AIMS Environmental Science, 7(2): 208–225.

DOI: 10.3934/environsci.2020013
Received: 20 December 2019
Accepted: 13 April 2020
Published: 24 April 2020
http://www.aimspress.com/journal/environmental

Review

Bioavailability and bioaccessibility in soil: a short review and a case

study

Gianniantonio Petruzzelli*, Francesca Pedron and Irene Rosellini

Institute of Research on Terrestrial Ecosystem, National Council of Research, Via Moruzzi 1, 56124
Pisa, Italy

* Correspondence: Email: gianniantonio.petruzzelli@cnr.it; Tel: +390506212489; Fax:

+390506212473.

Abstract: In industrialized countries, there is a growing concern about the possible negative effects on
human health induced by high levels of heavy metals in soil. It is recognized that high levels of heavy
metals are not necessarily indicative of the adverse effects. These effects are related to bioavailable
fractions, which are involved in plant uptake and transfer to the food chain. Bioavailability is a
complex issue that is essential to evaluate to determine if heavy metals present in soil may pose
hazards to humans and the environment. In the case of direct ingestion of soil, it is essential to consider
also bioaccessibility. Bioavailability and bioaccessibility are related to several soil processes and may
be largely determined by soil characteristics. This review deals with the influence of soil properties on
metal bioavailability and bioaccessibility. A case study on bioavailability and bioaccessibility of heavy
metals is reported, considering a large uncontaminated area influenced by deposition from a cement
plant.

Keywords: soil characteristics; soil bioavailability; soil bioaccessibility; heavy metals; soil use

1. Introduction

In industrialized countries the relationship between the soil and health is a central issue which
requires appropriate tools in order to transfer the scientific knowledge into intervention
 209

strategies [1,2]. Evaluating whether, and to what extent, soil contamination causes significant risks to
human health is key in formulating strategies for reducing the negative health impact of soil
contamination. The appropriate strategy depends on the specific characteristics of the pollutants and
the soils.
The exposure scenarios that link the quality of the soil to health vary in complexity. A relatively
simple scenario is that of sites polluted by contaminants whose environmental presence and specific
health effects have been ascertained. In these cases, a risk assessment procedure leads to
implementation of environmental remediation interventions, while an epidemiological and health
surveillance quantifies the effectiveness of the adopted reclamation procedures. More complex
scenarios are typically found in areas characterized by agricultural, urban and natural soils, in presence
of productive activities where, even if the soil is uncontaminated, heavy metals may be present. Heavy
metals may derive from different sources, such as traffic, fertilizers, urban and industrial wastes, etc,
and may also involve the food chain due to the transfer from soil to plant.
Soil is a very complex three-phase system characterized by a significant number of processes and
reactions (distribution between phases, desorption-adsorption, degradation, etc.), which give it a high
spatial and temporal variability. The three phases of the soil: solid, liquid and gaseous, are
accompanied by a fourth very important phase, the living phase. In fact, one gram of soil contains on
average of 10 billion organisms, which drastically influence many of the processes that take place in
the soil environment. This complex system is the primary source of the elements and substances that
humans absorbs through their diet. In fact, most of the food is produced in the soil: plants uptake the
substances from the soil and transfer them to the food chain. The elements absorbed by plants are
ingested directly in the consumption of plants, or indirectly through meat, milk, etc.
Human health is largely determined by the quality of nutrition and therefore by the absorption of
substances whose primary source is the soil. Soil quality is thus key for human health and the study of
soil processes that determine the fate of contaminants in soil enables their potential adverse effects on
human health to be estimated [3,4].
Understanding the mechanisms that link soil quality and human health involves identifying the
bioavailability processes that regulate the transfer of substances from the soil to humans through the
food chain and other exposure pathways.

2. Bioavailability processes in soil

In the soil, bioavailability is the result of a series of complex mass transfer and sorption processes
which are determined by the properties of the substances, the soil characteristics, and the biology of the
organisms involved [5,6]. To account for this complexity, a set of interactions need to be considered,
which are characterized by different aspects and different temporal phases, and which determine the
exposure of an organism to a chemical substance present in the soil (Figure 1).
The first of these processes (Step A) is the passage of an element from the solid phase in which it
is essentially unavailable for any environmental process, to the liquid phase, in which every element is
potentially available for most of the organisms that live in or on the soil. When a contaminant reaches
the soil, the bond with the solid phase can occur through adsorption processes both in the mineral
matrix (clays, oxides, hydroxides) and the organic matrix (humic substances). Depending on the

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 210

contaminant properties and the specific soil conditions, the contaminants are retained by the surfaces
of the soil with bonds of a different nature and strength [7].

Figure 1. Bioavailability processes as indicated by NRC 2002 [5].

