Ahrens, Lutz
- Department of Aquatic Sciences and Assessment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Five different passive sampler devices were characterized under laboratory conditions for measurement of 124 legacy and current used pesticides in water. In addition, passive sampler derived time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations were compared to time-integrated active sampling in the field. Sampling rates (R-S) and passive sampler-water partition coefficients (K-PW) were calculated for individual pesticides using silicone rubber (SR), polar organic chemical integrative sampler (POCIS)-A, POCIS-B, Chemcatcher (R) SDB-RPS and Chemcatcher (R) C-18. The median R-S (Lday(-1)) decreased as follows: SR (0.86) > POCIS-B (0.22) > POCIS-A (0.18) > Chemcatcher (R) SDB-RPS (0.05) > Chemcatcher (R) C-18 (0.02), while the median logK(PW) (Lkg(-1)) decreased as follows: POCIS-B (4.78)> POCIS-A (4.56) > Chemcatcher (R) SDB-RPS (3.17) >SR (3.14)> Chemcatcher (R) C-18 (2.71). The uptake of the selected compounds depended on their physicochemical properties, i.e. SR showed a better uptake for more hydrophobic compounds (log octanol-water partition coefficient (K-OW) > 5.3), whereas POCIS-A, POCIS-B and Chemcatcher (R) SDB-RPS were more suitable for hydrophilic compounds (logK(OW) < 0.70). Overall, the comparison between passive sampler and time-integrated active sampler concentrations showed a good agreement and the tested passive samplers were suitable for capturing compounds with a wide range of K-OW's in water. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Passive sampling; POCIS; Chemcatcher (R); Silicone rubber; Pesticides; Surface water
Journal of Chromatography A
2015, volume: 1405, pages: 1-11
Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
Non-toxic environment
SDG3 Good health and well-being
SDG6 Clean water and sanitation
Environmental Sciences and Nature Conservation
Analytical Chemistry
Agricultural Science
https://res.slu.se/id/publ/68247