ABSTRACT Soil contamination standards are widely assumed to provide consistent protection of human health and ecosystems, but there are substantial inconsistencies in terminology used and threshold concentrations set across national frameworks. These inconsistencies limit the accuracy, comparability and reliability of soil assessments and can lead to uneven risk evaluation. The paper identifies key methodological and regulatory sources of divergence and proposes a harmonised, function‐based framework that standardises terminology, differentiates for assessment endpoints, incorporates soil properties and background levels, aligns analytical methods with data use, and promotes end‐to‐end workflow standardisation and quality control. Implementing these measures would improve confidence in soil datasets, support more robust and comparable risk assessments, and enable more consistent and scientifically defensible soil policy.
Rintoul‐Hynes et al. (Sun,) studied this question.