Contaminant are released from the soil surfaces in the liquid phase in response to changes in the
chemical environment of the soil solution. Once released into the liquid phase, a contaminant can
move freely to a living organism as a result of transport processes (diffusion, dispersion, etc.), which
bring it into contact with the organism membrane (Step B). The same mechanisms can also transport
substances that are bound to solid particles of very small dimensions, such as those of a colloidal
nature (Step C). During the transport phase, the contaminants may be subjected to further reactions
(oxidation-reduction, hydrolysis, photolysis, degradation, etc.) which can modify both their toxicity
and bioavailability.
After a contaminant enters a living system (Step D), the influence of the soil on the bioavailability
processes continues to be important only in the case of direct ingestion of soil. For this last pathway
(Step E), it is essential to consider a further parameter: bioaccessibility. Bioaccessibility measures the
fraction of the total contaminant present that is solubilized in the stomach and becomes available to be
absorbed in the intestine [8]. Bioaccessibility takes into account additional contamination pathways to
those deriving from the soil-plant-food chain. These contamination routes are the direct ingestion of
soil (e.g., hand-to-mouth in children), skin contact, and the inhalation of soil particles.
When evaluating human health risks associated with contaminated soils, it is necessary to
consider the exposure pathway soil ingestion especially by children. When soil contamination levels
are high, the direct ingestion of soil is often the route of exposure that creates the greatest health
risks [9]. After the contaminated soil has been ingested, the digestive processes may release the
contaminants from the soil itself. This process starts in the oral cavity and continues into the stomach
where the pH is low (1–4). In the intestine, the pH returns to neutrality when the absorption of
contaminants is greatest, given the high surface area of microvilli (approximately 200 m2 for
adults) [10].
Ingestion via hand-to-mouth has been estimated as a mean of 50–200 mg soil/day [11,12], thus
the bioaccessibility of contaminants in soil is a very important factor to consider. Because
bioaccessibility is determined by the release of contaminants from the solid phase of ingested soil, an

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 211

evaluation of the influence of soil properties on the bioaccessibility is essential in order to accurately
evaluate the health risk posed by contaminants. Bioavailability and bioaccessibility are related to the
characteristics of soil and contaminants, but identify different routes of exposure.
The size and nature of the effects of a contaminant are determined not only by the concentration
but also by the chemical species, which interacts with an organism [7]. To understand how the specific
characteristics of each soil influence the potential transfer of contaminants to humans by the
bioavailability and bioaccessibility processes, let us take the example of heavy metals, considering the
parameters that determine the release from the solid phase and their chemistry in the soil solution.
Heavy metals are the most persistent elements in the soil, and their negative effects on human health
are well known [13–16]. Metals that are bioaccumulated in plants or animals become available to the
higher organisms that feed on them. Depending on the degree of bioaccumulation in each organism,
the final receptors may be exposed to higher concentrations than those found in the soils from which
the contaminant originates (biomagnification) [17]. If the plant is the fundamental step in the passage
of a contaminant from the soil to a human, any substance, to be absorbed by the root system, must be
dissolved in the liquid phase. In bioavailability processes, this fundamental step, from the solid phase
to the soil solution, is governed by the specific characteristics of the soil.

3. The influence of soil characteristics on contaminant bioavailability/bioaccessibility

The fate and transport of pollutants in soil, is determined by complex processes due to the fact that
soil is a dynamic system characterized by a very high heterogeneity. Heavy metals in soils are present
in different pools [3]:
• In soil solution as simple or complex soluble ions;
• Adsorbed on mineral particles in exchangeable forms;
• Adsorbed or complexed by organic matter;
• Occluded or precipitated with oxides, carbonates and phosphates, or other secondary minerals;
• Included in the crystal lattice of hydroxides, clay minerals.
The first three pools are considered as the most important to release available forms of heavy
metals for plants, while the remaining pools are characterized by metals with decreasing availability.
Soil characteristics (pH, organic matter, texture etc.), as well as the intrinsic properties of each
element, determine the distribution in the different pools, which in itself is related to the sorption and
release process in soil. The fate and behaviour of heavy metals in soil are determined by these
retention/release processes, which regulate the concentration of heavy metals in the soil solution and
thus their bioavailability. The sorption/desorption reactions strictly depend on the specific
characteristics of the soil. Therefore, knowledge of soil characteristics is crucial to assess the mobility
and the concentration of metals in soil solution, and thus their bioavailability for plants and humans.

3.1. pH

The nature of the mineralogical substrate from which the soil originated determines the soil pH,
and this is the most important parameter that governs the concentration of inorganic elements in the
soil solution [18,19]. The solubility of most metals tends to decrease as the pH increases, however,

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 212

there are some important contaminants such as arsenic and chromium, which behave inversely. The
pH also regulates the specific adsorption and complexation processes. The adsorption of the metals is
often proportional to the pH due to competition of the H+ ions for the same adsorption sites on the
surfaces of the soil [6].

3.2. Clays

Clays, which are primary constituents of the soil, retain the metals through ion exchange reactions
or specific adsorption by interacting with metals by hydroxyl ions to which the metals are bonded, or
by the formation of bonds directly with metals and the displacement of a proton [20]. Depending on the
type of clays, there are considerable differences in adsorptive capacities. Adsorption and retention
processes are higher in expandable clays in which adsorption takes place in the interlayer spaces. The
importance of the soil texture on the distribution of contaminants between the phases has a direct
impact on the bioavailability, which is always higher in soils of sandy nature [6].

