, Jiangping Yu, Linsheng Yang, Qiqian Wen, Ting Wang, Xing Yuan. Monthly variations of groundwater arsenic risk under future climate scenarios in 2081–2100. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2023, 30 (58) , 122230-122244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30965-z
  40. Sanaa Al-Marzouki, Afaf Alrashidi, Christophe Chesneau, Mohammed Elgarhy, Rana H. Khashab, Suleman Nasiru. On improved fitting using a new probability distribution and artificial neural network: Application. AIP Advances 2023, 13 (11) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0176715
  41. Jing Zhao, Yuanfeng Wei, Yufen Xia, Zhimin Wang, Haifang Tang, Minxiong Tan, Xiangxiong Liu, Jinfang Shi, Chengbin Liu. Rapid and effective removal of arsenite from water using a novel oxidation-sorption bifunctional MOF. Chemical Engineering Journal 2023, 476 , 146787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2023.146787
  42. Ruohan Wu, Laura A. Richards, Ajmal Roshan, David A. Polya. Artificial Intelligence Modelling to Support the Groundwater Chemistry-Dependent Selection of Groundwater Arsenic Remediation Approaches in Bangladesh. Water 2023, 15 (20) , 3539. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15203539
  43. Zhenyan Wang, Qianqian Wang, Yifan Guo, Shengchao Yu, Kai Xiao, Yan Zhang, Hailong Li, Chunmiao Zheng, Xiaolong Geng, Xiaolang Zhang, Huijie Li, Xuejing Wang. Seawater–Groundwater Interaction Governs Trace Metal Zonation in a Coastal Sandy Aquifer. Water Resources Research 2023, 59 (9) https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR032828
  44. Iulia A. Neamtiu, Michael S. Bloom, Juliana M. Clark, Cristian Pop, Olivian Marincas, Ioana Berindan-Neagoe, Cornelia Braicu, Eugen S. Gurzau. Urinary arsenic and spontaneous pregnancy loss – a hypothesis-generating case-control investigation in western Romania. Chemosphere 2023, 335 , 139167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139167
  45. S.M. Didar-Ul Islam. Electrochemical remediation of arsenic and fluoride from water: A review of the current state and future prospects. Environmental Technology & Innovation 2023, 31 , 103148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2023.103148
  46. Pham Quy Nhan, Dang Tran Trung, Ha Quang Khai. Factors controlling groundwater Arsenic concentration in the Red River Delta, Vietnam. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2023, 1226 (1) , 012012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1226/1/012012
  47. Ruohan Wu, David A. Polya. Objective Cost-Informed Cutoff Criteria Improve the Utility of Machine Learning Models of Environmental Hazards: A Case Study of Groundwater Arsenic Distribution in India. Exposure and Health 2023, 42 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-023-00581-w
  48. Chuanshun Zhi, Bill X. Hu, Wenbo Chang, Guangwei Wu, Yulong Dong, Qingbing Wang. Enrichment mechanism of fluoride and iodine in saline groundwater in the lower flood plain of the Yellow River, northern China. Journal of Hydrology 2023, 621 , 129529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129529
  49. Lauren A. Eaves, Rebecca C. Fry. Invited Perspective: Toxic Metals and Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy. Environmental Health Perspectives 2023, 131 (4) https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11963
  50. Ryan Haggerty, Jianxin Sun, Hongfeng Yu, Yusong Li. Application of machine learning in groundwater quality modeling - A comprehensive review. Water Research 2023, 233 , 119745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.119745
  51. Shashanka Shekhar Samanta, Prabhat Kumar Giri, Naren Mudi, Usha Mandal, Ajay Misra. Fluorescence ‘Turn-on’ Dual Sensor for Selective Detection of Cd2+ and H2AsO4− in Water. Journal of Fluorescence 2023, 33 (2) , 517-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10895-022-03091-1
  52. Tanmoy Biswas, Subodh Chandra Pal, Indrajit Chowdhuri, Dipankar Ruidas, Asish Saha, Abu Reza Md. Towfiqul Islam, Manisa Shit. Effects of elevated arsenic and nitrate concentrations on groundwater resources in deltaic region of Sundarban Ramsar site, Indo-Bangladesh region. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2023, 188 , 114618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114618
  53. Ashok J. Gadgil, Susan Amrose, Dana Hernandez. Stopping Arsenic Poisoning in India. 2023, 359-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86065-3_14
  54. Shivani Pandey, Satanand Mishra, Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, Tanmay Sardar, Archana Singh, Hari Narayan Bhargav. Advanced Sensor for Arsenic and Fluoride Detection. 2023, 595-611. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-9151-6_48
