Human Exposure Pathways

  • Mark Elert
  • Roseline Bonnard
  • Celia Jones
  • Rosalind A. Schoof
  • Frank A. Swartjes
Chapter

Abstract

Depending on land use and corresponding human activities, a number of exposure pathways are relevant for human exposure. In this chapter, six important pathways are described, i.e., exposure through consumption of vegetables, consumption of animal products, consumption of domestic water, inhalation of vapours outdoors, inhalation of dust particles (indoors and outdoors) and dermal uptake via soil material (outdoors and indoors). Note that these exposure pathways follow different exposure routes to enter the human body, i.e., oral, inhalation and dermal routes, respectively. Human exposure through all oral and inhalative exposure pathways described in this chapter (so excluding the dermal uptake exposure pathway), follow a similar pattern. This pattern includes three steps. Firstly, the transfer of contaminants from one of the mobile phases of the soil (pore water or soil gas) into a so-called contact medium. Secondly, the intake of that contact medium by human beings. And thirdly, the uptake of part of the contaminants from the contact medium into the blood stream and target organs and the corresponding excretion of the remaining part of the contaminants. For each of the pathways the significance, conceptual model, an example of mathematical equations and of the input parameters is described in this chapter, in detail. Moreover, attention is given to the reliability and limitations of the calculations.

Keywords

Vegetable Consumption Contaminant Concentration Domestic Water Dust Concentration Exposure Pathway 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander M (2000) Aging, bioavailability, and overestimation of risk from environmental pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 34:4259–4265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andelman JB (1990) Total exposure to volatile organic compounds in potable water. In: Significance and treatment of volatile organic compounds in water supplies, pp 485–504Google Scholar
  3. ASTM (2004) Standard guide for risk-based corrective action, Standard E 2081-00 (Reapproved 2004), ASTM International, American society for testing and materials, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Beamer P, Castano A, Leckie JO (2002) Vertical profile particulate matter measurements in a California daycare. Proceedings: Indoor Air 2002, pp 103–108Google Scholar
  5. Brand E, Otte PF, Lijzen JPA (2007) CSOIL 2007: an exposure model for human risk assessment of soil contamination. RIVM report 711701054 RIVM, Bilthoven, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Bright DA, Richardson GM, Dodd M (2006) Do current standards of practice in Canada measure what is relevant to human exposure at contaminated sites? I: a discussion of soil particle size and contaminant portioning in soil. Human Ecol Risk Assess 12(3):591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (2009) http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/AssessingRisk/ctox_model.cfm. Retrieved 20 Dec 2009
  8. Carlon C, Swartjes F (2007) Analysis of variability and reasons of differences. In: Carlon C (ed) Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe. A review of national procedures towards harmonisation opportunities, JRC PUBSY 7123, HERACLES. European Commission Joint Research Centre, IspraGoogle Scholar
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2006) National health and nutrition examination survey data. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm. Retrieved 20 Dec 2009
  10. Choate LM, Ranville JF, Bunge AL, Macaalday DL (2006) Dermally adhered soil: 1. Amount and particle size distribution. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2:375–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cowherd C, Muleski GE, Englehart PJ, Gillette DA (1985) Rapid assessment of exposure to particulate emissions from surface contamination sites. Report EPA/600/8–85/002. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. DEFRA and EA (2002) The contaminated land exposure assessment (CLEA) model: technical basis and algorithms. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and EA (The Environment Agency), EA R&D publication CLR 10, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowdy D, McKone T, Hsieh D (1996) Prediction of chemical biotransfer of organic chemicals from cattle diet into beef and milk using the molecular connectivity index. Environ Sci Technol 30(3): 984–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ECB (2003) Technical guidance document on risk assessment. Part I, risk assessment for human health. EUR 20418/EN/1. European Chemicals BureauGoogle Scholar
  15. ECETOC (2001) Exposure factors sourcebook for European populations (with focus on UK data), Technical report no. 79, European centre for ecotoxicology and toxicology of chemicals, Brussels, June 2001Google Scholar
  16. Environment Agency (2008) Updated technical background to the CLEA model. Science report – SC050021/SR2. Environment Agency, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. ExpoFacts (2006) Exposure Factors Sourcebook for Europe. http://expofacts.jrc.ec.europa.eu
