ABSTRACT
Recently, Spalt et al. (1) critically reviewed the available (English language)
literature describing dermal absorption from soil. The earliest entry in that
review is a paper by Swiss investigators concerning oral and dermal absorption
of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in multiple formulations including
soil (2). That investigation was inspired by dioxin contamination events in Germany
and Italy in the 1970s. All but one of the subsequent studies identified in the review
were conducted in the United States. Given the universality of English as the
language of science, this observation presumably reflects research funding
priorities stemming from political attention to hazardous waste sites and other
contaminated lands, and the relative importance of quantitative risk assessment in
the regulatory environment in the United States, rather than mere language bias.
Regardless, the total body of research is quite limited [Spalt et al. (1) found fewer
than 50 distinct studies] and represents the efforts of a relatively small group of
investigators. In addition to its limited scope, significant shortcomings of the extant
dermal-absorption-from-soil literature include (i) a lack of uniformity of method-
ology, which greatly hinders systematic comparison across compounds and
laboratories, (ii) frequently inadequate reporting of experimental details, and
(iii) obvious flaws in some experimental approaches.