  55. Tianliang Zheng, He Lin, Yang Deng, Yanhua Xie, Jianfei Yuan, Xingguo Du, Xiangjun Pei. Hydrogeochemical processes regulating the enrichment and migration of As and B from the river sediments in the Singe Tsangpo River Bain, Western Tibetan plateau. Applied Geochemistry 2023, 148 , 105549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2022.105549
  56. Megha Bansal. Integrated approach to testing and assessment and development in arsenic toxicology. 2023, 821-870. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-89847-8.00020-1
  57. Zhuo Liu, Qiantao Shi, Yi Bao, Xiaoguang Meng, Weina Meng. Arsenate removal using titanium dioxide-doped cementitious composites: Mixture design, mechanisms, and simulated sewer application. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 854 , 158754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158754
  58. Hanxiang Xiong, Yuzhou Wang, Xu Guo, Jiaxin Han, Chuanming Ma, Xinyu Zhang. Current status and future challenges of groundwater vulnerability assessment: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Hydrology 2022, 615 , 128694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128694
  59. William H. Schlesinger, Emily M. Klein, Avner Vengosh. The Global Biogeochemical Cycle of Arsenic. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2022, 36 (11) https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GB007515
  60. Laxmi Das, Manpreet S Bhatti, Vishakha Gilhotra, Sudipta Sarkar, Absar Ahmad Kazmi. Remediation of arsenic contaminated groundwater by electrocoagulation: Process optimization using response surface methodology. Minerals Engineering 2022, 189 , 107881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2022.107881
  61. Koji Matsunaga, Yuki Nakaya, Hisashi Satoh. Separate determination of arsenite and arsenate in groundwater samples by simple analytical methods. Water Supply 2022, 22 (10) , 7635-7642. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2022.331
  62. Wahid Ali Hamood Altowayti, Ali Ahmed Salem, Abdo Mohammed Al-Fakih, Abdullah Bafaqeer, Shafinaz Shahir, Husnul Azan Tajarudin. Optimization of As(V) Removal by Dried Bacterial Biomass: Nonlinear and Linear Regression Analysis for Isotherm and Kinetic Modelling. Metals 2022, 12 (10) , 1664. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12101664
  63. W. A. H. Altowayti, N. Othman, S. Shahir, A. F. Alshalif, A. A. Al-Gheethi, F. A. H. AL-Towayti, Z. M. Saleh, S. A. Haris. Removal of arsenic from wastewater by using different technologies and adsorbents: a review. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2022, 19 (9) , 9243-9266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03660-0
  64. Azadeh Atabati, Hamed Adab, Ghasem Zolfaghari, Mahdi Nasrabadi. Modeling groundwater nitrate concentrations using spatial and non-spatial regression models in a semi-arid environment. Water Science and Engineering 2022, 15 (3) , 218-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wse.2022.05.002
  65. Huiping Zeng, Siqi Sun, Ke Xu, Weihua Zhao, Ruixia Hao, Jie Zhang, Dong Li. Adsorption of As(V) by magnetic alginate-chitosan porous beads based on iron sludge. Journal of Cleaner Production 2022, 359 , 132117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132117
  66. Xiao Zhang, Rong Zhao, Xiong Wu, Wenping Mu, Chu Wu. Delineating the controlling mechanisms of arsenic release into groundwater and its associated health risks in the Southern Loess Plateau, China. Water Research 2022, 219 , 118530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2022.118530
  67. P. S. K. Knappett, P. Farias, G. R. Miller, J. Hoogesteger, Y. Li, I. Mendoza‐Sanchez, R. T. Woodward, H. Hernandez, I. Loza‐Aguirre, S. Datta, Y. Huang, G. Carrillo, T. Roh, D. Terrell. A Systems Approach to Remediating Human Exposure to Arsenic and Fluoride From Overexploited Aquifers. GeoHealth 2022, 6 (7) https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GH000592
  68. Jiaxi Tang, Biao Xiang, Yu Li, Ting Tan, Yongle Zhu. Adsorption Characteristics and Charge Transfer Kinetics of Fluoride in Water by Different Adsorbents. Frontiers in Chemistry 2022, 10 https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2022.917511
  69. Hailong Cao, Xianjun Xie, Yanxin Wang, Hongxing Liu. Predicting geogenic groundwater fluoride contamination throughout China. Journal of Environmental Sciences 2022, 115 , 140-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2021.07.005
  70. Katherine J. Knierim, James A. Kingsbury, Kenneth Belitz, Paul E. Stackelberg, Burke J. Minsley, J.R. Rigby. Mapped Predictions of Manganese and Arsenic in an Alluvial Aquifer Using Boosted Regression Trees. Groundwater 2022, 60 (3) , 362-376. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.13164
  71. Koji Matsunaga, Hisashi Satoh, Reiko Hirano. Development of the simple analytical method for determination of arsenate(V) ion using fluorescence-labeled DNA and cerium oxide nanoparticles. Water Supply 2022, 22 (5) , 5524-5534. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2022.148
