https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5432-302X
![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Recent findings indicate that incidental ingestion of soil by humans primarily involves soil particles <150 µm, rather than <250 µm-sized fraction previously used for most oral bioaccessibility and bioavailability studies. It was postulated that a greater soil surface area in the finer fraction (<150 versus <250 µm) might increase oral bioaccessibility of arsenic (As) in soil. Bioaccessibility and concentrations of As were compared in <150 and <250 µm fractions of 18 soil samples from a variety of arsenic-contaminated sites. The two methods used to measure bioaccessibility were compared – EPA Method 1340 and the California Arsenic Bioaccessibility (CAB) method. Arsenic concentrations were nearly the same or higher in the <150 fraction compared with <250 µm. EPA Method 1340 and the CAB method presented significantly different bioaccessibility results, as well as estimated relative oral bioavailability (RBA) based upon algorithms specific to the methods, but there was no marked difference for <150 and <250 µm soil fractions within either method. When compared with RBA determined previously for these soil samples in vivo in non-human primates, EPA Method 1340 was generally more predictive than the CAB method. Data suggest that soil- or site-specific factors control bioaccessibility under either method and that the test method selected is more important than the particle size fraction (<150 or <250) in using these in vitro methods to predict As RBA for use in risk assessment.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. The quoted text here is from the study by Whitacre et al., which provides the technical basis for the CAB Method.