2013
DOI: 10.1080/10934529.2013.731817
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Variability of bioaccessibility results using seventeen different methods on a standard reference material, NIST 2710

Abstract: Bioaccessibility is a measurement of a substance's solubility in the human gastro-intestinal system, and is often used in the risk assessment of soils. The present study was designed to determine the variability among laboratories using different methods to measure the bioaccessibility of 24 inorganic contaminants in one standardized soil sample, the standard reference material NIST 2710. Fourteen laboratories used a total of 17 bioaccessibility extraction methods. The variability between methods was assessed … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
59
1
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
6
59
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, these tests are now being used in the UK as part of a 'body of evidence' approach when determining the risks of contaminated land. This low level of adoption has two principle reasons; the lack of validation by animal trials and the wide variability seen both within and between tests (Koch et al, 2013;Oomen et al, 2002) (Supporting information, Table 1). Within this paper we focus on organic pollutants because this chemical class has received less attention than the toxic elements which have been reviewed by the regulatory agencies (Environment Agency, 2005;EPA, 2008) and there is uncertainty on which components of the test are influential.…”
Section: Contents Lists Available At Sciencedirectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these tests are now being used in the UK as part of a 'body of evidence' approach when determining the risks of contaminated land. This low level of adoption has two principle reasons; the lack of validation by animal trials and the wide variability seen both within and between tests (Koch et al, 2013;Oomen et al, 2002) (Supporting information, Table 1). Within this paper we focus on organic pollutants because this chemical class has received less attention than the toxic elements which have been reviewed by the regulatory agencies (Environment Agency, 2005;EPA, 2008) and there is uncertainty on which components of the test are influential.…”
Section: Contents Lists Available At Sciencedirectmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies have been conducted comparing results among one or more soil or reference material samples among multiple versions of in vitro gastro-intestinal bioaccessibility methods (Oomen et al, 2002;Juhasz et al, 2009Juhasz et al, , 2011Wragg et al, 2011;Denys et al, 2012;Koch et al, 2013b;Brattin et al, 2013;Bradham et al, 2011). In several studies, low gastric compartment pH (e.g., 1.5) was consistently found to be related to relatively higher As bioaccessibility values (Oomen et al, 2002;Wragg et al, 2011;Denys et al, 2012).…”
Section: Arsenic Bioavailability In Soil and Dustmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gastric phase pH of 4.0 yielded relatively low bioaccessibility values (Alava et al, 2013a). Within laboratory repeatability across 14 laboratories for 17 different bioaccessibility extraction methods was 10%; reproducibility relative standard deviation (RSD) across laboratories ranged from 22 to 44% for As (Koch et al, 2013b).…”
Section: Arsenic Bioavailability In Soil and Dustmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the limitations of bioaccessibility testing is that methods can vary widely, giving large ranges of percent bioaccessibility values (Koch et al, 2013). Additionally, bioavailability values, often used to "validate" bioaccessibility methods, are not available for the majority of elements (the exceptions are lead, arsenic and cadmium, and only for soil matrices, e.g., Schroder et al, 2004;Juhasz et al, 2009Juhasz et al, , 2010Denys et al, 2012, among others).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%