  72. Bibhash Nath, Runti Chowdhury, Wenge Ni‐Meister, Chandan Mahanta. Predicting the Distribution of Arsenic in Groundwater by a Geospatial Machine Learning Technique in the Two Most Affected Districts of Assam, India: The Public Health Implications. GeoHealth 2022, 6 (3) https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000585
  73. Zhipeng Gao, Huaming Guo, Shanyang Li, Jiao Wang, Haolin Ye, Shuangbao Han, Wengeng Cao. Remote sensing of wetland evolution in predicting shallow groundwater arsenic distribution in two typical inland basins. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 806 , 150496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150496
  74. Meiling Zhou, E. Zhao, Ruixue Huang. Association of urinary arsenic with insulin resistance: Cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015–2016. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2022, 231 , 113218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2022.113218
  75. Mai Nhu Hoang, Phu Le Vo, Trong Vinh Bui, Pham Hung, Quang Khai Ha. Health risk assessment of arsenic in drinking groundwater: A case study in a central high land area of Vietnam. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 2022, 964 (1) , 012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/964/1/012010
  76. Yanxin Wang, Junxia Li, Teng Ma, Xianjun Xie, Yamin Deng, Yiqun Gan. Genesis of geogenic contaminated groundwater: As, F and I. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 2021, 51 (24) , 2895-2933. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1807452
  77. A. Mahaqi, M. Mehiqi, M. Rahimzadeh, J. Hosseinzadeh, M. M. Moheghi, M. A. Moheghy. Dominant geochemical reactions and hazardous metal contamination status in the Kabul’s aquifers, Afghanistan. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2021, 18 (12) , 4043-4052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-03098-w
  78. Yu Song, Takehiko Gotoh, Satoshi Nakai. Synthesis of Oxidant Functionalised Cationic Polymer Hydrogel for Enhanced Removal of Arsenic (III). Gels 2021, 7 (4) , 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels7040197
  79. Jeffrey Paulo H. Perez, Dominique J. Tobler, Helen M. Freeman, Andy P. Brown, Nicole S. Hondow, Case M. van Genuchten, Liane G. Benning. Arsenic species delay structural ordering during green rust sulfate crystallization from ferrihydrite. Environmental Science: Nano 2021, 8 (10) , 2950-2963. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EN00384D
  80. Binoy Sarkar, Raj Mukhopadhyay, Sammani Ramanayaka, Nanthi Bolan, Yong Sik Ok. The role of soils in the disposition, sequestration and decontamination of environmental contaminants. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2021, 376 (1834) , 20200177. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0177
  81. Paul F. Juckem, J. Jeffery Starn. Re‐Purposing Groundwater Flow Models for Age Assessments: Important Characteristics. Groundwater 2021, 59 (5) , 710-727. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.13088
  82. Ali Mahaqi. Traditional water management systems in Afghanistan: lessons for the future. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 2021, 14 (15) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-021-07987-3
  83. Hung C. Duong, Lan T.T. Tran, Minh T. Vu, Diep Nguyen, Nga T.V. Tran, Long D. Nghiem. A new perspective on small-scale treatment systems for arsenic affected groundwater. Environmental Technology & Innovation 2021, 23 , 101780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2021.101780
  84. Md. Shajedul Islam, M. G. Mostafa. Meta‐analysis and risk assessment of fluoride contamination in groundwater. Water Environment Research 2021, 93 (8) , 1194-1216. https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.1508
  85. Huiping Zeng, Ke Xu, Fanshuo Wang, Siqi Sun, Dong Li, Jie Zhang. Preparation of adsorbent based on water treatment residuals and chitosan by homogeneous method with freeze-drying and its As(V) removal performance. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 2021, 184 , 313-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.06.032
  86. Ruohan Wu, Joel Podgorski, Michael Berg, David A. Polya. Geostatistical model of the spatial distribution of arsenic in groundwaters in Gujarat State, India. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 2021, 43 (7) , 2649-2664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-020-00655-7
  87. Hailong Cao, Xianjun Xie, Yanxin Wang, Yamin Deng. The interactive natural drivers of global geogenic arsenic contamination of groundwater. Journal of Hydrology 2021, 597 , 126214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126214