3.3. Organic matter

Complex chemical forms characterize the organic matter in the soil; which is of great importance
for bioavailability, due to the tendency of humic substances to form complexes with metals and to act
as adsorbent matter [21]. The complexes formed with the substances with the lower molecular weight
(fulvic acids) are soluble, and tend to increase the metal content in the soil solution. Conversely, higher
molecular weight humic acids form very stable complexes with metals, removing them from all
environmental processes and reducing their bioavailability. Carboxylic and amine phenolic functional
groups are essential in the retention of metals by humic substances, and the increase of these functional
groups during humification increases the stability of the complexes over time, thus reducing the
bioavailability of metals [22].

3.4. Cation exchange capacity

The cation exchange capacity expresses the charge density on the surfaces of the soil colloids. It
is determined by the organic substances and by the quantity and type of clays. The negative charges on
the surfaces of the solid phase of the soil can be permanent or may depend on the pH. Thus, ions with
a positive charge in the soil solution can be bound to the surfaces by weak electrostatic bonds, which
thus decreases their bioavailability [6].

3.5. Redox potential

Many oxidation-reduction reactions occur in the soil, which are controlled by the activity of free
electrons in solution expressed as the redox potential (Eh) that is a measure of the electron availability
in the soil environment. High levels of Eh are characteristic of dry and well-ventilated soils, while soils
that are submerged or particularly rich in organic substances tend to have low Eh values [23]. Soils that
are rich in organic substances tend to promote the solubilization of iron oxi-hydroxides, and a

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 213

consequent greater bioavailability of some contaminants such as arsenic anions, which are released
from the surfaces of the hydroxides. This effect can however be counterbalanced by the formation of
heavy metal sulfites, which are characteristic of soils in anaerobic conditions [24].

3.6. Oxides and hydroxides

The hydrated oxides of iron aluminium and manganese can reduce the metal concentrations in the
soil solution both by specific adsorption and precipitation reactions. Metal ions can also enter the
oxides, within the structure of the mineral lattice or in micro pores, after being superficially adsorbed.
The specific adsorption of metals by oxides drastically reduces their bioavailability [25].

3.7. Time

Time governs the interactions between the solid phase of the soil and the contaminants. Over
time, a contaminant is subject to transformations that lead it to be more strongly retained by the solid
phase and thus less available for environmental processes [26]. This aspect is particularly important for
organic compounds, but also involves inorganic compounds, which decrease in the soil over time, in
bioavailable forms.

3.8. Measuring bioavailability/ bioaccessibility

The concept of bioavailability has long been used in soil science, for example to define the
quantity of an element (N, P, K, etc.) that is available for plant nutrition, which often represents the
basis for deciding the amount of fertilizer to be used.
This concept is not immediately utilizable in environmental studies where it is necessary to
understand the pollution mechanisms in order to define both the risks that derive from pollution and
the possible measures to eliminate it. Bioavailability is determined by a complex series of different
processes, involving chemistry, biology and ecotoxicology [27].
To evaluate bioavailability from a chemical point of view, it is essential to determine the quantity
of metals present in the soil solution and/or the most easily releasable from the solid phase. This is
done by either the direct analysis of the soil solution or using tests with mild extractants (water or
solutions of alkaline salts) which provide a good indication of the potential bioavailable metals present
in a soluble form in the liquid phase of the soil [28,29].
When focusing on the relationship between soil and human health in addition to the bioavailable
fraction, it is also essential to consider bioaccessibility. Ignoring any semantic issues [30], the
bioaccessible fraction can be considered as the maximum amount of contaminants available for human
absorption. The effective health risks from contaminants in ingested soil are strongly determined by
the amount soluble in the gastrointestinal tract and thus available for absorption [31,32]. To determine
the bioaccessibility, several methods are commonly used in soil chemistry that take into account the
problems previously described for the determination of bioavailability. Some methods involve
sequential extractions in order to assess the processes that occur in the gastrointestinal tract [33–35],

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 214

while other tests are based on the reproduction of acid pH conditions to simulate the gastric
environment [36].
The use of several chemical, biological, and toxicological methods must be combined with an
in-depth knowledge of the specific characteristics of the soil, which enables the most important
contaminants-involving processes to be identified.
Both bioavailability and bioaccessibility are highly dependent on the specific soil and the specific
receptor, thus the results obtained by different methods are affected by a significant component of
natural variability deriving from soil heterogeneity.

4. A case study

In this case study, the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), lead
(Pb), zinc (Zn), and nickel (Ni) were investigated in a large area affected by deposition from a cement
plant. This area is located in northern Italy (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Map of the sampling sites in the investigated area. In yellow the sampling points
and in red the cement plant.

