BACKGROUND: The state of the art of passive water sampling of (nonpolar) organic contaminants is presented. Its suitability for regulatory monitoring is discussed, with an emphasis on the information yielded by passive sampling devices (PSDs), their relevance and associated uncertainties. Almost all persistent organic pollutants (POPs) targeted by the Stockholm Convention are nonpolar or weakly polar, hydrophobic substances, making them ideal targets for sampling in water using PSDs. Widely used nonpolar PSDs include semi-permeable membrane devices, low-density polyethylene and silicone rubber. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The inter-laboratory variation of equilibrium partition constants between PSD and water is mostly 0.2-0.5 log units, depending on the exact matrix used. The sampling rate of PSDs is best determined by using performance reference compounds during field deployment. The major advantage of PSDs over alternative matrices applicable in trend monitoring (e.g. sediments or biota) is that the various sources of variance including analytical variance and natural environmental variance can be much better controlled, which in turn results in a reduction of the number of analysed samples required to obtain results with comparable statistical power. CONCLUSION: Compliance checking with regulatory limits and analysis of temporal and spatial contaminant trends are two possible fields of application. In contrast to the established use of nonpolar PSDs, polar samplers are insufficiently understood, but research is in progress to develop PSDs for the quantitative assessment of polar waterborne contaminants. In summary, PSD-based monitoring is a mature technique for the measurement of aqueous concentrations of apolar POPs, with a well-defined accuracy and precision.
BACKGROUND: The state of the art of passive water sampling of (nonpolar) organic contaminants is presented. Its suitability for regulatory monitoring is discussed, with an emphasis on the information yielded by passive sampling devices (PSDs), their relevance and associated uncertainties. Almost all persistent organic pollutants (POPs) targeted by the Stockholm Convention are nonpolar or weakly polar, hydrophobic substances, making them ideal targets for sampling in water using PSDs. Widely used nonpolar PSDs include semi-permeable membrane devices, low-density polyethylene and silicone rubber. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The inter-laboratory variation of equilibrium partition constants between PSD and water is mostly 0.2-0.5 log units, depending on the exact matrix used. The sampling rate of PSDs is best determined by using performance reference compounds during field deployment. The major advantage of PSDs over alternative matrices applicable in trend monitoring (e.g. sediments or biota) is that the various sources of variance including analytical variance and natural environmental variance can be much better controlled, which in turn results in a reduction of the number of analysed samples required to obtain results with comparable statistical power. CONCLUSION: Compliance checking with regulatory limits and analysis of temporal and spatial contaminant trends are two possible fields of application. In contrast to the established use of nonpolar PSDs, polar samplers are insufficiently understood, but research is in progress to develop PSDs for the quantitative assessment of polar waterborne contaminants. In summary, PSD-based monitoring is a mature technique for the measurement of aqueous concentrations of apolar POPs, with a well-defined accuracy and precision.
Authors: Jana Klánová; Miriam Diamond; Kevin Jones; Gerhard Lammel; Rainer Lohmann; Nicola Pirrone; Martin Scheringer; Catia Balducci; Terry Bidleman; Karel Bláha; Ludĕk Bláha; Kees Booij; Henk Bouwman; Knut Breivik; Sabine Eckhardt; Heidelore Fiedler; Philippe Garrigues; Tom Harner; Ivan Holoubek; Hayley Hung; Matthew MacLeod; Katarina Magulova; Silvia Mosca; Alberto Pistocchi; Staci Simonich; Foppe Smedes; Euripides Stephanou; Andy Sweetman; Katerina Sebková; Marta Venier; Marco Vighi; Branislav Vrana; Frank Wania; Roland Weber; Peter Weiss Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Loretta A Fernandez; John K MacFarlane; Alexandra P Tcaciuc; Philip M Gschwend Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Emmanuel S Emelogu; Thomas-Benjamin Seiler; Pat Pollard; Craig D Robinson; Lynda Webster; Craig McKenzie; Sebastian Heger; Henner Hollert; Eileen Bresnan; Jennifer Best; Colin F Moffat Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 4.223
Authors: Gerhard Lammel; Ondřej Audy; Athanasios Besis; Christos Efstathiou; Kostas Eleftheriadis; Jiři Kohoutek; Petr Kukučka; Marie D Mulder; Petra Přibylová; Roman Prokeš; Tatsiana P Rusina; Constantini Samara; Aysun Sofuoglu; Sait C Sofuoglu; Yücel Taşdemir; Vassiliki Vassilatou; Dimitra Voutsa; Branislav Vrana Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 4.223