4.8 Article

Comparison of Batch Mode and Dynamic Physiologically Based Bioaccessibility Tests for PAHs in Soil Samples

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 44, 期 7, 页码 2654-2660

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es903258v

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Grid
  2. NERC [bgs05008] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [bgs05008] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fed state in vitro methodology capable of use in commercial testing laboratories has been developed for measuring the human ingestion bioaccessibility of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil (Fed ORganic Estimation human Simulation Test-FOREhST). The protocol for measuring PAHs in the simulated gastro-intestinal fluids used methanolic KOH saponification followed by a combination of polymeric sorbent solid phase extraction and silica sorbent cartridges for sample cleanup and preconcentration. The analysis was carried out using high pressure liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. The repeatability of the method, assessed by the measurement of the bioaccessibility of 6 PAHs (benz[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, dibenz[ah]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-c, d]pyrene) in eleven gas works soils, was 10% RSD. The method compared well with the results from an independent dynamic human simulation reactor comprising of the stomach, duodenal and colon compartments tested on the same soils. The measured bioaccessible fraction of the soils varied from 10-60% for soils containing 10-300 mg kg(-1) PAH (the sum of the six studied) with total organic carbon concentrations in the soils ranging from 1-13%. A multiple regression model showed that the PAH bioaccessible fraction could be explained using the PAH compound, the soil type and the total PAH to soil organic carbon content The method described here has potential for site specific detailed quantitative risk assessment either to modify the risk estimation or to contribute to the risk evaluation.

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