Uncertainty Analysis of Risk Estimation in Human Health Risk Assessment of Black Soot Pollution Exposure in Warri Metropolis, Nigeria

This study analyses uncertainty associated with environmental health risk extraction from black soot pollution on the exposed population in Warri metropolis, using the USEPA (1989) environmental health risk assessment equation approach. The study was aimed at providing informed confidence in risk assessment for the exposed population to black soot pollution and to develop a "comfort level" with the approach. The aim was achieved through the adoption of point estimate, parametric variance propagation, and a ninety-five percent (95%) confidence interval-based context. In this context, three hundred and eighty-five (385) samples were collected for each input parameter. A risk extract was obtained using the point estimate approach. However, a nominal range sensitivity analysis of the model inputs identified exposure duration as the most influential risk driver, with a swing weight of 3.4×10−1, whereas human body mass had the least influence, with a swing weight of 3.7×10−6. Input parametric probability distribution functions (PDFs) for the propagation were developed using sample statistics and graphics, while the selections were based on certain probability density function models. To effectively utilize the law of parametric uncertainties propagation for the study, the complex multiplicative equation was transformed into an additive functional equation using a logarithmic transformation approach. Also, the log mean and variances of input parameters were obtained using logarithmic distribution algorithms, while the model’s uncertainty was propagated as the “root-sum-of-squares” of input log variances to be 2.7. Consequently, the estimated risk was bounded by a 95% confidence interval of 3.7 × 10⁻² to 3.3 × 10⁻¹, with the lower and upper confidence limits determined using the quotient and product of the geometric mean and the square of the geometric standard deviation, respectively. The estimated risk values indicate that although the non-carcinogenic risk remains below the regulatory threshold (HI < 1), prolonged exposure to black soot may still constitute a potential public health concern, particularly for vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory conditions.