4.1. Materials and methods

4.1.1. Soil sampling

The cement plant in this area is considered the possible source of heavy metals. The best soil
sampling strategy in cases of a possible point source contamination is to consider theoretical circles at
increasing distances from the cement plant [37–39]. The soil samples were taken approximatively in

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 215

five circles at a distance of 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 km from the cement factory (1C, 2C, 3C, 5C and 7C) also
taking into account the main wind directions. A total of 27 georeferenced soil samples (Figure 2) were
taken. The samples were collected at a depth of 0–3 cm. This depth has been selected to evaluate any
atmospheric emission from the cement plant [37–39]. Background values of studied metals were
considered by collecting soil in the same places at a depth of 1 m, where it was assumed that there was
no influence of anthropogenic activities. According to the land use, soils have been subdivided in
agricultural (A), where agricultural activity was underway, natural (N) in the presence of
non-cultivated wild grassland or wooded areas, and urban (U) within the urban residential areas.

4.1.2. Soil analysis

Soils samples were air-dried and then ground to pass through a 2 mm sieve. Standard methods of
soil analysis [40] were followed to determine texture, pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and organic
matter. To quantify the total concentrations of chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and
zinc (Zn), the EPA method 3051a was used. Each sample of mineralized soil was collected
quantitatively in 25 mL bottles and filtered before the analysis using atomic absorption spectroscopy
(Varian AA240FS). To determine the bioaccessibility, a simulated gastric fluid [36] was prepared by
adding 30 mL of concentrated HCl to 1 L of 0.4 M of glycine solution, and adjusting the final pH of the
solution to 1.5. The solution (100 mL) was added to 1 g of soil and then stirred at 37 °C for 1 hour,
centrifuged at 15,000 rpm and filtered to 0.45 mm before analysis [31]. The potential bioavailability of
heavy metals was determined by mean of extraction with a 0.1 M solution of CaCl2 with a soil / extract
ratio of 1:10 and a stirring period of three hours [6,41].

4.1.3. Quality assurance and quality control

Quality assurance and control were performed by testing a standard solution every 10 samples.
Certified reference materials BCR 141, BCR 142, BCR 143 were used to control the quality of the
analytical system. The values obtained from the certified references were always in good agreement
with the certified values. The recovery of spiked samples (5%) ranged from 95% to 101%, with an
RDS of 1.90% of the mean.

4.1.4. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using STATISTICA version 6.0 (Statsoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK,
USA). The concentrations of heavy metals in soils at increasing distance from the cement plant were
analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Differences among means were compared
and a post-hoc analysis of variance was performed using the Tukey Honestly Significant Difference
test (P < 0.05). The effects of soil properties on metal bioavailability and bioaccessibility was
evaluated by multiple linear regressions. Regression models were performed by stepwise selection
with a significance level of P < 0.05 for variables to remain in the predictive equations.

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 216

4.2. Results and discussion

4.2.1. Soils characteristics

Soils were mainly sandy with a mean value of 83.6% in a range from 72.3 to 91.9%. Clay content
ranged from 1.62 to 14.6% with a mean value of 5.25%. Silt content ranged from 4.35 to 21.4% with a
mean value of 11.1%. Soils were characterized by a pH mean value of 6.2, an average organic matter
content 7.8% and a mean CEC value of 27.1 cmol(+) kg−1.
The heavy metals values were within the limits of non-contaminated Italian soils [42] and also the
contamination factor calculated by the equation CF = [Mtot]/[Mbackground] was negligible [43]. The
bioaccessibility and bioavailability metal values were examined in relation to both the distance from
the cement plant and the use of the soil. Three different soil uses were considered (natural, agricultural,
urban). The bioavailability and bioaccessibility were reported for only Pb, Cu, Zn and Ni, since the
concentration values of Cr in both the bioavailable and bioaccessible fractions were below the
detection limit of all soil samples. Heavy metals concentrations in plants of the investigated area were
negligible often below the detection limit (data not reported), thus it was impossible to correlate them
with bioavailable concentrations of metals determined by chemical extraction.

4.2.2. Distance from the cement plant

Total heavy metal content of soil samples collected at increasing distance from the cement plant is
reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Total concentration of heavy metals (mg kg−1) in soil samples grouped by
distance from cement plant. Data are expressed as mean values of concentration ± standard
deviation of all sampling points on each circle

Distance from cement plant Cu Zn Ni Pb

1C 26.5 ± 3.9 81.5 ± 9.5 15.1 ± 2.0 35.4 ± 4.8
2C 22.6 ± 3.8 70.4 ± 7.2 18.2 ± 2.6 36.2 ± 3.4
3C 26.2 ± 3.3 79.8 ± 7.7 14.7 ± 3.4 41.9 ± 3.7
5C 26.3 ± 4.5 71.0 ± 6.2 19.9 ± 4.4 40.4 ± 5.2
7C 28.9 ± 4.7 80.8 ± 7.6 18.1 ± 2.6 37.7 ± 3.7

These results show that for these metals, there were no statistically significant differences
between the concentration values in the circles at increasing distance from the cement plant
considering the cement plant as the main point source of metal emission, The metal concentrations are
within the range of Italian uncontaminated soils, largely below the levels that define soil pollution
according to Italian legislation [42].
The trend of bioavailable (Bav) and bioaccessibile (Bac) fractions at different distances from the
cement plant are reported in Figure 3.
For all the metals, the bioavailable fraction showed a trend with no significant differences among
the five circles, which thus suggests that the distance from the cement plant did not affect the

