Search

Several investigations have been conducted to develop in vitro bioaccessibility (IVBA) assays that reliably predict in vivo oral relative bioavailability (RBA) of arsenic (As). This study describes a meta-regression model relating soil As RBA and IVBA that is based upon data combined from previous investigations that examined the relationship between As IVBA and RBA when IVBA was determined using an extraction of soil in 0.4 M glycine at pH 1.5. Data used to develop the model included paired IVBA and RBA estimates for 83 soils from various types of sites such as mining, smelting, and pesticide or herbicide application. The following linear regression model accounted for 87% of the observed variance in RBA (R(2) = .87): RBA(%) = 0.79 × IVBA(%) + 3. This regression model is more robust than previously reported models because it includes a larger number of soil samples, and also accounts for variability in RBA and IVBA measurements made on samples collected from sites contaminated with different As sources and conducted in different labs that have utilized different experimental models for estimating RBA.

A mouse assay for measuring the relative bioavailability (RBA) of arsenic (As) in soil was developed. In this study, results are presented of RBA assays of 16 soils, including multiple assays of the same soils, which provide a quantitative assessment of reproducibility of mouse assay results, as well as a comparison of results from the mouse assay with results from a swine and monkey assay applied to the same test soils. The mouse assay is highly reproducible; three repeated assays on the same soils yielded RBA estimates that ranged from 1 to 3% of the group mean. The mouse, monkey, and swine models yielded similar results for some, but not all, test materials. RBA estimates for identical soils (nine test soils and three standard reference materials [SRM]) assayed in mice and swine were significantly correlated (r = 0.70). Swine RBA estimates for 6 of the 12 test materials were higher than those from the mouse assay. RBA estimates for three standard reference materials (SRM) were not statistically different (mouse/swine ratio ranged from 0.86-1). When four test soils from the same orchard were assessed in the mouse, monkey, and swine assays, the mean soil As RBA were not statistically different. Mouse and swine models predicted similar steady state urinary excretion fractions (UEF) for As of 62 and 74%, respectively, during repeated ingestion doses of sodium arsenate, the water-soluble As form used as the reference in the calculation of RBA. In the mouse assay, the UEF for water soluble As(V) (sodium arsenate) and As(III) (sodium [meta] arsenite) were 62% and 66%, respectively, suggesting similar absolute bioavailabilities for the two As species. The mouse assay can serve as a highly cost-effective alternative or supplement to monkey and swine assays for improving As risk assessments by providing site-specific assessments of RBA of As in soils.

Ingested soil and surface dust may be important contributors to elevated blood lead (Pb) levels in children exposed to Pb contaminated environments. Mitigation strategies have typically focused on excavation and removal of the contaminated soil. However, this is not always feasible for addressing widely disseminated contamination in populated areas often encountered in urban environments. The rationale for amending soils with phosphate is that phosphate will promote formation of highly insoluble Pb species (e.g., pyromorphite minerals) in soil, which will remain insoluble after ingestion and, therefore, inaccessible to absorption mechanisms in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). Amending soil with phosphate might potentially be used in combination with other methods that reduce contact with or migration of contaminated soils, such as covering the soil with a green cap such as sod, clean soil with mulch, raised garden beds, or gravel. These remediation strategies may be less expensive and far less disruptive than excavation and removal of soil. This review evaluates evidence for efficacy of phosphate amendments for decreasing soil Pb bioavailability. Evidence is reviewed for (1) physical and chemical interactions of Pb and phosphate that would be expected to influence bioavailability, (2) effects of phosphate amendments on soil Pb bioaccessibility (i.e., predicted solubility of Pb in the GIT), and (3) results of bioavailability bioassays of amended soils conducted in humans and animal models. Practical implementation issues, such as criteria and methods for evaluating efficacy, and potential effects of phosphate on mobility and bioavailability of co-contaminants in soil are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]