1887

Abstract

Summary

The study assesses groundwater quality using the Health Risk Weighting Model (HRWM) and compares it with traditional methods: the Importance Scale Weighting Model (ISWM) and the Entropy Weighting Model (EWM). The main objective is to determine the most reliable method for evaluating groundwater quality and associated health risks. Based on the collected data, the Water Quality Index (WQI) was calculated using three methods: ISWM, which relies on expert assessments and may be subjective; EWM, which considers the statistical variability of pollutant concentrations; and HRWM, which incorporates toxicological indicators such as the reference dose (RfD) and carcinogenic coefficient (CIC). The results showed that HRWM identified manganese, sulfates, and iron as the most hazardous pollutants, assigning them the highest weighting coefficients. The highest levels of contamination and health risks were observed in wells N82 and N62, whereas well N63 exhibited the best water quality indicators. The WQI values varied significantly depending on the assessment method, with HRWM yielding the most critical results. The study confirmed that HRWM provides a more accurate risk assessment by considering the actual toxicological impact of pollutants, whereas traditional methods such as ISWM and EWM may underestimate hazards, particularly for highly toxic substances present in low concentrations.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025510194
2025-04-14
2026-02-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/2214-4609/2025/monitoring_2025/Mon25-194.html?itemId=/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025510194&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bezsonnyi, V., & Nekos, A. (2022). Modeling of the oxygen regime of the Chervonooskilsky reservoir. 16th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment, Monitoring 2022. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2022580216
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bezsonnyi, V., & Nekos, A. (2023). Analysis of the environmental risk of water bodies in conditions of military danger. 17th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment, Monitoring 2023. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2023520153
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bezsonnyi, V., Plyatsuk, L., Ponomarenko, R., & Tretyakov, O. (2023). Assessment of ecological safety of a surface water object. 17th International Conference Monitoring of Geological Processes and Ecological Condition of the Environment, Monitoring 2023. https://doi.org/10.3997/2214-4609.2023520155
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Fanghui, Y., Chen, L., & Yan, F. (2018). The health risk weighting model in groundwater quality evaluation. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 24(5), 1201–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1488581
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Guryanova, L., Yatsenko, R., Dubrovina, N., Babenko, V., & Gvozditskyi, V. (2021). Machine learning methods and models, predictive analytics and applications: Development trends in the post-crisis syndrome caused by COVID-19. Proc. MPSESM-XIII Conf. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2927/paper1.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Horoshkova, L., Khlobystov, I., & Danylyshyn, B. (2020). Multifactor mathematical modelling of ecological and economic systems (the example of coal mining development). Geoinformatics 2020 - XIXth International Conference “Geoinformatics: Theoretical and Applied Aspects”. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85094190633&partnerID=40&md5=36726c1399478d1a2d7428bfffcb1211
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Li, P., Wu, J., & Qian, H. (2019). Groundwater quality assessment based on entropy-weighted water quality index: A case study in the Pingtan Island, China. Water, 11(3), 416. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030416
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Liang, C., Ma, J., & Wang, Y. (2021). Application of water quality indices for groundwater quality assessment: A review. Environmental Reviews, 29(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2020-0061
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Menshov, O., Vyzhva, S., Horoshkova, L., Tonkha, O., Ivanik, O., Pereira, P., Dindaroglu, T., Pastushenko, T., & Eiben, H. (2023). Distribution of soil magnetic susceptibility as a pollution indicator in the urban and tourist city of Lviv, Ukraine. Environmental Earth Sciences, 82(21), Article 486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-023-11176-8
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Pesce, S. F., & Wunderlin, D. A. (2000). Use of water quality indices to verify the impact of Córdoba City (Argentina) on Suquía River. Water Research, 34(11), 2915–2926. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(00)00036-1
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Sutadian, A. D., Muttil, N., Yilmaz, A. G., & Perera, B. J. C. (2016). Development of composite water quality index for sustainable water resources management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188(3), 155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5143-3
    [Google Scholar]
  12. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2021). Risk assessment guidance for superfund (RAGS), Volume I: Human health evaluation manual (Part A). https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhang, Y., Sun, Z., Gao, L., & Li, D. (2017). An improved entropy weight water quality index method for comprehensive water quality assessment. Ecological Indicators, 81, 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.051
    [Google Scholar]
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025510194
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.2025510194
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error