Arsenic Relative Bioavailability in Contaminated Soils: Comparison of

Nov 23, 2015 - State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China. ‡...
1 downloads 12 Views 459KB Size
Subscriber access provided by MONASH UNIVERSITY

Article

Arsenic relative bioavailability in contaminated soils: comparison of animal models, dosing schemes and biological endpoints Jie Li, Chao Li, Hong-Jie Sun, Albert L. Juhasz, Jun Luo, Hong-bo Li, and Lena Q. Ma Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b04552 • Publication Date (Web): 23 Nov 2015 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on November 23, 2015

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 26

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Arsenic relative bioavailability in contaminated soils: comparison of

2

animal models, dosing schemes and biological endpoints

3

4

Jie Li,† Chao Li,† Hong-Jie Sun,† Albert L. Juhasz,‡ Jun Luo,† Hong-Bo Li,*,† and Lena Q.

5

Ma*,†,§

6

7

8



9

Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China

State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment,

10



11

Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia

12

§

Centre for Environmental Risk Assessment and Remediation, University of South Australia,

Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

13

14

15

*

16

School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China; Tel./fax: +86 025

17

8968 0637, E-mail: [email protected]

Corresponding author, State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse,

1

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

18

TABLE OF CONTENT

19

20

2

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 2 of 26

Page 3 of 26

Environmental Science & Technology

21

ABSTRACT: Different animals and biomarkers have been used to measure arsenic (As)

22

relative bioavailability (RBA) in contaminated soils. However, there is a lack of As-RBA

23

comparison based on different animals (i.e., swine and mouse) and biomarkers [area under

24

blood As concentration curve (AUC) after a single gavaged-dose vs. steady state As urinary

25

excretion (SSUE) and As accumulation in liver and kidneys after multiple doses via diet]. In

26

this study, As-RBA in 12 As-contaminated soils with known As-RBA via swine blood AUC

27

model were measured using mouse blood AUC, SSUE, liver and kidneys analyses.

28

Arsenic-RBA for the four mouse assays was 2.8–61, 3.6–64, 3.9–74, and 3.4–61%.

29

Compared to swine blood AUC assay (7.0–81%), though well correlated (R2=0.83), the

30

mouse blood AUC assay yielded lower values (2.8–61%). Similarly, strong correlations of

31

AS-RBA were observed between mouse blood AUC and mouse SSUE (R2=0.86) and

32

between urine, liver, and kidneys (R2=0.75–0.89), suggesting As-RBA was congruent among

33

different animals and endpoints. Different animals and biomarkers had little impact on the

34

outcome of in vivo assays to validate in vitro assays. Based on its simplicity, mouse liver or

35

kidney assay following repeated doses of soil-amended diet is recommended for future

36

As-RBA studies.

37

3

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Environmental Science & Technology

38

39

INTRODUCTION Arsenic (As) is ubiquitous in the environment including soils.1 As a carcinogen, it can

40

cause adverse effects to human health including cancer.2 Incidental ingestion of contaminated

41

soil has been identified as an important pathway for human exposure to As. Reliable

42

assessment of human health risk from the ingestion of As-contaminated soil depends not only

43

on total As concentration, but also its bioavailability (i.e., the proportion of soil-borne As that

44

is absorbed into the systemic circulation following ingestion). As such, various animal assays

45

have been developed to quantify As relative bioavailability (RBA, relative to the absorption

46

of sodium arsenate) in contaminated soils.3-7

47

As a measure of As-RBA, different biomarkers (As concentration in blood, kidneys,

48

liver, or urine) have been used to determine As absorption following a single gavaged dose or

49

multiple repeated doses of As-contaminated soil via diet. At present, the majority of As-RBA

50

studies have utilized swine and mouse bioassays, with either area under the blood As

51

concentration time curve (AUC) or steady state As urinary excretion (SSUE) being used as

52

the endpoint of As exposure.5,8,9 Swine shares many similarities with humans (i.e., As and

53

mineral metabolism, and bone development), which is the preferred animal model to assess

54

As-RBA. 10-12 Compared to swine, mouse is cost-effective and easy to handle, and has the

55

potential to be utilized in many labs.6,13-16 In addition, large sample size can be

56

accommodated to ensure the robustness of As-RBA results. However, these animal models

57

differ in physiological parameters, which may influence As absorption from contaminated

58

soil, thereby influencing As-RBA measurement. To date, a dearth of information is available

59

comparing As-RBA derived using different animal models, with only one study comparing

60

As-RBA results from mouse and swine models in 12 As-contaminated soils.17

61

In addition to different animal models, varying feeding schemes have been employed to

62

measure As-RBA in contaminated soil. A steady state dosing approach has been utilized

63

where animals are exposed to As-contaminated soil incorporated into feed for up to 10–14

64

days. In this approach, either As excreted in urine during the exposure period or the last two

65

days, or As concentration in liver or kidneys was used to determine As-RBA.6,7,18 This 4

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 4 of 26

Page 5 of 26

Environmental Science & Technology

66

approach provides the advantage of mimicking daily continuous exposure to contaminated

67

soil, however, feed is included in the methodology, which may influence As absorption.17 For

68

example, inorganic phosphate may out compete arsenate for phosphate transporters in the

69

gastrointestinal barrier, thereby reducing As absorption and As-RBA. To overcome this issue,

70

alternative approaches have been used to assess As-RBA following administeration of a

71

single gavaged dose of contaminated soil to fasted animals with area under the blood As

72

concentration time curve (AUC) as the biomarker.4,5,8,19 With the exclusion of feed and under

73

fasted conditions, this approach may provide a worst case scenario of As absorption. While

74

different animal models and feeding schemes have been used to assess As-RBA, comparison

75

studies detailing the influences of these parameters on As-RBA measurement are lacking.

76

Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare As-RBA in contaminated soils

77

determined using different animal models (i.e., mouse vs. swine), different feeding schemes

78

(i.e., single gavaged dose vs. multiple diet doses), and different biomarkers (blood, urine,

79

liver, and kidneys) to determine how these operational parameters impact As-RBA

80

determination. In addition, a secondary objective was to determine how the different in vivo

81

methods of As-RBA determination influenced the relationships between As-RBA and As

82

bioaccessibility determined using common in vitro assays. This study will help to select a

83

robust, easy, and inexpensive approach to measure As-RBA for large numbers of soil samples

84

and for its use in validation studies of in vitro bioaccessibility assays.

85

MATERIALS AND METHODS

86

Arsenic-Contaminated Soils. In a previous study, Juhasz et al.5 determined As-RBA in

87

12 contaminated soils (42 to 1114 mg As kg–1) using swine incorporating a single gavaged

88

dose and AUC analysis. In these soils, As-RBA in the