4.8 Article

Predicting Arsenic Relative Bioavailability Using Multiple in Vitro Assays: Validation of in Vivo-in Vitro Correlations

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 18, Pages 11167-11175

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02508

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Centre for Environmental Risk Assessment and Remediation
  2. Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, University of South Australia
  3. South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, previously established arsenic (As) in vivo-in vitro correlations (IVIVC) were assessed for their validity using an independent data set comprising As relative bioavailability (RBA) and bioaccessibility values for 13 herbicide- and mine-impacted soils. The validation process established the correlation between As RBA (swine model) and bioaccessibility (five in vitro assays), determined whether correlations differed significantly from previous relationships and assessed model bias and error. The capacity of in vitro assays to predict As RBA was demonstrated by the strength of IVIVC; goodness of fit ranged from 0.53 (DIN-I) to 0.74 (UBM-I). When compared to previous IVIVC (Juhasz et al. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 9487; Juhasz et al. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 197, 161), there was no significant difference (P < 0.01) in the slope and y-intercept for IVG-G, UBM-G, and UBM-I indicating the consistency of these assays for predicting As RBA. However, variability in model bias and prediction error was observed with significantly lower (P < 0.01) error determined for IVG-G suggesting that As RBA predictions using IVG-G may be more robust compared to UBM-G and UBM-I. In contrast, differences in the slope and/or y-intercept were observed for SBRC-I, IVG-I, PBET-G, PBET-I, DIN-G, and DIN-I suggesting that these methodologies may not be suitable for predicting As RBA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available