Application of Oral Bioavailability to Remediation of Contaminated Soils: Method Development for Bioaccessible As, Pb, and Cd

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

When considering human exposure to arsenic (As), lead (Pb), and cadmium (Cd) via incidental soil ingestion, daily intake is greatly influenced by their bioavailability (i.e., the proportion of metals that are absorbed into the systemic circulation). Animal models have been used to estimate heavy metal relative bioavailability (RBA; relative to the adsorption of soluble references). However, there is a lack of comparison among different in vivo assays, which may bring uncertainty when assessing the risks with soil ingestion. In addition, to overcome the time, cost, and ethical limits of in vivo assays, in vitro bioaccessibility assays have been developed to determine the amount of metal extracted from soil matrix in simulated human gastric and intestinal fluid. However, to determine if these assays provide a good prediction of RBA, it is important to establish in vivo–in vitro correlations. In this chapter, we talked about in vivo and in vitro assays that have been used to determine bioavailability of metals in soils, focusing on comparison of As-RBA in soils between different animal models and the ability of in vitro assays to predict RBA of metals. Based on 12 As-contaminated soils, it was demonstrated that different animals, dosing approaches, and biomarkers had little impact on the outcome of in vivo assays. Based on each 12 As-, Pb-, and Cd-contaminated soils from China, the gastric phase (GP) of in vitro UBM and SBRC assay was best correlated with Pb-RBA among different in vitro assays, while IVG-GP and PBET-GP showed strongest correlation with As-RBA and Cd-RBA, suggesting in vitro assays have potential to predict heavy metals RBA in contaminated soils. To accurately assess the health risks and establish cleanup standard of contaminated soils, bioavailability of metals should be considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alloway BJ (1995) Heavy metals in soils. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, p 368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ATSDR (2011) Priority List of Hazardous Substances. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/spl/
  3. Bannon DI, Drexler JW, Fent GM et al (2009) Evaluation of small arms range soils for metal contamination and lead bioavailability. Environ Sci Technol 43(24):9071–9076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradham KD, Scheckel KG, Nelson CM et al (2011) Relative bioavailability and bioaccessibility and speciation of arsenic in contaminated soils. Environ Health Perspect 119(11):1629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradham KD, Diamond GL, Scheckel KG et al (2013) Mouse assay for determination of arsenic bioavailability in contaminated soils. J Toxic Environ Health A 76(13):815–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradham KD, Nelson C, Juhasz AL et al (2015) Independent data validation of an in vitro method for the prediction of the relative bioavailability of arsenic in contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 49(10):6312–6318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brattin W, Casteel S (2013) Measurement of arsenic relative bioavailability in swine. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part A 76:449–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casteel SW, Weis CP, Henningsen GM et al (2006) Estimation of relative bioavailability of lead in soil and soil-like materials using young swine. Environ Health Perspect:1162–1171Google Scholar
  9. Denys S, Caboche J, Tack K et al (2012) In vivo validation of the unified BARGE method to assess the bioaccessibility of arsenic, antimony, cadmium, and lead in soils. Environ Sci Technol 46(11):6252–6260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El-Masri HA, Kenyon EM (2008) Development of a human physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for inorganic arsenic and its mono-and di-methylated metabolites. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 35(1):31–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans MV, Dowd SM, Kenyon EM et al (2008) A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for intravenous and ingested dimethylarsinic acid in mice. Toxicol Sci 104(2):250–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faroon O, Ashizawa A, Wright S et al (2012) Toxicological profile for cadmium. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (US), AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gentry PR, Covington TR, Mann S et al (2004) Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of arsenic in the mouse. J Toxic Environ Health A 67(1):43–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gentry PR, Haber LT, McDonald TB et al (2005) Data for physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in neonatal animals: Physiological parameters in mice and Sprague-Dawley rats. J Children’s Health 2(3–4):363–411Google Scholar
  15. DIN (2000) Soil quality-absorption availability of organic and inorganic pollutants from contaminated soil material. Deutsches Institut fur Normung e.V., DIN19738Google Scholar
  16. Glorennec P, Lucas JP, Mandin C et al (2012) French children's exposure to metals via ingestion of indoor dust, outdoor playground dust and soil: Contamination data. Environ Int 45:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huo X, Peng L, Xu X et al (2007) Elevated blood lead levels of children in Guiyu, an electronic waste recycling town in China. Environ Health Perspect 115:1113–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IARC (2004) Some drinking-water disinfectants and contaminants, including arsenic. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinogen Risk Hum 84:269–477Google Scholar
