ReviewJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2025
Post-fire soil hazards: recommendations for updated soil testing protocols and clearance thresholds.
Review in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrban wildfires in Los Angeles have highlighted the increased risk of soil lead exposure, especially for children. Current post-wildfire soil remediation protocols may not sufficiently protect public health, especially in communities returning after fire events.
objectiveTo evaluate the adequacy of existing soil remediation practices after urban wildfires in Los Angeles and present policy recommendations to reduce lead exposure risk.
methodsWe reviewed current wildfire debris removal protocols, soil testing practices, and health risk benchmarks for lead exposure in California. We assessed recent data from post-fire soil testing and analyzed the scientific rationale underlying California's existing Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for lead in residential soil.
resultsWe recommend two critical reforms: requiring post-clearance confirmatory soil testing after wildfire cleanup, as has been done for every major wildfire in California since 2007, and lowering California's residential Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for lead in soil from 80 to 55 mg/kg to reflect updated science and health-protective standards. The basis for these recommendations is that repeated testing after purported soil remediation is showing that greater than 20% of properties still have lead levels that exceed existing thresholds, and the 80 mg/kg PRG (1) does not adhere to the health-based toxicity criterion benchmark set by California, (2) is susceptible to high uncertainty based on the values for several exposure factors used, and (3) does not accurately reflect our current understanding of risks to children from lead. IMPACT STATEMENT: This article identifies critical gaps in current post-wildfire remediation protocols that leave Los Angeles residents, especially children, at risk of lead exposure from contaminated soil. By recommending policy reforms including mandatory post-remediation soil testing and a more protective soil lead standard, our work provides an actionable roadmap to strengthen environmental health protections for communities recovering from wildfires. Adoption of these measures will help ensure a safer, healthier future in the face of escalating urban wildfire threats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.