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 217

bioavailability of the metals. The bioavailable quantities of Cu ranged from about 1 mg kg−1 to about
1.8 mg kg−1, which was on average around 15% of the total content. Bioavailable Pb varied from about
2.5 mg kg−1 to 4.3 mg kg−1 and around 12% of the total. Bioavailable Ni accounted for 20% of the total
content, ranging from about 2.5 mg kg−1 to 3.9 mg kg−1. The amount of bioavailable Zn varied from
about 7.6 mg kg−1 to 12.5 mg kg−1 and about 21% of total soil content.

Figure 3. Metal bioavailable (Bav) and bioaccessible (Bac) at increasing distance from the
cement plant.

Concerning the metals in the bioaccessible form; the Zn concentrations were significantly higher
in circles 1 C and 3 C (around 35 mg kg−1) compared to other circles and also the Pb concentration was
highest in circle 3C, with values of about 20 mg kg−1. The Ni and Cu bioaccessible concentrations were
similar, around 5 mg kg−1 with a slight, but not significant increase in circles 1 C and 3 C.
Although it is difficult to attribute this trend to the influence of the cement plant with certainty,
the different pattern in heavy metals bioavailability and bioaccessibility in the soils of the study area
needs highlighting. In general, no correlation was detected between the concentration of metals
extracted with glycine (bioaccessible) and the concentrations derived from the extraction with CaCl2
(bioavailable). A similar lack of correlation has also been reported by Luo et al. 2012 [9]. One
explanation may lie in the different actions of the two extractants: extraction with CaCl2 induces an ion
exchange reaction, while glycine decreases soil pH, which in turn promotes the solubilization of the
metals.

4.2.3. Land use

Bioavailability and bioaccessibility were also examined in relation to the different land uses:
agricultural (A), urban (U) and natural (N) (Figure 4).

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 218

Figure 4. Bioavailability and bioaccessibility value in relation to the different land uses.

The mean values of the bioavailable forms were very low with respect to total heavy metals
content and differences related to the use of soil were not statistically significant.
Cu extractability was around a value of 1.30 mg kg−1. Ni concentrations were around
3.20 mg kg−1 in all the three kind of soils considered (agricultural, natural and urban). The same trend
occurred for Pb, with a mean value of 3.40 mg kg−1 from agricultural, natural and urban soils. Also for
Zn, the maximum bioavailability value (around 11.0 mg kg−1) was found in agricultural and natural
soils, and the minimum value (8.66 mg kg−1) in an urban soil.
The use of the soil did not significantly influence metal bioaccessibility. In fact, mean Cu and Ni
concentrations in the glycine extracts were around 4.5 mg kg−1. Pb varied from about 14 mg kg−1 to
18 mg kg−1 and Zn from 22 to 30 mg kg−1.
Although the differences were not statistically significant, generally the highest bioavailability of
metals was found in natural soils, while the bioaccessibility values were higher in urban and
agricultural soils.
Interactions of the contaminants with the soil constituents can greatly affect the metal availability
in environmental processes. The metal distribution among the solid and liquid phases determines the
quantities, which can have immediate adverse effects [44,45]. The amount of metals in mobile form in
the soil solution is related to the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil [7,46]. We therefore
assessed the bioavailability and bioaccessibility data in relation to the main properties of the soil, i.e.
pH, organic matter, sand and clay content, C.E.C, and total metal content. Data obtained by multiple
regression linear analysis are reported in Table 2.

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 219

Table 2. Effect of soil characteristics on bioavailability of metals (M-Bav) and

bioaccessibility of metals (M-Bac). OM indicates organic matter.

Equation R2
Cu-Bav = 8.18 − 1.09 pH − 0.0016 Clay − 0.0074 OM% 0.9205
Ni-Bav = 14.3 − 1.75 pH + 0.0040 Clay − 0.025 OM% 0.8651
Pb-Bav = 16.9 − 2.13 pH − 0.010 Clay − 0.020 OM% 0.8769
Zn-Bav = 55.6 − 7.12 pH + 0.041 Clay − 0.17 OM% 0.9606
Cu-Bac = − 8.53 + 2.40 pH + 0.050 Clay − 0.23 OM% 0.3032
Ni-Bac = − 3.20 + 0.74 pH + 0.030 Clay + 0.38 OM% 0.1207
Pb-Bac = − 7.91 + 3.63 pH + 0.014 Clay + 0.16 OM% 0.1055
Zn-Bac = − 43.4 + 13.8 pH − 1.01 Clay − 1.29 OM% 0.4289

Positive terms in the equation indicate a direct proportionality between the soil property and
bioavailability or bioaccessibility while negative terms indicate inverse proportionality. Validation of
the correlation model was obtained by the value of R2 [47,48]. Results show that the obtained
equations accurately described the effect of soil properties on metal bioavailability, with values of R2
ranging from 0.8651 to 0.9606. While there is no correlation among soil properties and metals
bioaccessibility as depicted by the lower values of R2 from 0.1055 to 0.4289.