  19. Juhasz AL, Smith E, Weber J et al (2007) Comparison of in vivo and in vitro methodologies for the assessment of arsenic bioavailability in contaminated soils. Chemosphere 69(6):961–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Juhasz AL, Weber J, Smith E et al (2009) Assessment of four commonly employed in vitro arsenic bioaccessibility assays for predicting in vivo relative arsenic bioavailability in contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 43(24):9487–9494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Juhasz AL, Weber J, Naidu R et al (2010) Determination of cadmium relative bioavailability in contaminated soils and its prediction using in vitro methodologies. Environ Sci Technol 44(13):5240–5247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Juhasz AL, Weber J, Smith E (2011) Influence of saliva, gastric and intestinal phases on the prediction of As relative bioavailability using the Unified Bioaccessibility Research Group of Europe Method (UBM). J Hazard Mater 197:161–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Juhasz AL, Herde P, Herde C et al (2014a) Validation of the predictive capabilities of the Sbrc-G in vitro assay for estimating arsenic relative bioavailability in contaminated soils. Environ Sci Technol 48(21):12962–12969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Juhasz AL, Smith E, Nelson C et al (2014b) Variability associated with As in vivo–in vitro correlations when using different bioaccessibility methodologies. Environ Sci Technol 48(19):11646–11653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Juhasz AL, Smith E, Nelson C et al (2014c) Variability associated with As in vivo–in vitro correlations when using different bioaccessibility methodologies. Environ Sci Technol 48(19):11646–11653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelley ME, Brauning SE, Schoof RA et al (2002) Assessing oral bioavailability of metals in soil. Battelle Press, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  27. Levallois P, St-Laurent J, Gauvin D et al (2014) The impact of drinking water, indoor dust and paint on blood lead levels of children aged 1–5 years in Montréal (Québec, Canada). J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 24(2):185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li HB, Cui XY, Li K et al (2014) Assessment of in vitro lead bioaccessibility in house dust and its relationship to in vivo lead relative bioavailability. Environ Sci Technol 48(15):8548–8555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li J, Li K, Cave M et al (2015a) Lead bioaccessibility in 12 contaminated soils from China: correlation to lead relative bioavailability and lead in different fractions. J Hazard Mater 295:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li J, Li K, Cui XY et al (2015b) In vitro bioaccessibility and in vivo relative bioavailability in 12 contaminated soils: Method comparison and method development. Sci Total Environ 532:812–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li J, Li C, Sun HJ et al (2016a) Arsenic relative bioavailability in contaminated soils: comparison of animal models, dosing schemes, and biological end points. Environ Sci Technol 50(1):453–461Google Scholar
  32. Li SW, Sun HJ, Li HB et al (2016b) In vivo validation of different assays to assess cadmium bioaccessibility in contaminated soils. Environ Int 94:600–606Google Scholar
  33. Lunney JK (2007) Advances in swine biomedical model genomics. Int J Biol Sci 3(3):179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oomen AG, Hack A, Minekus M et al (2002) Comparison of five in vitro digestion models to study the bioaccessibility of soil contaminants. Environ Sci Technol 36(15):3326–3334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Patterson JK, Lei XG, Miller DD (2008) The pig as an experimental model for elucidating the mechanisms governing dietary influence on mineral absorption. Exp Biol Med 233(6):651–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roberts SM, Weimar WR, Vinson JRT et al (2002) Measurement of arsenic bioavailability in soil using a primate model. Toxicol Sci 67(2):303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodriguez RR, Basta NT, Casteel SW et al (1999) An in vitro gastrointestinal method to estimate bioavailable arsenic in contaminated soils and solid media. Environ Sci Technol 33(4):642–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruby MV, Lowney YW (2012) Selective soil particle adherence to hands: implications for understanding oral exposure to soil contaminants. Environ Sci Technol 46(23):12759–12771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ruby MV, Davis A, Schoof R et al (1996) Estimation of lead and arsenic bioavailability using a physiologically based extraction test. Environ Sci Technol 30(2):422–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schroder JL, Basta NT, Si J et al (2003) In vitro gastrointestinal method to estimate relative bioavailable cadmium in contaminated soil. Environ Sci Technol 37(7):1365–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schroder JL, Basta NT, Casteel SW et al (2004) Validation of the in vitro gastrointestinal (IVG) method to estimate relative bioavailable lead in contaminated soils. J Environ Qual 33(2):513–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smith E, Kempson IM, Juhasz AL et al (2011) In vivo–in vitro and XANES spectroscopy assessments of lead bioavailability in contaminated periurban soils. Environ Sci Technol 45(14):6145–6152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Surkan PJ, Zhang A, Trachtenberg F et al (2007) Neuropsychological function in children with blood lead levels <10μg/dL. Neurotoxicology 28(6):1170–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. The Ministry of Environmental Protection (2014) The Ministry of Land and Resources Report on the national soil contamination survey. http://www.mep.gov.cn/gkml/hbb/qt/201404/t20140417_270670.htm [2014-8-27]
  45. Van Wijnen JH, Clausing P, Brunekreef B (1990) Estimated soil ingestion by children. Environ Res 51(2):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weis CP, LaVelle JM (1991) Characteristics to consider when choosing an animal model for the study of lead bioavailability. Chem Spec Bioavailab 3(3–4):113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson R, Jones-Otazo H, Petrovic S et al (2013) Revisiting dust and soil ingestion rates based on hand-to-mouth transfer. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 19(1):158–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wragg J, Cave M, Basta N et al (2011) An inter-laboratory trial of the unified BARGE bioaccessibility method for arsenic, cadmium and lead in soil. Sci Total Environ 409(19):4016–4030Google Scholar
  49. Yan CH, Xu J, Shen XM (2013) Childhood lead poisoning in China: challenges and opportunities. Environ Health Perspect 121(10):A294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zahran S, Mielke HW, Gonzales CR et al (2010) New Orleans before and after hurricanes Katrina/Rita: A quasi-experiment of the association between soil lead and children’s blood lead. Environ Sci Technol 44(12):4433–4440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhao FJ, Ma Y, Zhu YG et al (2014) Soil contamination in China: current status and mitigation strategies. Environ Sci Technol 49(2):750–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press & Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the EnvironmentNanjing UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations