4.8 Article

Assessment of Four Commonly Employed in Vitro Arsenic Bioaccessibility Assays for Predicting in Vivo Relative Arsenic Bioavailability in Contaminated Soils

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 43, 期 24, 页码 9487-9494

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es902427y

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC CARE) [1-3-01-05/6]
  2. Centre for Environmental Risk Assessment and Remediation (University of South Australia)
  3. Sansom Institute (University of South Australia)
  4. Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, a number of in vitro methods are in use worldwide to assess arsenic (As) bioaccessibility in soils. However, a dearth of research has been undertaken to compare the efficacy of the in vitro methods for estimating in vivo relative As bioavailability. In this study, As bioaccessibility in contaminated soils (n = 12) was assessed using four in vitro assays (SBRC, IVG, PBET, DIN). In vitro results were compared to in vivo relative As bioavailability data (swine assay) to ascertain which methodologies best correlate with in vivo data. Arsenic bioaccessibility in contaminated soils varied depending on the in vitro method employed. For the SBRC and IVG methods, As bioaccessibility generally decreased when gastric-phase values were compared to the intestinal phase. In contrast, extending the PBET and DIN assays from the gastric to the intestinal phase resulted in an increase in As bioaccessibility for some soils tested. Comparison of in vitro and in vivo results demonstrated that the in vitro assay encompassing the SBRC gastric phase provided the best prediction of in vivo relative As bioavailability (R-2 = 0.75, Pearson correlation = 0.87). However, relative As bioavailability could also be predicted using gastric or intestinal phases of IVG, PBET, and DIN assays but with varying degrees of confidence (R-2 = 0.53-0.67, Pearson correlation = 0.73-0.82).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据