{"title":"Soil exposure and human health: One Health framework for managing microbial and chemical hazards","authors":"Bonface Ombasa Manono","doi":"10.1016/j.seh.2026.100224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Soil contact is a public health paradox: it can expose people to environmental microbiota that may support immune regulation, but it can also transmit pathogens and persistent contaminants. This perspective examines how soils in high-contact settings, including schoolyards, childcare centers, residential gardens, urban farms, and parks, can be evaluated without confusing soil health with human exposure safety. Using One Health len, the paper synthesizes evidence across three linked domains: beneficial microbial exposure, pathogen dynamics, and chemical or particle contaminant transfer. The domains are then organized into a five-step exposure-context framework consisting of evaluating intended use and receptors, reconstructing site history, selecting targeted tests, interpreting exposure pathways, and choosing a management endpoint. The framework adds value to existing soil health and risk assessment approaches by treating microbial benefits as conditional, not automatic, and by requiring health-protective screening before benefits are considered. Four decision endpoints are proposed: unrestricted use, conditional use with controls, remediation before use, or access restriction/alternative land use. For high-risk sites, decisions should be supported by pathway-specific evidence such as bioaccessible metal fractions, PFAS source and depth profiles, pathogen indicators, dust loading, crop uptake, mixture assessment, spatial analysis, and uncertainty evaluation. The framework also identifies mechanisms by which soil microbiota may influence immune regulation, pathogen suppression, contaminant mobility, contaminant bioavailability, and antimicrobial resistance. It also clarifies terminology: soil safety is context-dependent, receptor-specific, so it cannot be inferred from soil fertility alone. This approach helps managers protect children, gardeners, workers, and other exposed groups while preserving safe opportunities for contact with biodiverse soils.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94356,"journal":{"name":"Soil & Environmental Health","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100224"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soil & Environmental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949919426000336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Soil contact is a public health paradox: it can expose people to environmental microbiota that may support immune regulation, but it can also transmit pathogens and persistent contaminants. This perspective examines how soils in high-contact settings, including schoolyards, childcare centers, residential gardens, urban farms, and parks, can be evaluated without confusing soil health with human exposure safety. Using One Health len, the paper synthesizes evidence across three linked domains: beneficial microbial exposure, pathogen dynamics, and chemical or particle contaminant transfer. The domains are then organized into a five-step exposure-context framework consisting of evaluating intended use and receptors, reconstructing site history, selecting targeted tests, interpreting exposure pathways, and choosing a management endpoint. The framework adds value to existing soil health and risk assessment approaches by treating microbial benefits as conditional, not automatic, and by requiring health-protective screening before benefits are considered. Four decision endpoints are proposed: unrestricted use, conditional use with controls, remediation before use, or access restriction/alternative land use. For high-risk sites, decisions should be supported by pathway-specific evidence such as bioaccessible metal fractions, PFAS source and depth profiles, pathogen indicators, dust loading, crop uptake, mixture assessment, spatial analysis, and uncertainty evaluation. The framework also identifies mechanisms by which soil microbiota may influence immune regulation, pathogen suppression, contaminant mobility, contaminant bioavailability, and antimicrobial resistance. It also clarifies terminology: soil safety is context-dependent, receptor-specific, so it cannot be inferred from soil fertility alone. This approach helps managers protect children, gardeners, workers, and other exposed groups while preserving safe opportunities for contact with biodiverse soils.
土壤接触是一个公共卫生悖论:它可以使人们接触可能支持免疫调节的环境微生物群,但它也可以传播病原体和持久性污染物。这一视角考察了如何在不混淆土壤健康与人类暴露安全的情况下,评估高接触环境中的土壤,包括校园、托儿中心、住宅花园、城市农场和公园。使用One Health len,论文综合了三个相关领域的证据:有益微生物暴露,病原体动力学和化学或颗粒污染物转移。然后将这些域组织成一个五步暴露-环境框架,包括评估预期用途和受体、重建位点历史、选择目标测试、解释暴露途径和选择管理终点。该框架将微生物的益处视为有条件的,而不是自动的,并要求在考虑益处之前进行保护健康的筛查,从而为现有的土壤健康和风险评估方法增加了价值。提出了四个决策端点:不受限制的使用,有条件的控制使用,使用前的补救,或访问限制/替代土地使用。对于高风险地点,决策应得到途径特异性证据的支持,如生物可达金属组分、PFAS来源和深度剖面、病原体指标、粉尘负荷、作物吸收、混合物评估、空间分析和不确定性评估。该框架还确定了土壤微生物群可能影响免疫调节、病原体抑制、污染物迁移、污染物生物利用度和抗菌素耐药性的机制。它还澄清了术语:土壤安全与环境有关,是受体特异性的,因此不能仅从土壤肥力来推断。这种方法有助于管理人员保护儿童、园丁、工人和其他暴露群体,同时保留与生物多样性土壤接触的安全机会。