Field performance of the Chemcatcher passive sampler for monitoring hydrophobic organic pollutants in surface water

Abstract

Six field trials were carried out to assess the performance of the Chemcatcher passive sampler alongside spot sampling for monitoring priority hydrophobic organic pollutants (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and organochlorine pesticides) in a wide range of conditions in surface water. The trials were performed in three European rivers: Elbe (Czech Republic), Alna (Norway) and Meuse (Netherlands), in two seasons (April-June 2004, and September-October 2004). Samplers spiked with performance reference compounds (PRCs) were deployed for either 14 or 28 days. Ten spot samples of water were collected over the course of the trial and filtered through a 0.7 microm glass fibre filter. Concentrations of pollutants measured using the Chemcatcher were compared with the average concentrations found in spot samples. This study describes the operational performance of Chemcatcher for measuring hydrophobic (log K(OW) 3.7-6.8) chemicals in surface water. Site specific Chemcatcher sampling rates up to 0.5 L d(-1) were found using the PRC approach that reduced the uncertainty in estimates of sampling kinetics where temperature, local flow conditions and biofouling potential varied between sites and seasons, and with time during sampler exposure. The limits of quantification of sampled analytes ranged from one to tens ng L(-1). Highest sensitivity was achieved for compounds with a favourable combination of low instrument quantification limits and high sampling rates including dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, pentachlorobenzene, and PAHs with less than five aromatic rings. The direct comparison of time weighted average (TWA) concentrations (mostly close to method limits of detection) obtained using passive and spot sampling was possible for lindane, hexachlorobenzene, and PAHs < 4 rings. Implications of using the Chemcatcher in regulatory monitoring programmes such as the European Union Water Framework Directive are discussed.

Overview of the Chemcatcher® for the passive sampling of various pollutants in aquatic environments Part A: Principles, calibration, preparation and analysis of the sampler

“…Tran et al [60] analyzed this fraction separately from the disk eluates whereas Allan et al [25,69], Lobpreis et al [52] and Vrana et al [16][17][18][19] combined the two fractions.…”

“…Improvement in sampling performance was confirmed by de la Cal et al [35] for two PBDE congeners (BDE-47, BDE-153), the pesticide DDT and its main metabolites. This sampler configuration was later applied by several authors for PAHs, PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, pp′-DDE or chlorinated pesticides (dieldrin and lindane) [16,18,19,25,52,69].…”

“…Allan et al [25,69], Lobpreis et al [52] and Vrana et al [16][17][18][19] added an extract drying stage by passing through a sodium sulfate cartridge. For these compounds, analyses were performed by GC/MS or GC/ ToF (Time of Flight Mass Spectrometer).…”

“…For these contaminants, the membrane elution was performed by an organic solvent: acetone for Allan et al, [25,69] Lobpreis et al [52] and Vrana et al [16][17][18][19] and methanol for Tran et al [60]. Tran et al [60] analyzed this fraction separately from the disk eluates whereas Allan et al [25,69], Lobpreis et al [52] and Vrana et al [16][17][18][19] combined the two fractions.…”

“…The CRK model can be used only with the assumption of isotropic exchanges, which have been checked for the non polar configuration of the Chemcatcher s [16][17][18][19], but is still questionable for the passive sampling of polar analytes [20][21][22][23][24].…”