  18. European Commission (2008) The European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (EUSES 2.1). Available via the European Chemicals Bureau, http://ecb.jrc.it/Euses
  19. Foster SA, Chrostowski PC (1986) Integrated household exposure model for use of tap water contaminated with volatile organic chemicals. Proc 79th Ann Meeting of Air Pollution Control Association, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  20. Gawronski SW (2000) Toxic metals accumulation, distribution, and diversity of tolerance mechanisms in higher plants. Warsaw Agricultural University, Intercost Workshop on Bioremediation-Sorrento 2000Google Scholar
  21. GCNC (2002) Impact of chemical discharges, vol. 2, annexes 3 and 4: available information on agronomical parameters for the radioecological working group (in French). Groupe Chimique Nord-Cotentin, http://www.irsn.fr/FR/base_de_connaissances/Environnement/surveillance-environnement/GRNC/Pages/Radioecologie-nord-cotentin.aspx. Reterived 23 August 2010
  22. Gesell TF, Pichard HM (1978) The contribution to radon in tap water to radon indoor concentrations. Presented at the 3rd international symposium on natural radiation, Huston, TXGoogle Scholar
  23. GRNC (2002) Analyses of sensitivity and uncertainty for risk of leukaemia related to Nord Cotentin’s nuclear installations, Annex 1: Probabilistic distributions of input parameters (in French). Groupe Radioécologique Nord-Cotentin, http://www.irsn.fr/FR/base_de_connaissances/Environnement/surveillance-environnement/GRNC/Pages/Radioecologie-nord-cotentin.aspx. Reterived 23 August 2010
  24. Hawley JK (1985) Assessment of health risk from exposure to contaminated soil. Risk Anal 5:289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hedberg E, Hansson H-C, Johansson C, Vesely V, Wideqvist U, Kristensson A (2001) Characterization of particles in Lycksele and Gothenburg. ITM air pollution laboratory, Stockholm University department of nuclear physics, Lund University May 2001. ITM Rapport 92Google Scholar
  26. Hess CT, Weiffenbach CV, Norton SA (1982) Variations of airborne Rn-222 in houses in Maine. Environ Int 8:59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howard-Reed C, Corsi RL, Moya J (1999) Mass transfer of volatile organic compounds from drinking water to indoor air: the role of residential dishwashers. Environ Sci Technol 33:2266–2277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. IAEA (1994) Handbook of parameter values for the prediction of radionuclide transfer in temperate environments. International Atomic Energy Agency, Technical reports series no. 364Google Scholar
  29. IAEA (2001) Generic models for use in assessing the impact of discharges of radioactive substances to the environment. International Atomic Energy Agency, Safety reports series no. 19Google Scholar
  30. ICRP (1975) Reference Man; anatomical, physiological and metabolic characteristics, ICRP Publication 23. International Commission on Radiation Protection. Pergamon, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. INERIS (2003) Evaluation of the impact of atmospheric deposition of a large combustion plant using coal on human health (in French), INERIS (National Institute of the Industrial Environment and Risks) Final report DRC-03–45956 / ERSA-no. 92-RBn, FranceGoogle Scholar
  32. INERIS (2009) Set of equations for modelling exposure from contaminated soil contamination or due to industrial emissions (in French), INERIS (National Institute of the Industrial Environment and Risks) DRC-08-94882-16675A, FranceGoogle Scholar
  33. INSEE (1991) Consumption and places of purchase of foodstuffs in 1991 (in French), Bertrand M, INSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economical studies)Google Scholar
  34. Intawongse M, Dean JR (2006) In-vitro testing for assessing oral bioaccessibility of trace metals in soil and food samples. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 25(9):876–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Janssen NAH, Hook G, Brunekreef B, Harssema H, Mensink I, Zuidhof A (1998) Personal sampling of particles in adults: relation among personal, indoor and outdoor air concentrations. Am J Epidemiol 147:537–547Google Scholar
  36. Layton DW (1993) Metabolically consistent breathing rates for use in dose assessments. Health Phys 64:23–36Google Scholar
  37. Lowney YW, Wester RC, Schoof RA, Cushing CA, Ruby MV (2007) Dermal absorption of arsenic from soils as measured in the Rhesus monkey. Toxicol Sci 100:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lordo B, Sanford J, Mohnson M (2006) Revision of the metabolically-derived ventilation rates within the exposure factors handbook. Batelle Institute, Columbus OH. Prepared for US EPA/ORDGoogle Scholar