  88. Thi Thuc Quyen Nguyen, Paripurnanda Loganathan, Bach Khoa Dinh, Tien Vinh Nguyen, Saravanamuthu Vigneswaran, Huu Hao Ngo. Removing arsenate from water using batch and continuous-flow electrocoagulation with diverse power sources. Journal of Water Process Engineering 2021, 41 , 102028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102028
  89. Mondona S. McCann, Kathleen A. Maguire-Zeiss. Environmental toxicants in the brain: A review of astrocytic metabolic dysfunction. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 2021, 84 , 103608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2021.103608
  90. Pawan Kumar Jha, Piyush Tripathi. Arsenic and fluoride contamination in groundwater: A review of global scenarios with special reference to India. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 2021, 13 , 100576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2021.100576
  91. Daniel R. Hadley, Daniel B. Abrams, Devin H. Mannix, Cecilia Cullen. Using Production Well Behavior to Evaluate Risk in the Depleted Cambrian‐Ordovician Sandstone Aquifer System, Midwestern USA. Water Resources Research 2021, 57 (5) https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028844
  92. Haitao Wang, Xiao Liang, Yingying Liu, Tielong Li, Kun-Yi Andrew Lin. Recycling spent iron-based disposable-chemical-warmer as adsorbent for as(v) removal from aqueous solution. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2021, 168 , 105284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105284
  93. Lihao Yin, Huiyan Sang, Douglas J. Schnoebelen, Brian Wels, Don Simmons, Alyssa Mattson, Michael Schueller, Michael Pentella, Susie Y. Dai. Risk based arsenic rational sampling design for public and environmental health management. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 2021, 211 , 104274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemolab.2021.104274
  94. Tonoy K. Das, Achintya N. Bezbaruah. Comparative study of arsenic removal by iron-based nanomaterials: Potential candidates for field applications. Science of The Total Environment 2021, 764 , 142914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142914
  95. Chabi Noël Worou, Zhong-Lin Chen, Taofic Bacharou. Arsenic removal from water by nanofiltration membrane: potentials and limitations. Water Practice and Technology 2021, 16 (2) , 291-319. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2021.018
  96. Yuyan Xu, Chun Yu, Qibing Zeng, Maolin Yao, Xiong Chen, Aihua Zhang. Assessing the potential value of Rosa Roxburghii Tratt in arsenic-induced liver damage based on elemental imbalance and oxidative damage. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 2021, 43 (3) , 1165-1175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-020-00612-4
  97. Abhijit Mukherjee, Soumyajit Sarkar, Madhumita Chakraborty, Srimanti Duttagupta, Animesh Bhattacharya, Dipankar Saha, Prosun Bhattacharya, Adway Mitra, Saibal Gupta. Occurrence, predictors and hazards of elevated groundwater arsenic across India through field observations and regional-scale AI-based modeling. Science of The Total Environment 2021, 759 , 143511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143511
  98. Muhammed Sit, Richard J. Langel, Darrin Thompson, David M. Cwiertny, Ibrahim Demir. Web-based data analytics framework for well forecasting and groundwater quality. Science of The Total Environment 2021, 761 , 144121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144121
  99. Ruohan Wu, Elena Alvareda, David Polya, Gonzalo Blanco, Pablo Gamazo. Distribution of Groundwater Arsenic in Uruguay Using Hybrid Machine Learning and Expert System Approaches. Water 2021, 13 (4) , 527. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13040527
  100. Barbara Mueller. The Provenance of Arsenic in Southeast Asia Discovered by Trace Elements in Groundwater from the Lowlands of Nepal. 2021https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83014
Load more citations
  • Figure 1

    Figure 1. Scatter plot of measured versus predicted arsenic concentration in (a) reducing and (b) high-pH/oxidizing process regions for training and testing of the neuro-fuzzy model.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Modeled global probability of geogenic arsenic contamination in groundwater for (a) reducing groundwater conditions, and (b) high-pH/oxidizing conditions where arsenic is soluble in its oxidized state.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Probability map of arsenic concentration exceeding guideline value of 10 µg L−1 in the United States. Black dots indicate a pixel (10 km × 10 km) with mean measured arsenic concentration greater than 10 µg L−1

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Probability map of arsenic concentration exceeding the guideline value of 10 µg L−1 in Bangladesh. Black dots indicate a pixel (10 km × 10 km) with mean measured arsenic concentration greater than 10 µg L−1.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 38 other publications.

