No abstract

Due to the presence of mercury at a number of major contaminated sites in the United States, the bioavailability of inorganic mercury in soil following ingestion has emerged as an important public health issue. Studies of the leachability/solubility of inorganic mercury in soil have shown that it is largely immobile, thereby suggesting that it will not be readily available for absorption in the gastrointestinal tract. Ignoring the effect of the soil matrix on decreasing bioavailability may result in a substantial overprediction of risks due to ingestion of contaminated soil. This paper discusses current knowledge about the oral bioavailability of inorganic mercury in soil and offers suggestions about how these data may be applied in human health risk assessment. Though precise estimates are not available, in vivo and in vitro estimates of the bioavailability of different inorganic mercury species in different matrices suggest that the bioavailability of mercury in soil is likely to be significantly less, on the order of at least three- to tenfold, than the bioavailability of mercuric chloride, the species used to derive the toxicity criteria for inorganic mercury. Because bioavailability can vary significantly with soil type, soil aging, the presence of co-contaminants and other factors, it is suggested that whenever the fiscal aspects justify a more precise estimate of bioavailability, site-specific estimates be developed. To develop a database for identifying a less expensive and more efficient method for estimating bioavailability, it is suggested that in vivo studies be conducted concurrently with in vitro studies. However, due to the lack of precision associated with the derivation of the most widely-used health guidance value for inorganic mercury (the USEPA RfD), additional work to address the uncertainties in the RfD is recommended.

Environmental contamination with ionic chromium has been identified as a problem at numerous Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action sites. In many cases, contamination of groundwater to levels above existing standards or criteria may be a potential problem both for direct consumption of groundwater and for transport of mobile forms of chromium to areas such as basements where it can becontacted. In the environment, chromium occurs in two forms: trivalent and hexavalent. The trivalent form is generally immobile and nontoxic; hexavalent chromium is generally mobile and toxic. This article first presents the extent of the chromium problem, reviews the environmental chemistry literature on chromium, and reviews existing treatment technology for chromium immobilization in the nontoxic trivalent state. Finally, we present a case study where immobilization of chromium occurred through natural processes allowing a modified no‐action scenario for site remediation.

No abstract

Upperbound lifetime excess cancer risks were calculated for activities associated with asbestos abatement using a risk assessment framework developed for EPA's Superfund program. It was found that removals were associated with cancer risks to workers which were often greater than the commonly accepted cancer risk of 1 x 10(-6), although lower than occupational exposure limits associated with risks of 1 x 10(-3). Removals had little effect in reducing risk to school populations. Risks to teachers and students in school buildings containing asbestos were approximately the same as risks associated with exposure to ambient asbestos by the general public and were below the levels typically of concern to regulatory agencies. During abatement, however, there were increased risks to both workers and nearby individuals. Careless, everyday building maintenance generated the greatest risk to workers followed by removals and encapsulation. If asbestos abatement was judged by the risk criteria applied to EPA's Superfund program, the no-action alternative would likely be selected in preference to removal in a majority of cases. These conclusions should only be interpreted within the context of an overall asbestos risk management program, which includes consideration of specific fiber types and sizes, sampling and analytical limitations, physical condition of asbestos-containing material, episodic peak exposures, and the number of people potentially exposed.