Predicting oral relative bioavailability of arsenic in soil from in vitro bioaccessibility.

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.

Evaluation of small arms range soils for metal contamination and lead bioavailability.

Although small arms ranges are known to be contaminated with lead, the full extent of metal contamination has not been described, nor has the oral bioavailability of lead in these soils. In this work, soil samples from ranges with diverse geochemical backgrounds were sieved to <250 microm and analyzed for total metal content. Soils had consistently high levels of lead and copper, ranging from 4549 to 24 484 microg/g and 223 to 2936 microg/g, respectively, while arsenic, antimony, nickel, and zinc concentrations were 100-fold lower. For lead bioavailability measurements, two widely accepted methods were used: an in vivo juvenile swine relative bioavailability method measuring lead absorption from ingested soils relative to equivalent lead acetate concentrations and an in vitro bioaccessibility procedure which measured acid-extractable lead as a percent of total lead in the soil. For eight samples, the mean relative bioavailability and bioaccessibility of lead for the eight soils was about 100% (108 +/- 18% and 95 +/- 6%, respectively) showing good agreement between both methods. Risk assessment and/or remediation of small arms ranges should therefore assume high bioavailability of lead.

Estimation of relative bioavailability of lead in soil and soil-like materials using young Swine.

In this article we summarize the results of a series of studies that measured the relative bioavailability (RBA) of lead in a variety of soil and soil-like test materials. Reference material (Pb acetate) or Pb-contaminated soils were administered orally to juvenile swine twice a day for 15 days. Blood samples were collected from each animal at multiple times during the course of the study, and samples of liver, kidney, and bone were collected at sacrifice. All samples were analyzed for Pb. We estimated the RBA of a test material by fitting mathematical models to the dose-response curves for each measurement end point and finding the ratio of doses that gave equal responses. The final RBA for a test material is the simple average of the four end point-specific RBA values. Results from 19 different test materials reveal a wide range of RBA values across different exposure materials, ranging from 6 to 105%. This variability in RBA between different samples highlights the importance of reliable RBA data to help improve risk assessments for Pb in soil. Although the RBA value for a sample depends on the relative amounts of the different chemical and physical forms of Pb present, data are not yet adequate to allow reliable quantitative predictions of RBA from chemical speciation data alone.