  39. Lijzen JPA, Baars AJ, Otte PF, Rikken MGJ, Swartjes FA, Verbruggen EMJ, Van Wezel AP (2001) Technical evaluation of the Intervention Values for Soil/sediment and groundwater. RIVM report 711701023, February 2001. RIVM, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  40. Little JC (1992) Applying the two-resistance theory to contaminant volatilization in showers. Environ Sci Technol 26(7):1341–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Livsmedelsverket (2002) Riksmaten 1997–98, Food habits and nutrition in Sweden. Method and analysis of results (in Swedish), Becker W, Pearson M (eds) National Food administration, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  42. Livsmedelsverket (2006) Riksmaten – children 2003. Food habits and nutrition in children in Sweden (in Swedish), Enghardt Barbieri H, Becker W, Pearson M (eds) National Food Administration, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  43. McLachlan M (1994) Model of the fate of hydrophobic contaminants in cows. Environ Sci Technol 28(13):2407–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miljøstyrelsen (2002) Guidelines on remediation of contaminated sites. Environmental Guidelines No. 7 2002, Vejledning fra Miljøstyrelsen. Miljøstyrelsen, DanmarkGoogle Scholar
  45. Millington RJ, Quirk JM (1961) Permeability of porous solids. Trans Faraday Soc 57:1200–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moya J, Howard-Reed C, Corsi RL (1999) Volatilization of chemicals to indoor air from contaminated water used for showering. Environ Sci Technol 33:2321–2327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Naturvårdsverket (2009) Guideline values for contaminated land. Model description and guidance (in Swedish). Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  48. Oomen AG, Lijzen JPA (2004) Relevancy of human exposure via house dust to the contaminants lead and asbestos. RIVM report 711701037/2004, National institute for public health and the environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  49. OVAM (2004) Basic information for risk analysis, Part 3H, Formulae for Vlier-Humaan (in Dutch)Google Scholar
  50. Paustenbach DJ, Finley BL, Long TF (1997) The critical role of house dust in understanding the hazards posed by contaminated soils. Int J Toxicol 16:339–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Putaud J-P et al (2003) A European aerosol phenomenology, physical and chemical characteristics of particulate matter at kerbside, urban, rural and background sites in Europe, European Commission, Report nr. EUR 20411 EN, 2003Google Scholar
  52. Rennen MA, Bouwman T, Wilschut A, Bessems JGM, De Heer C (2003) Oral-to-inhalation route extrapolation: a critical assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 39(1):5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. RIVM-VITO (2006) De Raeymaecker B, Cornelis C, Provoost J, Joris I, De Ridder K, Lefebre F, Ottte P Lijzen J, Swartjes F (2007) Evaluation of the Swedish guideline values for contaminated sites – cadmium and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, VITO/RIVM, 2006/IMS/R/. VITO, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  54. RTI (2005) Methodology for predicting cattle biotransfer factors. Research Triangle Institute, prepared for US EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Research Triangle Park (NC), USAGoogle Scholar
  55. Shoaf MB, Shirai JH, Kedan G, Schaum J, Kissel JC (2005a) Adult dermal sediment loads following clam digging in tide flats. Soil Sediments Contamin 14:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shoaf MB, Shirai JH, Kedan G, Schaum J, Kissel JC (2005b) Child dermal sediment loads following play in a tide flat. J Exp Anal Environ Epid 15:407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simonich SL, Hites RA (1995) Organic pollutant accumulation in vegetation. Env Sci Tech 29:2905–2914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Socialstyrelsen (2005) Environmental health report 2005. National board of health and welfare, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Stockholm county council. ISBN 91-7201-931-X. (in Swedish)Google Scholar
  59. Spalt EW, Kissel JC, Shirai JH, Bunge AL (2008) Dermal absorption of environmental contaminants from soil and sediment: a critical review. J Exp Sci Env Epid 19:119–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Swartjes FA (2007) Insight into the variation in calculated human exposure to soil contaminants using seven different European models. Integrated Environ Assess Manage 3(3):322–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Swartjes FA, Dirven-Van Breemen EM, Otte PF, Van Beelen P, Rikken MGJ, Tuinstra J, Spijker J, Lijzen JPA (2007) Towards a protocol for the site-specific human health risk assessment for consumption of vegetables from contaminated sites. RIVM report 711701040. RIVM, Bilthoven, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  62. Thornton I, Davies DJA, Watt JM, Quinn MJ (1990) Lead exposure in young children from dust and soil in the United Kingdom. Environ Health Perspect 89:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Travis C, Arms A (1988) Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk and vegetation. Environ Sci Technol 22:271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. UMS, Hempfling R, Doetsch P (1997) Scientific support and development of a human health exposure model for historical contamination. Final report (in German), ARGE Fresenius-focon. F&E Vorhaben 109 01 215, im Auftrag des Umweltbundesamtes, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  65. The University of California, McKone T (1993) CalTOX, 1993, a multimedia total exposure model for hazardous-waste sites, UCRL-CR-111456, Part I–IV, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LivermoreCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. US DOE (2003) Environmental transport input parameters for the biosphere model. Office of civilian radioactive waste management, Wasiolek M, US Department of Energy, ANL-MGR-MD-000007 REV 01Google Scholar