Risk analysis, Human health uncertainty, Model Equation, Pollution exposure

1. Thelen, A., Zhang, X., Fink, O., Lu, Y., Ghosh, S., Youn, B. D., ... & Hu, Z. (2023). A comprehensive review of digital twin—Part 2: Roles of uncertainty quantification and optimization, battery digital twins, and future perspectives. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 66(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Kirzner, I. M. (2024). Uncertainty, discovery, and human action: A study of the entrepreneurial profile in the Misesian system. In Modern Austrian Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 41–64). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Nahar, N., Hossain, Z., & Mahiuddin, S. (2023). Assessment of the environmental perceptions, attitudes, and awareness of city dwellers regarding sustainable urban environmental management: A case study of Dhaka, Bangladesh. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(8), 7503–7531. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ajayi, S. A., Adams, C. A., Dumedah, G., Adebanji, O. A., Ababio-Donkor, A., Ackaah, W., & Kehinde, A. (2023). Public perceptions of vehicular traffic emissions on health risk in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria: A critical survey. Heliyon, 9(5), Article eXXXXX. (Replace with the article number if available.) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Badeenezhad, A., Soleimani, H., Shahsavani, S., Parseh, I., Mohammadpour, A., Azadbakht, O., ... & Babakrpur Nalosi, K. (2023). Comprehensive health risk analysis of heavy metal pollution using water quality indices and Monte Carlo simulation in R software. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 15817. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Wei, R., Chen, C., Kou, M., Liu, Z., Wang, Z., Cai, J., & Tan, W. (2023). Heavy metal concentrations in rice that meet safety standards can still pose a risk to human health. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), Article 84. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., & Drummond, M. (2002). A rational framework for decision-making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). The Lancet, 360, 711–715. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Park, Y. S., & Lek, S. (2025). Artificial neural networks (multilayer perceptron) for ecological modeling. In Ecological Model Types (pp. 297–322). Elsevier. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. El Hajj, M., & Hammoud, J. (2023). Unveiling the influence of artificial intelligence and machine learning on financial markets: A comprehensive analysis of AI applications in trading, risk management, and financial operations. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(10), Article 434. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ali, I., Golgeci, I., & Arslan, A. (2023). Achieving resilience through knowledge management practices and risk management culture in agri-food supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 28(2), 284–299. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Flinders, C., Barnhart, B., Morrison, E. B., Anderson, P. D., & Landis, W. G. (2025). Probabilistic approaches for risk assessment and regulatory criteria development: Current applications, gaps, and opportunities. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 21(6), 1281–1292. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mousavi, M. N., Ghalehteimouri, K. J., Hekmatnia, H., Bagheri-Kashkouli, A., & Kahaki, F. (2025). Evaluating sector-based impact of environmental indicators on Iran GHG emissions: A scenario development approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(9), 20887–20914. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ogwu, M. C., Izah, S. C., Sawyer, W. E., & Amabie, T. (2025). Environmental risk assessment of trace metal pollution: A statistical perspective. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 47(4), Article 94. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lockie, S., Graham, V., Taylor, B., Baresi, U., Maclean, K., Paxton, G., & Vella, K. (2025). Conceptualizing social risk in relation to climate change and assisted ecosystem adaptation. Risk Analysis, 45(3), 668–681. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ma, F., Cao, J., Wang, Y., Vigne, S. A., & Dong, D. (2025). Dissecting climate change risk and financial market instability: Implications for ecological risk management. Risk Analysis, 45(3), 496–522. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Pereira, R., Sousa, J. P., Niemeyer, J., Markwiese, J., Andersen, C. P., & Cachada, A. (2026). Ecotoxicological effects and risk assessment of pollutants. In Soil Pollution (pp. 241–270). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Fadeeva, E., Rubashevskii, A., Shelmanov, A., Petrakov, S., Li, H., Mubarak, H., Tsymbalov, E., Kuzmin, G., Panchenko, A., Baldwin, T., & Nakov, P. (2024). Fact-checking the output of large language models via token-level uncertainty quantification. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 (pp. 9367–9385). Association for Computational Linguistics. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Qiu, X., & Miikkulainen, R. (2024). Semantic density: Uncertainty quantification for large language models through confidence measurement in semantic space. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37, 134507–134533. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mehdiyev, N., Majlatow, M., & Fettke, P. (2025). Quantifying and explaining machine learning uncertainty in predictive process monitoring: An operations research perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 347(2), 991–1030. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Sobhanardakani, S., & Hosseini, N. S. (2026). Modeling health risks from urban roadside soil toxic elements using two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation paired with multiple linear regression. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 14(2), Article 121843. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Keshmiri, E., & Ahmadi, M. M. (2025). Reliability analysis of circular foundations on unsaturated soils using Monte Carlo simulation. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 43(2), Article 111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Juodis, A. (2025). This shock is different: Estimation and inference in misspecified two-way fixed effects panel regressions. Econometric Theory, 1–34. (Advance online publication or page range to be updated when assigned to an issue.) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Lou, X., Luo, P., & Meng, L. (2025). Geoconformal prediction: A model-agnostic framework for measuring the uncertainty of spatial prediction. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 115(8), 1971–1998. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Wang, K., Shen, C., Li, X., & Lu, J. (2025). Uncertainty quantification for safe and reliable autonomous vehicles: A review of methods and applications. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems. (Add volume, issue, and page/article number if available.) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Bijma, F., Erné, R., Jonker, M., & van der Vaart, A. (2025). An introduction to mathematical statistics. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Tukeev, D. L., Afanaseva, O. V., & Tulyakov, T. F. (2026). Realization of statistical models based on symmetric unimodal distributions. International Journal of Engineering, 39, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Jespersen, C. K., Steinhardt, C. L., Somerville, R. S., & Lovell, C. C. (2025). On the significance of rare objects at high redshift: The impact of cosmic variance. The Astrophysical Journal, 982(1), Article 23. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Spivak, B., Trood, M., & McEwan, T. (2026). Validation of an actuarial instrument to predict repeat family violence for frontline police: Calibration, discrimination, and classification performance of the VP-SAFvR. Journal of Family Violence, 41(1), 127–139. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Okagbue, H. I., Edeki, S. O., & Opanuga, A. A. (2014). A Monte Carlo simulation approach in assessing risk and uncertainty involved in estimating the expected earnings of an organization: A case study in Nigeria. American Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 4(5), 161–166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Chaudhry, S. M., Chen, X. H., Ahmed, R., & Nasir, M. A. (2025). Risk modelling of ESG (environmental, social, and governance), healthcare, and financial sectors. Risk Analysis, 45(3), 477–495. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Edeki, S. O., Ogoegbulem, O., Adinya, I., Ezekiel, I. D., & Masood, C. (2025). Dynamical modeling of climate-related financial risk and the interplay of natural disasters, migration, and loan defaults. Journal of Science and Mathematics Letters, 14(2), 250–264. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Adewumi, A. J., & Ogundele, O. D. (2024). Hidden hazards in urban soils: A meta-analysis review of global heavy metal contamination (2010–2022), sources, and its ecological and health consequences. Sustainable Environment, 10(1), Article 2293239. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Edeki, S. O., Adinya, I., & Ugbebor, O. O. (2014). The effect of stochastic capital reserve on actuarial risk analysis via an integro-differential equation. IAENG International Journal of Applied Mathematics, 44(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Onyekwere, C. K., Aguwa, O. C., & Obulezi, O. J. (2025). An updated Lindley distribution: Properties, estimation, acceptance sampling, actuarial risk assessment, and applications. Innovation in Statistics and Probability, 1(1), 1–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Najjar, A., Hamadeh, A., Krause, S., Schepky, A., & Edginton, A. (2024). Global sensitivity analysis of Open Systems Pharmacology Suite physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology, 13(12), 2052–2067. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Li, S., Kong, D., Xu, Y., Gao, W., Kennel, R., & Heldwein, M. L. (2024). A robust model predictive control for dual active bridge converters based on super-twisting observer and sensitivity analysis. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power Electronics, 12(5), 4665–4677. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Ossai, C. J., Iwegbue, C. M., Tesi, G. O., Olisah, C., Egobueze, F. E., Nwajei, G. E., & Martincigh, B. S. (2021). Distribution, sources and exposure risk of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils, and indoor and outdoor dust from Port Harcourt city, Nigeria. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 23(9), 1328-1350. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Yakubu, O. H. (2017). Particle (soot) pollution in Port Harcourt Rivers State, Nigeria—double air pollution burden? Understanding and tackling potential environmental public health impacts. Environments, 5(1), 2. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Ekhator, O. C., Orish, F. C., Nnadi, E. O., Ogaji, D. S., Isuman, S., & Orisakwe, O. E. (2024). Impact of black soot emissions on public health in Niger Delta, Nigeria: understanding the severity of the problem. Inhalation Toxicology, 36(5), 314-326. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Interplay of Students’ Emotional Intelligence and Attitude toward Mathematics on Performance in Grade 10 Algebra
• Numerical Simulation of Fitzhugh-Nagumo Dynamics Using a Finite Difference-Based Method of Lines
• Fixed Point Theorem in Controlled Metric Spaces
• Usage of Moving Average to Heart Rate, Blood Pressure and Blood Sugar
• Exploring Algebraic Topology and Homotopy Theory: Methods, Empirical Data, and Numerical Examples