Human health risk estimates for sites with contaminated soils are often based on the assumption that the bulk concentration of substances in outdoor soil samples is a reasonable predictor of exposures via incidental soil ingestion, soil particle inhalation, and dermal absorption. Most underlying conceptual models are grossly simplistic, however, when considered in light of (i) biases in the distribution of contaminants across soil particle sizes, (ii) the size range of particles in soils and dusts that is environmentally available, and (iii) factors that influence desorption from particles and uptake into humans. The available studies indicate that contaminant distribution across soil particle size fractions varies widely between different soil types and contaminant delivery mechanisms, and it cannot be assumed that higher masses of contaminants per unit mass of soil are correlated with smaller particles sizes. Soil data gathered in support of detailed human health risk assessments, therefore, should allow for the examination of distribution across particle sizes of contaminants of concern, and consider those size fractions most critical to human exposure. Soil evaluations for health risk assessments of metals/metalloids should also consider mineralogical characterization.

Bioaccessibility is a measurement of a substance's solubility in the human gastro-intestinal system, and is often used in the risk assessment of soils. The present study was designed to determine the variability among laboratories using different methods to measure the bioaccessibility of 24 inorganic contaminants in one standardized soil sample, the standard reference material NIST 2710. Fourteen laboratories used a total of 17 bioaccessibility extraction methods. The variability between methods was assessed by calculating the reproducibility relative standard deviations (RSDs), where reproducibility is the sum of within-laboratory and between-laboratory variability. Whereas within-laboratory repeatability was usually better than (<) 15% for most elements, reproducibility RSDs were much higher, indicating more variability, although for many elements they were comparable to typical uncertainties (e.g., 30% in commercial laboratories). For five trace elements of interest, reproducibility RSDs were: arsenic (As), 22–44%; cadmium (Cd), 11–41%; Cu, 15–30%; lead (Pb), 45–83%; and Zn, 18–56%. Only one method variable, pH, was found to correlate significantly with bioaccessibility for aluminum (Al), Cd, copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), Pb and zinc (Zn) but other method variables could not be examined systematically because of the study design. When bioaccessibility results were directly compared with bioavailability results for As (swine and mouse) and Pb (swine), four methods returned results within uncertainty ranges for both elements: two that were defined as simpler (gastric phase only, limited chemicals) and two were more complex (gastric + intestinal phases, with a mixture of chemicals).

Geophagia is the craving for non-food substances and commonly practiced among pregnant women and children. Consumption of geophagic clay samples can have serious implications on the health of the consumers as a result of the presence of toxic metals such as Pb, As, Hg and Cd. This study sought to determine the levels of heavy metals in the studied geophagic clay samples and to determine the potential risks of heavy metals as cumulative carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks to the health of the consumers via oral (ingestion) and dermal exposure routes. A total of thirty (30) white clay samples were analysed using Niton Thermo scientific XRF Analyser (Mobile Test S, NDTr-XL3t-86956, com 24). The clay samples were found to contain essential elements such as Ca, Fe, K and Zn as well as toxic metals such as As and Pb. There were isolated cases of the presence of Hg and all samples had Cd levels below detection. Health risk indices such as hazard quotient and cancer risk were calculated and the results indicated that consumers are likely to suffer from cancer through ingestion of geophagic clay. Bioaccessibility studies were done on zinc and it did not indicate any potential toxicity due to zincs essential nature. The levels of heavy metals in some of the geophagic clay consumed by some residents in the Kumasi were high compared to the Permitted Maximum Tolerable Daily Intake (PMTDI) by (WHO/FAO) and may pose potential health threat over time.

Agbogbloshie in Accra, Ghana, was a center for informal e-waste recycling until it was closed recently. This study investigated the potential health risks of toxic metals (including As, Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb, and Zn) found in the surface soils based on their concentrations and in vitro bioaccessibility. Mean concentrations at the burning sites were As: 218; Cd: 65; Cr: 182; Cu: 15,841; Ni: 145; Pb: 6,106; Sb: 552; and Zn: 16,065 mg/kg while the dismantling sites had mean concentrations of As: 23; Cd: 38; Cr: 342; Cu: 3239; Ni: 96; Pb: 681; Sb: 104; and Zn: 1658 mg/kg. The findings confirmed the enrichment of potentially toxic metals at the dismantling and burning sites, exceeding international environmental soil quality guidelines. Based on the total metal concentrations, bioaccessibility, and calculated risk indices, the risks associated with incidental ingestion of soil-borne metal contaminants at the dismantling and burning sites were very high. Despite evidence of higher metal concentrations in the communities near the burning and dismantling sites, the human health risk associated with soil ingestion was significantly lower in the surrounding neighborhood.

Human health risk estimates for sites with contaminated soils are often based on the assumption that the outdoor soil sieved to < 250 μm is a reasonable surrogate for predicting exposures via incidental soil ingestion. In vitro bioaccessibility tests are also increasingly used to “improve” ingestion exposure predictions of contaminants at different sites. However, when considered in terms of factors that influence desorption of contaminants from particles and uptake into humans, available studies indicate that current “standards of practice” with respect to assays of oral bioaccessibility have a number of significant shortcomings, at least in Canada. These shortcomings are discussed and various factors that influence the assessment of bioaccessibility of contaminants in soils are examined. We finish with proposing some minimum data submission requirements to support the application and relevance of bioaccessibility assays at contaminated sites.