Figure 5. Correlation between Pb total content in soil (Pb-Tot) and CaCl2-extractable Pb

(bioavailable) or glycine-extractable Pb (bioaccessible).

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 220

This difference between the bioavailable and bioaccessible fractions is also found in relation to
the total concentration of heavy metals in the soils. A poor correlation (R2 = 0.1) was found between
the CaCl2-extractable heavy metals (bioavailable fraction) and the total metal concentration. On the
other hand, the amount of glycine-extractable heavy metals (bioaccessible fraction) was significantly
related (R2 > 0.6) to the total metal content in the soil, especially in the case of Pb. As an example, data
of Pb with the R2 values are reported in Figure 5.
The interest in developing ecological surveys on soil contamination has recently increased
together with the awareness on the effects of soil properties on metal bioavailability and
bioaccessibility in relation to human health. A significant direct risk to human health in fact may also
result from the inhalation of soil dust, soil ingestion and dermal contact [49,50]. Oral ingestion is often
the critical pathway of exposure for children [51], and the health risks depend on the bioaccessible
fraction, which often, but not always, does not depend on the characteristics of the soil. This approach
is particularly important in an area characterized by different soil uses, which make it necessary to
characterize the health risks considering all the possible pathways: food chain, soil ingestion,
inhalation, and dermal contact.
Research on bioaccessibility has focused on contaminated sites [10,52,53], however, unpolluted
soils should also be taken into account where aerial deposition can contribute to enriching the metal
content of surface soils.
In contrast to agricultural soils where human health is influenced through metals in the food
chain, soils in urban and natural areas may be used as recreational parks, thus hand-to-mouth ingestion
is a critical pathway of exposure, especially for children [8,9,51] and therefore it is essential to evaluate
the risk levels deriving from oral exposure. By assuming a soil ingestion dose of 100 mg day−1 for
healthy (normal) children, and 10 g day−1 for children who deliberately eat soil (soil-pica
behaviour) [54], results from this case study showed that in general no risks were found from the
bioaccessible fraction of heavy metals in soils. However, the bioaccessible concentration of lead may
pose some risks in the case of children with pica behavior. In this case the results from the
bioaccessibility test showed a mean value of 158 μg day−1 of ingested Pb which is higher than the
tolerable daily intake (TDI): 36 μg day−1 considered as safe for humans.
Pica behaviour is not common in industrialized countries, however in the developed world, it is
the most common eating disorder observed in individuals with developmental disabilities [55,56] and
thus should not be underestimated. The results reported in this case study should be considered as a
part of a monitoring strategy to evaluate the effects of soil quality on human health, which should also
take into account the health risks from multi-elemental exposure.

5. Conclusions

Bioavailability and bioaccessibility are complex issues that need to be assessed to evaluate
whether or not there may be adverse effects for human health. Knowledge of these parameters can help
in refining risk assessments and offer effective decision-support for managing land where humans are
exposed to contaminants.
Although there is still a great variability in the determination of bioavailable and bioaccessible
fractions, an assessment of the real risks for humans and the environment must be based on these

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 221

parameters and not on the total metal concentration. Relationships between contaminant
bioaccessibility, bioavailability and soil properties can further clarify the chemical and biological
processes of metals also in non-contaminated soils.
The results highlight the need to incorporate physical and chemical parameters in predictive
models, which relate heavy metals in soils to human health. The assessment of bioavailability and
bioaccessibility in a monitoring strategy should include the variations in these parameters over time
due to modifications in some soil parameters or land use. Despite the difficulty of bringing together
knowledge from different multidisciplinary skills, which often speak different languages, a more
extensive exploration of the relationship between the soil and health is now essential. This is especially
the case in today's society, which is characterized by profound imbalances, in which for example,
industrialized areas are subjected to pollution caused by excess metals, and areas where a lack of the
same elements in the soil leads to irreversible damage to health. Exposure, dose and effects are not
independent parameters, but represent successive phases of a continuum, which links the soil to human
health through bioavailability processes including bioaccessibility.

Acknowledgments

This research received no external funding. This study was supported by the Italian National
Research Council CNR.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Oliver MA, Gregory PJ (2015) Soil, food security and human health: a review. Eur J Soil Sci 66:
257–276.
2. Zhao FJ (2018) Soil and human health. Eur J Soil Sci 69: 158.
3. Petruzzelli G, Gorini F, Pezzarossa B, et al. (2010) The fate of pollutants in soil. CNR
Environment and Health Inter-departmental Project, 1–25.
4. McLaren L, Hawe P (2005) Ecological perspectives in health research. J Epidemiol Community
Health 59: 6–14.
5. NRC National Research Council. Bioavailability of contaminants in soils and sediments:
processes, tools and applications; National Academies: Washington, DC, 2002.
6. Petruzzelli G, Pedron F, Rosellini I, et al. (2015) The Bioavailability Processes as a Key to
Evaluate Phytoremediation Efficiency, In: Ansari, A.A., Gill, S.S., Gill, S., Lanza, G.R.,
Newman, L. Editors, Phytoremediation: Management of Environmental Contaminants,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 1: 31–43.
7. Petruzzelli G, Pedron F, Rosellini I, et al. (2013) Phytoremediation towards the future: focus on
bioavailable contam+inants, In: Gupta, D.K. Editor, Plant-based remediation processes. Soil
biology, Berlin: Springer, 35: 273–289.

