4.7 Article

In vitro inhalation bioaccessibility procedures for lead in PM2.5 size fraction of soil assessed and optimized by in vivo-in vitro correlation

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 381, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121202

Keywords

Lead; Inhalation risk; In vivo inhalation bioavailability; In vitro inhalation bioaccessibility; In vivo-in vitro correlation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91543129, 91643105]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China [BK20181261]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In order to assess and optimize frequently used in vitro inhalation bioaccessibility procedures for heavy metals in the inhalation risk assessment, in vivo inhalation bioavailability of Pb in simulated atmosphere fine particles (PM2.5) from aging soils spiked with lead compounds and field soils in lead-zinc mining areas was investigated via intranasally instilled experiments with these PM2.5 suspensions to mice and Pb bioaccessibility was extracted by using four frequently used in vitro procedures (Gamble Solution, simulated lung fluid, simulated epithelial lung fluid and artificial lysosomal fluid). Mouse exposure experiments showed that Pb was mainly distributed in the liver, kidneys, blood and spleen. Based on the kidney model, in vitro inhalation bioaccessibility of Pb extracted with optimized Gamble Solution, in which solid to liquid ratio (S/L) was optimized to 1:1000 g ml(-1) and DTPA was proved to be the key effective component, showed a strong linear relationship with its in vivo inhalation bioavailability (y = 1.07x - 3.86, R-2 = 0.73). Moreover, in vitro bioaccessible and bioavailable fractions of Pb were mainly from acid exchangeable and reducible fractions of Pb in PM2.5. Altogether, optimized Gamble Solution was suggested for the analysis of in vitro bioaccessibility for risk-based assessments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available