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