Background: Assessment of soil arsenic (As) bioavailability may profoundly affect the extent of remediation required at contaminated sites by improving human exposure estimates. Because small adjustments in soil As bioavailability estimates can significantly alter risk assessments and remediation goals, convenient, rapid, reliable, and inexpensive tools are needed to determine soil As bioavailability.Objectives: We evaluated inexpensive methods for assessing As bioavailability in soil as a means to improve human exposure estimates and potentially reduce remediation costs.Methods: Nine soils from residential sites affected by mining or smelting activity and two National Institute of Standards and Technology standard reference materials were evaluated for As bioavailability, bioaccessibility, and speciation. Arsenic bioavailability was determined using an in vivo mouse model, and As bioaccessibility was determined using the Solubility/Bioavailability Research Consortium in vitro assay. Arsenic speciation in soil and selected soil physicochemical properties were also evaluated to determine whether these parameters could be used as predictors of As bioavailability and bioaccessibility.Results: In the mouse assay, we compared bioavailabilities of As in soils with that for sodium arsenate. Relative bioavailabilities (RBAs) of soil As ranged from 11% to 53% (mean, 33%). In vitro soil As bioaccessibility values were strongly correlated with soil As RBAs (R2 = 0.92). Among physicochemical properties, combined concentrations of iron and aluminum accounted for 80% and 62% of the variability in estimates of RBA and bioaccessibility, respectively.Conclusion: The multifaceted approach described here yielded congruent estimates of As bioavailability and evidence of interrelations among physicochemical properties and bioavailability estimates.

No abstract

Chronic exposure of children to lead can result in permanent physiological impairment. In adults, it can cause irritability, poor muscle coordination, and nerve damage to the sense organs and nerves controlling the body. Surfaces coated with lead-containing paints are potential sources of exposure to lead. In April 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized new requirements that would reduce exposure to lead hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities, which disturb lead-based paint. On-site, inexpensive identification of lead-based paint is required. Two steps have been taken to meet this challenge. First, this paper presents a new, highly efficient method for paint collection that is based on the use of a modified wood drill bit. Second, this paper presents a novel, one-step approach for quantitatively grinding and extracting lead from paint samples for subsequent lead determination. This latter method is based on the use of a high-revolutions per minute rotor with stator to break up the paint into approximately 50 micron-size particles. Nitric acid (25%, v/v) is used to extract the lead in <3 minutes. Recoveries are consistently >95% for real-world paints, National Institute of Standards and Technology's standard reference materials, and audit samples from the American Industrial Hygiene Association's Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing Program. This quantitative extraction procedure, when paired with quantitative paint sample collection and lead determination, may enable the development of a lead paint test kit that will meet the specifications of the final EPA rule.

Community-based programs for assessing and mitigating environmental risks represent a challenge to participants because each brings a different level of understanding of the issues affecting the community. These programs often require the collaboration of several community sectors, such as community leaders, local governments and researchers. Once the primary concerns, community vulnerabilities and assets are identified, participants plan on how to address immediate actions, rank known risks, collect information to support decision making, set priorities and determine an evaluation process to assess the success of the actions taken. The evaluation process allows the community to develop new action plans based on the results obtained from earlier actions. Tracking the success of the community actions may be as simple as a visual/tangible result (e.g., cleaning a park) or as complex as the collection of specific measurements to track the reduction of toxic pollutants or to determine the presence of a specific contaminant. Recognizing that communities may need to perform measurements to meet their goals, this paper provides an overview of the available measurement methods for several chemicals and biologicals in relevant environmental samples to a community setting. The measurement methods are organized into several categories according to their level of complexity, estimated cost and sources. Community project technical advisors are encouraged to examine the objective(s) of the community to be addressed by a measurement collection effort and the level of confidence that needed for the data to make appropriate decisions. The tables provide a starting point for determining which measurement method may be appropriate for specific community needs.