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 222

8. Guney M, Zagury GJ, Dogan N, et al. (2010) Exposure assessment and risk characterization from
trace elements following soil ingestion by children exposed to playgrounds, parks and picnic
areas. J Hazard Mater 182: 656–664.
9. Luo XS, Ding J, Xu B, et al. (2012) Incorporating bioaccessibility into human health risk
assessments of heavy metals in urban park soils. Sci Total Environ 424: 88–96.
10. Ng JC, Juhasz A, Smith E, et al. (2015) Assessing the bioavailability and bioaccessibility of
metals and metalloids. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22: 8802–8825.
11. Wilson R, Mitchell I, Richardson GM (2016) Estimation of dust ingestion rates in units of surface
area per day using a mechanistic hand-to-mouth model. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 22: 874–881.
12. Van Wijnen JH, Clausing P, Brunekreef B (1990) Estimated soil ingestion by children. Environ
Res 51: 147–162.
13. Abrahams PW (2002) Soils: their implications to human health. Sci Total Environ 219: 1–32.
14. Plumlee GS, Morman SA, Zeigler TL (2006) The toxicological geochemistry of earth materials:
An overview of processes and the interdisciplinary methods used to understand them, In: Sahai,
N., Schoonen, M.A.A. Editors, Medical Mineralogy and Geochemistry Reviews in Mineralogy
and Geochemistry, Washington DC: Mineralogical Society of America. 64: 5–57.
15. Plumlee GS, Ziegler TL (2007) The medical geochemistry of dusts, soils, and other earth
materials, In: Lollar BS, Holland HD, Turekian, KK. Editors, Treatise on Geochemistry, Oxford:
Elsevier. 9: 1–61.
16. Selinus O, Alloway B, Centeno J, et al. (2005) Essentials of Medical Geology: Impacts of the
Natural Environment on Public Health, London, UK: Elsevier Academic Press.
17. Purakayastha TJ, Chhonkar PK (2010) Phytoremediation of Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils, In:
Sherameti, I, Varma, A. Editors, Soil Heavy Metals, Soil Biology, Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag. 389-429.
18. Li YM, Chaney R, Brewer E, et al. (2003) Development of a technology for commercial
phytoextraction of nickel: economic and technical considerations. Plant Soil 249: 107–115.
19. Chaney RL, Angle JS, McIntosh MS, et al. (2005) Using hyperaccumulator plants to phytoextract
soil Ni and Cd. Z Naturforsch C 60: 190–198.
20. Abdullah S, Sarem SM (2010) The potential of Chrysanthemum and Pelargonium for
phytoextraction of lead-contaminated soils. J Civ Eng 4: 409–416.
21. Pezzarossa B, Petruzzelli G (2001) Selenium contamination in soil: sorption and desorption
processes, In: Selim, M.H., Sparks, D.L. Editors, Heavy metals release in soils, Boca Raton, CRC
Press, 197–212.
22. Wang Q, Li Z, Cheng S, et al. (2010) Effects of humic acids on phytoextraction of Cu and Cd
from sediment by Elodea nuttallii. Chemosphere 78: 604–608.
23. Evans LJ (1989) Chemistry of metal retention by soils. Environ Sci Technol, 23: 1046–1056.
24. Cherlatchka R, Cambier P (2000) Influence of reducing conditions on solubility of trace metals in
contaminated soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 118: 143–167.
25. Fitz WJ, Wenzel WW (2002) Arsenic transformations in the soil-rhizosphere-plant system:
fundamentals and potential application to phytoremediation. J Biotechnol 99: 259–278.
26. Alexander M (2000) Aging, bioavailability, and overestimation of risk from environmental
pollutants. Environ Sci Technol 34: 4259–4265.

