Bioavailability and bioaccessibility of arsenic in a soil amended with drinking-water treatment residuals (original) (raw)

Mouse assay for determination of arsenic bioavailability in contaminated soils

2013

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.

Modification of an existing in vitro method to predict relative bioavailable arsenic in soils

Chemosphere, 2017

The soil matrix can sequester arsenic (As) and reduces its exposure by soil ingestion. In vivo dosing studies and in vitro gastrointestinal (IVG) methods have been used to predict relative bioavailable (RBA) As. Originally, the Ohio State University (OSU-IVG) method predicted RBA As for soils exclusively from mining and smelting sites with a median of 5,636 mg As kg(-1). The objectives of the current study were to (i) evaluate the ability of the OSU-IVG method to predict RBA As for As contaminated soils with a wider range of As content and As contaminant sources, and (ii) evaluate a modified extraction procedure's ability to improve prediction of RBA As. In vitro bioaccessible (IVBA) by OSU-IVG and California Bioaccessibility Method (CAB) methods, RBA As, speciation, and properties of 33 As contaminated soils were determined. Total As ranged from 162 to 12,483 mg kg(-1) with a median of 73 mg kg(-1). RBA As ranged from 1.30 to 60.0% and OSU-IVG IVBA As ranged from 0.80 to 52.3%....

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

Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A, 2016

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...