  67. US DOE (2004) Office of civilian radioactive waste management, Rasmuson K, Agricultural and environmental input parameters for the biosphere model. US Department of Energy, ANL-MGR-MD-000006 Rev02Google Scholar
  68. US EPA (1991) Risk assessment guidance for superfund (RAGS) vol 1. Human health evaluation manual, part B, development of risk-based preliminary remediation goals, EPA/540/H-92/003, Publ 9285-7-01B, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  69. US EPA (1996a) Soil screening guidance, User’s guide EPA540/R-96/018 and technical background document EPA/540/R-95/128, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  70. US EPA (1996b) Soil screening guidance: technical background document, 2nd edn. EPA/540/R95/128, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  71. US EPA (1997) Exposure factors handbook revised, PB98-124217, US Environmental protection agency, National center for environmental assessment, Office of research and development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  72. US EPA (2002a) Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for superfund sites. OSWER 9355.4-24, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  73. US EPA (2002b) Overview of the IEUBK model for lead in children, EPA report number PB 99-9635-8. OSWER, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  74. US EPA (2004a) Exposure and human health reassessment of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, part I: estimating exposure to Dioxin-like compounds, vol 3: site-specific assessment procedures, US EPA (US environmental protection agency), National centre for environmental assessment, Office of research and development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  75. US EPA (2004b) Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume i: human health evaluation manual (part e, supplemental guidance for dermal risk assessment), EPA/540/R/99/005, OSWER 9285.7-02EP, PB99-963312, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  76. US EPA (2005) Office of solid waste. Human health risk assessment protocol for hazardous waste combustion facilities (HHRAP). US environmental protection agency, report EPA/530/R-05–006, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  77. US EPA (2006) Child specific exposure factors handbook (external review draft), EPA/600/R/06/096A, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  78. US EPA (2008) Child specific exposure factors handbook, EPA/600/R06/096F, National center for environmental assessment, Office of research and development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  79. US EPA (2009) Exposure factors handbook 2009 update, External review draft, PA/600/R09/052A, National center for environmental assessment, Office of research and development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  80. Van den Berg R (1991/1994/1995) Human exposure to soil contamination. A qualitative and quantitative analyses resulting in proposals for human health C screening values, Modified version of the original report Van den Berg 1991/Van den Berg 1994. RIVM report 725201011, RIVM, Bilthoven, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  81. Veerkamp W, Ten Berge W (1994) The concepts of HESP. Reference manual, human exposure to soil pollutants,Version 2.1a, Shell International Petroleum, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  82. WHO (1993) Guidelines for drinking water quality, 2nd edn, vol 1. RecommendationsGoogle Scholar
  83. WHO (2006) Guidelines for drinking water quality, 3rd edn. Incorporating first addendum, vol 1, Recommendations, 2006. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  84. Wilschut A, Houben GF, Hakkert BC (1998) Evaluation of route-to-route extrapolation in health risk assessment for dermal and respiratory exposure to chemicals, TNO report V97.520. TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, Zeist, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  85. Wu FH, Zhang G, Bachir DML (2004) Differences in growth and yield in response to cadmium toxicity in cotton genotypes. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 167(1):85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Xu X, Weisel C (2003) Inhalation exposure to haloacetic acids and haloketones during showering. Environ Sci Technol 37:569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Young TM, Heeraman DA, Sirin G, Ashbaugh L (2001) Resuspension of contaminated soil as a source of airborne lead. Research division air resources board, Sacramento, CA, Final Project Report Contract Number 97-325, 31 August 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Elert
    • 1
  • Roseline Bonnard
    • 2
  • Celia Jones
    • 1
  • Rosalind A. Schoof
    • 3
  • Frank A. Swartjes
    • 4
  1. 1.Kemakta KonsultStockholmSweden
  2. 2.National Institute of Industrial Environment and Risks (INERIS)Verneuil-en-HalatteFrance
  3. 3.ENVIRONSeattleUSA
  4. 4.National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)BilthovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations