Methodological approaches to the hygienic assessment of soil quality at the present stage (literature review)

Soil is a critical component of the environment, determining the quality of life and public health. This article provides an analytical review of the evolution of methodological approaches to the hygienic assessment of soil quality. The study was performed using an information-analytical method based on the analysis of regulatory documentation and scientific publications from databases such as Elibrary, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Tekhexpert, Consultant, and others.

It considers traditional regulation-oriented methods based on comparing the content of pollutants with their maximum permissible concentrations (MPCs). There are highlighted their main limitations, associated with the failure to account for the combined effects of pollutants and actual exposure pathways. The modern methodology of health risk assessment is described in detail, including the stages of hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose-response relationship, and risk characterization. Special attention is paid to integral diagnostic methods, such as bio-testing and bioindication, which allow assessing the integral toxicity of soil. There are addressed new challenges, including the need to assess the bioavailability of pollutants, the emergence of new classes of pollutants (microplastics, pharmaceuticals, antibiotic resistance genes), and the application of GIS technologies for spatial risk analysis.

Based on the results of the work, modern hygienic diagnostics it is concluded to be a multi-level system integrating traditional and modern approaches to transition from merely stating pollution to forecasting and effectively managing soil resources.

The comprehensive application of new hygienic methods allows transiting from stating the fact of pollution to forecasting its consequences and developing evidence-based measures for managing soil resources to protect public health.

Contribution of the authors:
Ushakova O.V., Vodyanova M.A. — research concept and design, data collection and processing, text writing, manuscript preparation;
Evseeva I.S. — data collection and processing, text writing;
Yudin S.M., Kraevoy S.А. — data collection and processing, editing.
All co-authors — approval of the final version of the article, responsibility for the integrity of all parts of the article.

Funding. The research was carried out within the framework of a State Assignment.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no apparent or potential conflicts of interest in relation to the publication of this article.

Received: November 17, 2025 / Accepted: December 17, 2025 / Published: March 4, 2026

1. Onishchenko G.G., Popova A.U., Zaitseva N.V., May I.V., Shur P.Z. Health risk analysis in the tasks of improving sanitary and epidemiological surveillance in the Russian Federation. Health Risk Analysis. 2014; (2): 1–12. https://elibrary.ru/elqczw

2. R 2.1.10.3968–23. The state of public health in connection with the state of the environment and living conditions of the population. Guidelines for assessing the risk to public health from exposure to chemicals that pollute the environment; 2023. (in Russian)

3. Ivanov V.P., Vasilyeva O.V., Polonikov A.V. Scientific-methodological bases of assessment of population health risk in complex ecological-hygienic studies of territories. Ekologiya cheloveka. 2012; (11): 11–9. https://elibrary.ru/pfztcx (in Russian)

4. SanPiN 1.2.3685–21. Hygienic standards and requirements for ensuring the safety and (or) harmlessness of environmental factors for humans; 2021. (in Russian)

5. GN 2.1.7.2041–06. Maximum permissible concentrations (MPC) of chemicals in the soil; 2006. (in Russian)

6. WHO. Guidelines on soil quality and recommendations for assessing the content of chemicals in the soil; 2020.

7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund Risk Assessment Guidelines (RAGS). Volume I: Guidelines for the Assessment of Human Health (Part E). Washington, DC; 2004.

8. GOST ISO 22030–2019. Product quality. Biological methods. Chronic phytotoxicity in relation to higher plants; 2019. (in Russian)

9. Kukharchyk T.I., Kakareka S.V., Rabychyn K.O. Microplastics in soils of the Thala Hills, East Antarctica. Eurasian Soil Science. 2024; 57(3): 502–12. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229323603025 https://elibrary.ru/bngaaz

10. Deryabin A.N., Unguryanu T.N. Exposure factors under the influence of soil on public health in the cities of the Arkhangelsk region. Patent RF № 2025620925; 2025. https://elibrary.ru/gyeqhm (in Russian)

11. Vodyanova M.A., Kriatov I.A., Donerian L.G., Evseeva I.S., Ushakov D.I., Sbitnev A.V., et al. Biological indices in the monitoring system of urbanized soils. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2017; 96(11): 1091–6. https://elibrary.ru/yobwyd (in Russian)

12. Shumilova L.P., Terekhova V.A. Biotic and chemical indicators in assessing the ecological quality of soils in an urban ecosystem. Ekologiya urbanizirovannykh territorii. 2017; (1): 34–8. https://elibrary.ru/ytxrnx (in Russian)

13. Rinot O., Levy G.J., Steinberger Y., Svoray T., Eshel G. Soil assessment: a critical review of existing methodologies and a proposed new approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2019; 648: 1484–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.259

14. Salimyanova L.R., Bayturina R.R. Content of heavy metals in urbanized soils of Ufa parks. Ispol’zovanie i okhrana prirodnykh resursov v Rossii. 2024; (2): 71–3. https://elibrary.ru/paelko (in Russian)

15. Deryabin A.N., Unguryanu T.N. Assessment of regional exposure factors associated with soil impact in cities of the Arctic region. Ekologiya cheloveka. 2024; 31(4): 268–78. https://doi.org/10.17816/humeco630140 https://elibrary.ru/ofvnts (in Russian)

16. Deryabin A.N. Assessment of the impact of soil chemicals on the health of children in the cities of the Arkhangelsk region. Children’s Medicine of the North-West. 2023; 11(S): 102–3. https://elibrary.ru/oznkvf (in Russian)

17. Barsukov P.A., Rusalimova O.A. The effect of deicing reagents on soil properties of the roadside lawns in Novosibirsk. Pochvy i okruzhayushchaya sreda. 2024; 7(2): 11. https://doi.org/10.31251/pos.v7i2.265 https://elibrary.ru/kxsfvs (in Russian)

18. Minnikova T.V., Kolesnikov S.I., Kutasova A.V., Minin N.S., Gaivoronsky V.G. Ecological health standards of arid soils in the Southern Russia under oil and oil products pollution. Aridnye ekosistemy. 2024; 31(4): 126–44. https://elibrary.ru/tbsvxv (in Russian)

19. Gaivoronskiy V.G., Kuzina A.A., Kolesnikov S.I., Minnikova T.V., Nevedomaya E.N., Kazeev K.Sh. A method for determining the environmentally safe residual content of oil and petroleum products in soils. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2023; 102(9): 987–92. https://doi.org/10.47470/0016-9900-2023-102-9-987-992 https://elibrary.ru/fztgen (in Russian)

20. Rusakov N.V., Vodyanova M.A., Starodubova N.Yu., Doneryan L.G. Methodological and conceptual problems of oil pollution in soil. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2017; 96(10): 929–33. https://elibrary.ru/zwsrpr (in Russian)

21. Deryabkina L.A., Marchenko B.I., Tarasenko K.S. Assessment of the carcinogenic risk caused by elevated 3,4-benz(a)pyrene concentration in soils in an industrial city. Health Risk Analysis. 2022; (1): 27–35. https://doi.org/10.21668/health.risk/2022.1.03.eng https://elibrary.ru/rloitj

22. Koshelkov A.M., Mayorova L.P. Assessment of benzo(a)pyrene soil contamination in Khabarovsk. Ekologiya cheloveka. 2023; (3): 181–98. https://doi.org/10.17816/humeco112097 https://elibrary.ru/qwjdrv (in Russian)

23. Kaurova Z.G., Umerenkova M.V. Assessment of soil quality in some regions of Saint-Petersburg and Leningrad region. Voprosy normativno-pravovogo regulirovaniya v veterinarii. 2021; (4): 131–3. https://doi.org/10.52419/issn2072-6023.2021.4.131 https://elibrary.ru/nyjjxm (in Russian)

24. Timshina D.I., Ponomareva D.N., Ryazanova E.A. Analysis of soil contamination in the territory of the Perm region and other regions of the Volga district for the period of 2014-2019. Mezhdunarodnyi studencheskii nauchnyi vestnik. 2020; (5): 7. https://elibrary.ru/zojoop (in Russian)

25. Martsev A.A., Selivanov O.G., Kurbatov Yu.N., Saveliev O.V., Kosmacheva A.G., Trifonova T.A. Ecological and hygienic assessment of soils of the Vladimir region for the content of heavy metals and arsenic. Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2025; 104(3): 290–6. https://doi.org/10.47470/0016-9900-2025-104-3-290-296 https://elibrary.ru/ygfqvw (in Russian)

26. Elshaeva I.V. Specifics of ecological assessment of soil properties of urban ecosystems. Mezhdunarodnyi nauchno-issledovatel’skii zhurnal. 2025; (2): 9. https://doi.org/10.60797/IRJ.2025.152.47 https://elibrary.ru/oqdsek (in Russian)

27. Trotsenko A.A., Angelova E.Yu., Minchyonok E.E., Yerokhova N.V. Investigation of the taxonomic composition and sanitary and microbiological parameters of the soil protistofauna of urbanized landscapes in Murmansk. Mezhdunarodnyi nauchno-issledovatel’skii zhurnal. 2025; (7): 3. https://doi.org/10.60797/IRJ.2025.157.80 https://elibrary.ru/yyoayq (in Russian)

28. Sepehya S., Mehta D., Kumar A., Sharma R., Sharma D., Sharma A. Concept and assessment methodology of soil quality: a review. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2024; 36(5): 164–72. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2024/v36i54513

29. Askarova D.A., Panin M.S., Glebov V.V. Ecological Assessment of Dark Chestnut Soils under Dust Pollution in the Conditions of the East Kazakhstan Region [Ekologicheskaya otsenka temno-kashtanovykh pochv pri pylevom zagryaznenii v usloviyakh Vostochno-Kazakhstanskoi oblasti]. Moscow; 2018. https://elibrary.ru/xyvypj (in Russian)

30. Voronina L.P., Ponogaybo K.H., Savostikova O.N. Reason of the choice of soil types for hygienic regulation of chemicals (literature review). Gigiena i Sanitaria (Hygiene and Sanitation, Russian journal). 2022; 101(3): 270–4. https://doi.org/10.47470/0016-9900-2022-101-3-270-274 https://elibrary.ru/jnuisw (in Russian)

31. De la Rosa, D., Sobral, R. Soil quality and methods of its assessment. In: Braimo A.K., Vleck P.L.G., eds. Land Use and Soil Resources. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6778-5_9

32. Bünemann E.K., Bongiorno J., Bai Z., Creamer R.E., De Dein G., de Guede R., et al. Soil quality – a critical review. Biol. Biochem. Soils. 2018; 120: 105–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2018.01.030

33. Biswas J.S., Kalra N., Maniruzzaman M., Nacher U.A., Haq M.M. Methods for assessing soil condition and their relationship to wheat yield. Open J. Soil Sci. 2019; 9: 189–205. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2019.99011

34. Kalinitchenko V.P., Swidsinski A.V., Glinushkin A.P., Meshalkin V.P., Gudkov S.V., Minkina T.M., et al. A new approach to soil management with a focus on soil health and air quality: one earth, one life (critical review). Environ. Geochem. Health. 2023; 45(12): 8967–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-023-01550-7

35. Svidsinsky A., Kalinitchenko V., Glinushkin A., Mukovoz P., Minkina T., Sushkova S., et al. Correction of biochemical processes in the soil based on the Biogeosystem Technique methodology to enhance the action of polymicrobial biofilms in the soil. In: ACS Fall 2020 National Meeting. San Francisco; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1021/scimeetings.0c07088