    1. 1
      Kapaj, S.; Peterson, H.; Liber, K.; Bhattacharya, P. Human health effects from chronic arsenic poisoning- a review J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A 2006, 41, 2399 2428
    2. 2
      Smith, A. H.; Lingas, E. O.; Rahman, M. Contamination of drinking-water by arsenic in Bangladesh: a public health emergency Bull. World Health Organisation 2000, 78, 1093 1103
    3. 3
      Rich, C. H.; Biggs, M. L.; Smith, A. H. Lung and kidney cancer mortality associated with arsenic in drinking water in Cordoba, Argentina Int. J. Epidemiol. 1998, 27, 561 569
    4. 4
      Xia, Y.; Liu, J. An overview on chronic arsenism via drinking water in PR China Toxicology 2004, 198, 25 29
    5. 5
      Saha, K. C. Review of Arsenicosis in West Bengal, India- A clinical perspective. Critical Reviews Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 30 (2) 127 163
    6. 6
      Smedley, P. L.; Kinniburgh, D. G. A review of the source, behaviour and distribution of arsenic in natural waters Appl. Geochem. 2002, 17, 517 568
    7. 7
      Welch, A. H.; Westjohn, D. B.; Helsel, D. R.; Wanty, R. B. Arsenic in ground water of the United States: occurrence and geochemistry Ground Water 2000, 38, 589 604
    8. 8
      Berg, M.; Tran, H. C.; Nguyen, T. C.; Pham, H. V.; Schertenleib, R.; Giger, W. Arsenic contamination of groundwater and drinking water in Vietnam: A human health threat Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35 (13) 2621 2626
    9. 9
      Buschmann, J.; Berg, M.; Stengel, C.; Winkel, L; Sampson, M. L.; Trang, P. T. K.; Viet, P. H. Contamination of drinking water resources in the Mekong delta Floodplains: Arsenic and other trace metals pose serious health risks to population Environ. Int. 2008,

      in press. (DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2007.12.025)

    10. 10
      Welch, A. H.; Oremland, R. S.; Davis, J. A.; Watkins, S. A. Arsenic in groundwater: a review of current knowledge and relation to CALFED solution area with recommendations for needed research San Francisco Estuary Watershed Sci. 2006, 4 (2) 1 32
    11. 11
      Nordstrom, D. K. Worldwide occurrences of arsenic in groundwater Science 2002, 296, 2143 2144
    12. 12
      Buschmann, J.; Berg, M.; Stengel, C.; Sampson, M. L. Arsenic and Manganese Contamination of Drinking Water Resources in Cambodia: Coincidence of Risk Areas with Low Relief Topography Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 2146 2152
    13. 13
      Rowland, H. A .L.; Polya, D. A.; Lloyd, J. R.; Pancost, R. D. Characterization of organic matter in a shallow, reducing, arsenic-rich aquifer, West Bengal Org. Geochem. 2006, 37, 1101 1114
    14. 14
      Kirk, M. F.; Holm, T. R.; Park, J.; Jin, Q. S.; Sanford, R. A.; Fouke, B. W.; Bethke, C. M. Bacterial sulfate reduction limits natural arsenic contamination in groundwater Geology 2004, 32 (11) 953 956
    15. 15
      . Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, 2nd ed.; World Health Organization: Geneva, 1998; Addendum to Volume 2.
    16. 16
      Steeb, W. H.; Hardy, Y. The Nonlinear Workbook: Chaos, Fractal, Cellular Automata, 3rd ed.; World Scientific: NJ, 2005; 588 pp.
    17. 17
      Hines, J. W. Matlab Supplement to Fuzzy and Neural Approaches in Engineering; John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1997.
