{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016248839368616527, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008820798514391829, 'mean_word_length': 5.002785515320334, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Letter to the Editor

July 21, 2003 Dear Sir: The paper by D. A. Belluck (International Journal of Toxicology 22:109–128, 2003) provides an excellent review of what is known about the toxicology associated with arsenic in soils. However, intensive work in testing New Jersey sites and applying new bioavailability testing methodologies provides a clearer picture of the real risk situation. Risk and bioavailability are to a large degree associated with the matrix—is the soil natural background arsenic or is it from a surface spill or release (including atmospheric deposition)? Arsenic in soils tend to have higher bioavailability if the arsenic is from atmospheric deposition or is from lead arsenate application to soils. The same would likely be the case for soil impacted by arsenic treated wood. However, this is not the case with all soils we have tested containing natural background levels associated with soils and the related geologic substrates. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for the last 5 years has maintained a database of such sites, and all soil testing results at sites with elevated arsenic are judged as to whether there has been a release or not. It is not hard to determine whether there is a natural background condition or a spill or release. Vertical sampling and correlating lead and arsenic concentrations in soil is an easy to implement sampling methodology that is cost-effective and reliable. The sampling must be designed to screen out sites with natural background conditions from those where the arsenic is from a spill or release. Arsenic from sites with spills, releases, or atmospheric deposition tends to be much more bioavailable because its form is different—it is present in dust or on surface soils and in concentrations that can exceed soil cation exchange capacity. By contrast, natural soil concentrations tend not to be bioavailable to a significant degree, because the distribution in the soil is more uniform and the arsenic tends to be present in an insoluble form. Dennis Stainken, PhD, has developed a bioavailability test procedure that can be used in combination with focused site