| Literature DB >> 21749965 |
Karen D Bradham1, Kirk G Scheckel, Clay M Nelson, Paul E Seales, Grace E Lee, Michael F Hughes, Bradley W Miller, Aaron Yeow, Thomas Gilmore, Sophia M Serda, Sharon Harper, David J Thomas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessment of soil arsenic (As) bioavailability may profoundly affect the extent of remediation required at contaminated sites by improving human exposure estimates. Because small adjustments in soil As bioavailability estimates can significantly alter risk assessments and remediation goals, convenient, rapid, reliable, and inexpensive tools are needed to determine soil As bioavailability.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21749965 PMCID: PMC3226497 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1003352
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Description, elemental composition, and As speciation in test soils.
| Arsenic speciation | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil source | Soil properties | AsV | AsIII | Reduced chi squared | ||||||||||||||||||
| Soil ID | As | Fe | Mn | Al | pH | Sorbed AsV (%) | Scorodite (%) | Realgar (%) | Arsenopyrite (%) | |||||||||||||
| 1 | Urban residential | 990 | 20.9 | 0.5 | 11.8 | 6.1 | 52.0 | 21.2 | 26.8 | — | 0.004 | |||||||||||
| 2 | Urban residential | 829 | 20.5 | 0.7 | 9.4 | 6.3 | 96.7 | 3.3 | — | — | 0.004 | |||||||||||
| 3 | Urban residential | 379 | 18.9 | 0.2 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 53.1 | 15.2 | 31.7 | — | 0.003 | |||||||||||
| 4 | Smelter slag | 837 | 294.4 | 2.7 | 13.2 | 7.2 | 18.7 | 1.6 | 47.7 | 32.1 | 0.001 | |||||||||||
| 5 | Residential | 244 | 46.0 | 0.8 | 21.7 | 7.3 | 96.2 | 3.8 | — | — | 0.002 | |||||||||||
| 6 | Residential | 173 | 63.4 | 0.7 | 20.9 | 6.6 | 66.8 | 33.2 | — | — | 0.002 | |||||||||||
| 7 | Smelter slag | 6,899 | 144.5 | 0.9 | 15.0 | 5.2 | 18.3 | 47.1 | — | 34.6 | 0.001 | |||||||||||
| 8 | Residential | 280 | 72.3 | 0.0 | 3.9 | 2.1 | 79.5 | 20.5 | — | — | 0.007 | |||||||||||
| 9 | Smelter slag | 4,495 | 120.1 | 0.4 | 12.3 | 2.6 | 67.6 | 32.4 | — | — | 0.011 | |||||||||||
| 10 | NIST 2710 | 601 | 29.2 | 8.5 | 17.2 | 5.0 | 95.0 | 5.0 | — | — | 0.007 | |||||||||||
| 11 | NIST 2710a | 1,513 | 34.0 | 1.7 | 10.0 | 4.0 | 66.8 | 23.2 | 9.9 | — | 0.01 | |||||||||||
Figure 1Relationship between cumulative As intake and cumulative urinary As excretion (mean ± SD). For soil numbers, see Table 1. Replicate assays are shown for soil 4 (4a, 4b) and soil 10 (10a, 10b, 10c). NaAs, sodium arsenate–amended diet.
Figure 2%ABA (A) and %RBA (B) of As from amended diets as a function of cumulative As intake (mean ± SD). Replicate assays are shown for soil 4 (4a, 4b) and soil 10 (10a, 10b, 10c); NaAs, sodium arsenate–amended diet.
Results of linear regression analyses to explore the influence of select soil properties on As RBA and IVBA.
| RBA | IVBA | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor | Equation | Equation | ||||||||||
| Sorbed AsV (%) | 0.2 | 0.14 | 0.26 | 0.3 | 0.11 | 0.31 | ||||||
| Scorodite (%) | –0.4 | 0.10 | 0.35 | –0.7 | 0.16 | 0.22 | ||||||
| Realgar (%) | 0.1 | 0.01 | 0.80 | 0.2 | 0.01 | 0.73 | ||||||
| Arsenopyrite (%) | –0.7 | 0.28 | 0.09* | –0.7 | 0.16 | 0.23 | ||||||
| AsV (%) | 0.2 | 0.05 | 0.50 | 0.1 | 0.02 | 0.70 | ||||||
| AsIII (%) | –0.2 | 0.05 | 0.50 | –0.1 | 0.02 | 0.70 | ||||||
| As (mg/kg) | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.15 | 0.23 | ||||||||
| Fe (g/kg) | –0.1 | 0.48 | 0.02** | –0.2 | 0.32 | 0.07* | ||||||
| Al (g/kg) | –1.9 | 0.34 | 0.06* | –2.7 | 0.32 | 0.07* | ||||||
| Mn (g/kg) | 0.7 | 0.01 | 0.77 | 1.1 | 0.01 | 0.76 | ||||||
| pH | –2.2 | 0.05 | 0.52 | –1.2 | 0.01 | 0.82 | ||||||
| Fe+Al (mol/kg) | –8.8 | 0.58 | 0.01# | –10.5 | 0.40 | 0.04** | ||||||
| Log(Fe+Al) (mol/kg) | –53.1 | 0.80 | 0.00# | –67.5 | 0.62 | 0.00# | ||||||
| * | ||||||||||||