    18. 18
      Jang, J. S. R. ANFIS: Adaptive-Network-based Fuzzy Inference Systems IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, and Cybernetics 1993, 23 (3) 665 685
    19. 19
      Jang, J. S. R.; Gulley, N.The Fuzzy Logic Toolbox for Use with MATLAB; The Mathworks Inc., 1995.
    20. 20
      McKay, M. D.; Beckman, R. J.; Conover, W. J. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code Technometrics 1979, 21 (2) 239 245
    21. 21

      FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). The digital soil map of the world and derived soil properties; CD-ROM, Version 3.5, Rome, 1995

      .
    22. 22
      Stumm, W.; Morgan, J. J. Aquatic Chemistry, 3rd ed.; John Wiley Inc.: New York, 1996.
    23. 23
      Twarakavi, N. K. C.; Kaluarachchi, J. J. Arsenic in the shallow ground waters of conterminous United States: assessment, health risk, and costs from MCL compliance J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 275 294
    24. 24
      Fielding, A. H. Machine Learning Methods for Ecological Applications; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, 1999.
    25. 25
      Berg, M.; Stengel, C.; Trang, P. T. K.; Viet, P. H.; Sampson, M. L.; Leng, M.; Samreth, S.; Fredericks, D. Magnitude of arsenic pollution in the Mekong and Red River Deltas - Cambodia and Vietnam Sci. Total Environ. 2007, 372, 413 425
    26. 26
      Polya, D. A.; Gault, A. G.; Diebe, N. Arsenic hazard in shallow Cambodian groundwaters Mineral. Mag. 2005, 69 (5) 807 823
    27. 27
      Lin, Y. B.; Lin, Y. P.; Liu, C. W.; Tan, Y. C. Mapping of spatial multi-scale sources of Arsenic variation in groundwater of ChiaNan floodplain of Taiwan Sci. Total Environ. 2006, 370, 168 181
    28. 28
      Neku, A.; Tandukar, N. An overview of arsenic contamination in groundwater of Nepal and its removal at household level J. Phys. IV 2003, 107, 941 944
    29. 29
      Lindberg, A. L.; Goessler, W.; Gurzau, E. Arsenic exposure in Hungary, Romania and Slovakia J. Environ. Monit. 2006, 8, 203 208
    30. 30
      Smedley, P. L.; Kinniburgh, D. G.; Macdonald, D. M. J. Arsenic associations in sediments from the loess aquifer of La Pampa, Argentina Appl. Geochem. 2005, 20 (5) 989 1016
    31. 31
      Chakraborti, D.; Rahman, M. M.; Paul, K. Arsenic calamity in the Indian subcontinent, What lessons have been learned Talanta 2002, 58, 3 22
    32. 32
      Yu, G.; Sun, D.; Zheng, Y. Health Effects of Exposure to Natural Arsenic in Groundwater and Coal in China: An Overview of Occurrence Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115 (4) 636 642
    33. 33
      Kurttio, P.; Pukkala, E.; Kahelin, H.; Auvinen, A.; Pekkanen, J. Arsenic concentrations in well water and risk of bladder and kidney cancer in Finland Environ. Health Perspect. 1999, 107, 705 710
    34. 34
      Kelepertsis, A.; Alexakis, D.; Skordas, K. Arsenic, antimony and other toxic elements in drinking water of Eastern Thessaly in Greece and its possible effects on human health Environ. Geol. 2006, 50, 76 84
    35. 35
      Bundschuh, J.; Armienta, M. A.; Bhattacharya, P.; Matschullat, J.; Birkle, P.; Rodriguez, R. Natural Arsenic in Groundwaters of Latin America; 2006.

      Available at

      http://www.lwr.kth.se/Personal/personer/bhattacharya_prosun/As-2006.htm.
    36. 36
      Salminen, R.; Chekushin, V.; Tenhola, M. Geochemical atlas of eastern Barents region J. Geochem. Exploration 2004, 83, 1 530
    37. 37
      Gordeev, V. V.; Rachold, V.; Vlasova, I. E. Geochemical behaviour of major and trace elements in suspended particulate material of the Irtysh river, the main tributary of the Ob river, Siberia Appl. Geochem. 2004, 19, 593 610
    38. 38
      Allen-Gil, S. M.; Ford, J.; Lasorsa, B. K.; Monettie, M.; Vlasova, T.; Landers, D. H. Heavy metal contamination in Taimyr Peninsula, Siberian Arctic Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 301, 119 138
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    Additional data, tables, and figures. Supporting material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect