Is there sufficient 'sink' in current bioaccessibility determinations of organic pollutants in soils?

Bioaccessibility tests can be used to improve contaminated land risk assessments. For organic pollutants a ‘sink’ is required within these tests to better mimic their desorption under the physiological conditions prevailing in the intestinal tract, where a steep diffusion gradient for the removal of organic pollutants from the soil matrix would exist. This is currently ignored in most PBET systems. By combining the CEPBET bioaccessibility test with an infinite sink, the removal of PAH from spiked solutions was monitored. Less than 10% of spiked PAH remained in the stomach media after 1 h, 10% by 4 h in the small intestine compartment and c.15% after 16 h in the colon. The addition of the infinite sink increased bioaccessibility estimates for field soils by a factor of 1.2–2.8, confirming its importance for robust PBET tests. TOC or BC were not the only factors controlling desorption of the PAH from the soils.

Towards a unified approach for the determination of the bioaccessibility of organic pollutants

Bioaccessibility studies have been widely used as a research tool to determine the potential human exposure to ingested contaminants. More recently they have been practically applied for soil borne toxic elements. This paper reviews the application of bioaccessibility tests across a range of organic pollutants and contaminated matrices. Important factors are reported to be: the physiological relevance of the test, the components in the gut media, the size fraction chosen for the test and whether it contains a sorptive sink. The bioaccessibility is also a function of the composition of the matrix (e.g. organic carbon content of soils) and the physico-chemical characteristics of the pollutant under test. Despite the widespread use of these tests, there are a large number of formats used and very few validation studies with animal models. We propose a unified format for a bioaccessibility test for organic pollutants. The robustness of this test should first be confirmed through inter laboratory comparison, then tested in-vivo.