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 223

27. Harmsen JW, Rulkens W, Eijsakers H (2005) Bioavailability: concept for understanding or tool to
predicting. Land Cont Recl 13: 161–171.
28. Petruzzelli G, Pedron F (2006) Bioavailability at heavy metal contaminated sites: a tool to select
remediation strategies, In: Proceedings of the International conference on the remediation of
polluted sites (BOSICON), Rome, Italy. 1–8.
29. Harmsen J (2007) Measuring bioavailability: from a scientific approach to standard methods. J
Environ Qual 36: 1420–1428.
30. Semple KT, Doick KJ, Wick LY (2007) Microbial interactions with organic contaminants in soil:
definitions, processes and measurement. Environ Pollut 150: 166–176.
31. USEPA (2008), Standard operating procedure for an in vitro bioaccessibility assay for lead in soil.
EPA 9200, US Environmental Protection Agency. 1–86.
32. Hu X, Zhang Y, Luo J, et al. (2011) Bioaccessibility and health risk of arsenic, mercury and other
metals in urban street dusts from a mega-city, Nanjing, China. Environ Pollut 159: 1215–1221.
33. Ruby MV, Davis A, Schoof R, et al. (1996) Estimation of lead and arsenic bioavailability using a
physiologically based extraction test. Environ Sci Technol 30: 422–430.
34. Rodriguez R, Basta N, Casteel SW, et al. (1999) An in vitro gastrointestinal method to estimate
bioavailable arsenic in contaminated soils and solid media. Environ Sci Technol 33: 642–649.
35. Oomen AG, Tolls J, Sips AJAM, et al. (2003) In vitro intestinal lead uptake and transport in
relation to speciation. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 44: 116–124.
36. Drexler JW, Brattin WJ (2007) An in vitro procedure for estimation of lead relative
bioavailability: with validation. Human Ecol Risk Assess 13: 383–401.
37. Isikli B, Demir TA, Ürer SM, et al. (2003) Effects of chromium exposure from a cement factory.
Environ Res 91: 113–118.
38. Schuhmacher M, Domingos JL, Garreta J (2004) Pollutants emitted by a cement plant: health
risks for the population living in the neighbourhood. Environ Res 95: 198–206.
39. Schuhmacher M, Nadal M, Domingo JL (2009) Environmental monitoring of PCDD/Fs and
metals in the vicinity of a cement plant after using sewage sludge as a secondary fuel.
Chemosphere 74: 1502–1508.
40. Sparks DL (1996) Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3-Chemical Method. Madison, USA: Soil
Science Society of America Inc.
41. Takáč P, Szabová T, Kozáková Ľ, et al. (2009) Heavy metals and their bioavailability from soils
in the long-term polluted Central Spiš region of SR. Plant Soil Environ 55: 167–172.
42. Italian Government (2006) Official Gazette No. 88 of the Italian Republic of 14-04-2006.
Ordinary Supplement No. 96 (in Italian). Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Rome.
43. Chandrasekaran A, Ravisankar R, Harikrishnan N, et al. (2015) Multivariate statistical analysis of
heavy metal concentration in soils of Yelagiri Hills, Tamilnadu, India Spectroscopical approach.
Spectrochim. Acta A. 137: 589–600.
44. Nolan AL, McLaughlin MJ, Mason SD (2003) Chemical speciation of Zn, Cd, Cu, and Pb in pore
waters of agricultural and contaminated soils using Donnan dialysis. Environ Sci Technol 37:
90–98.

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.

 224

45. Rasmussen PE, Beauchemin S, Nugent M, et al (2008) Influence of matrix composition on the
bioaccessibility of copper, zinc, and nickel in urban residential dust and soil. Human Ecol Risk
Assess 14: 351–371.
46. Rieuwerts JS (2007) The mobility and bioavailability of trace metals in tropical soils: a review.
Chem Spec Bioavail 19: 75–85.
47. Ayoubi S, Jababri M, Khademi H (2018) Multiple linear modelling between soil properties,
magnetic susceptibility and heavy metals in various land uses. Model Earth Syst Environ 4:
579–589.
48. Zhao Z, Nie T, Yanga Z, et al. (2018) The role of soil components in the sorption of tetracycline
and heavy metals in soils. RSC Adv 8: 32178–32187.
49. Siciliano SD, James K, Zhang GY., et al. (2009) Adhesion and enrichment of metals on human
hands from contaminated soil at an Arctic urban brownfield. Environ Sci Technol 43: 6385–6390.
50. Luo CL, Liu CP, Wang Y, et al. (2011) Heavy metal contamination in soils and vegetables near an
e-waste processing site, south China. J Hazard Mater 186: 481–490.
51. Ljung K, Oomen A, Duits M et al. (2007) Bioaccessibility of metals in urban playground soils. J
Environ Sci Hlth A 42: 1241–1250.
52. Caboche J, Denys S, Feidt C, et al. (2010) Modelling Pb bioaccessibility in soils contaminated by
mining and smelting activities. J Environ Sci Hlth A 45: 1264–1274.
53. Pelfrêne C, Waterlot M, Mazzuca C, et al. (2011) Assessing Cd, Pb, Zn human bioaccessibility in
smelter-contaminated agricultural topsoils (northern France). Environ Geochem Health 33:
477–493.
54. Baars AJ, Theelen RMC, Janssen PJ, et al. (2004) Re-evaluation of human-toxicological
maximum permissibile risk levels. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment (RIVM), Report No. 711701025.
55. Calabrese EJ, Stanek EJ, James RC, et al. (1997) Soil ingestion: A concern for acute toxicity in
children. Environ Health Persp 105: 1354–1358.
56. Ferreri SJ, Tamm L, Wier KG (2006) Using food aversion to decrease severe pica by a child with
autism. Behav Modif 30: 456–471.

© 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access

article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

AIMS Environmental Science Volume 7, Issue 2, 208–225.