Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 821

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Advances in Evaluating the Oral Bioavailability of Inorganics in Soil for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment

Ruby, M. V., Schoof, R., Brattin, W., Goldade, M., Post, G., Harnois, M., Mosby, D. E., Casteel, S. W., Berti, W., Carpenter, M., Edwards, D., Cragin, D., Chappell, W.·1999·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Cleanup goals for sites affected by inorganic contaminants often are established on the basis of risk assessments, and these assessments rely on the estimated oral toxicity of the substances of concern. These toxicity estimates typically are based on historical studies in which a soluble salt of the metal was dissolved in water or mixed in food and then ingested by an animal or human. However, these toxicity studies do not account for the characteristics of a metal in soil or the limitations that these characteristics place on enteric absorption of that metal. Therefore, a more accurate risk assessment must account for the bioavailability of the metal in site-specific soil, relative to the bioavailability of the metal in the form administered in the toxicity study (i.e., the relative bioavailability of the element in soil). Historically, relative bioavailability estimates for metals in soil have been based on in vivo studies in laboratory animals. Given the costs and time constraints associated with such studies, it is clear that a more efficient alternative is desirable. The most promising option involves the development and validation of in vitro extraction tests that are predictive of oral metals bioavailability from soil. Such tests would provide a rapid and inexpensive method for developing more accurate exposure estimates for use in human health risk assessments. This paper reviews the site-specific in vivo studies that have been conducted to estimate the relative bioavailability of arsenic and lead in soil, discusses the soil and mineralogical factors that influence the bioavailability of these elements, and reviews the research to date on the development of bioavailability-predictive extraction tests for metals in soil. Finally, this paper outlines an ongoing collaborative research project to formally validate an in vitro extraction test for use in estimating the oral bioavailability of arsenic and lead in soil.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/es990479z

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 821

Metadata

Authors
Ruby, M. V., Schoof, R., Brattin, W., Goldade, M., Post, G., Harnois, M., Mosby, D. E., Casteel, S. W., Berti, W., Carpenter, M., Edwards, D., Cragin, D., & Chappell, W.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
1999-09-23
Volume
33
Issue
21
Pages
3697-3705
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W1984937774
Cited by
821
References
0
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Advances in Evaluating the Oral Bioavailability of Inorganics in Soil for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/es990479z
The paper
Ruby, M. V., Schoof, R., Brattin, W., Goldade, M., Post, G., Harnois, M., Mosby, D. E., Casteel, S. W., Berti, W., Carpenter, M., Edwards, D., Cragin, D., & Chappell, W. (1999). Advances in Evaluating the Oral Bioavailability of Inorganics in Soil for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment. Environmental Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/es990479z

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.