Revisiting Dust and Soil Ingestion Rates Based on Hand-to-Mouth Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Soil ingestion rates calculated using a tracer-based mass balance approach may carry considerable study errors, insensitivities, and “artefacts” of analysis that result in significant uncertainty. These same soil ingestion rates are often used as surrogates for dust ingestion rates. Therefore, a more direct and mechanistic method was developed to estimate soil and dust ingestion rates. The soil and dust ingestion rates were calculated using measures of: particle loading to indoor surfaces; fraction transferred to the hands; hand surface area; fraction of hand surface area that may be mouthed or contact food; frequency of hand-to-mouth events, amount dissolved by saliva; and exposure time. Adapted specifically for the Canadian context, estimated mean indoor dust ingestion rates range from 2.2 mg/d for teenagers to 41 mg/d for toddlers; mean soil ingestion rates range from 1.2 mg/d for seniors to 23 mg/d for children. Combined soil and dust ingestion rates ranged from 3.8 mg/d for seniors to 61 mg/d for toddlers. These ingestion rates are lower than values adopted by most agencies. These ingestion rates are mechanistic, can be adjusted on a site-specific basis, can be modified into an hourly rate and are presented as a more realistic alternative to traditional mass balance approaches. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment to view the free supplementary files.] Key Words: soil ingestiondust ingestionprobabilisticCanadian populationrisk assessment ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was funded by Health Canada's Contaminated Sites Division.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".