Effect of housing geometry on the performance of Chemcatcher™ passive sampler for the monitoring of hydrophobic organic pollutants in water

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

“…This reduced depression allows higher sampling rates due to the thinner water boundary layer. However, in this configuration, the Chemcatcher s is more sensitive to variations of flow velocity and turbulence than the other designs [52]. This Chemcatcher s body is designed to be single-use.…”

“…This Chemcatcher s body is designed to be single-use. Disposability, which makes cleaning unnecessary, may be seen as an advantage [52]. However, for cost considerations, it must be balanced with the large number of samplers needed during field deployments and calibration experiments.…”

Uptake and release kinetics of 22 polar organic chemicals in the Chemcatcher passive sampler

“…S2, ESM). This approach created a cavity that is similar to the one for standard Teflon Chemcatcher housing [23]. Flow rates in the channel were between 0.08 and 0.10 ms −1 at the sides and 0.13 to 0.14 ms −1 in the centre.…”

“…As mentioned earlier, accelerated sorption (and higher R S values) in tap water was expected, due to the higher temperatures (26 compared to 13°C), higher flow rate (12 compared to 8 cms −1 ) and the absence of the PVC block and thus a more direct effect of flow closer to the surface of the SDB disk (2 versus 22 mm deep cavity). In fact, we expected that the effect of housing alone-reducing the aqueous boundary layerwould induce a twofold higher sampling rate in Experiment 2, based on a study by Lobpreis et al [23].…”

Pesticide impact on aquatic invertebrates identified with Chemcatcher® passive samplers and the SPEARpesticides index

“…At the beginning of our study, a newly designed Chemcatcher body became available (Greenwood et al, 2007b;Lobpreis et al, 2008) in which the depth of the cavity at the 'sampler face' is reduced from 20 to 5 mm to increase sampling rates (decrease the sampler response time). With this new sampler design, the use of a diffusion-limiting membrane appeared advisable (i) to balance the samplers' sensitivity (short response time) with a reduction in the impact of hydrodynamics on the sampling rates (comparable results) and (ii) to extend the time of exposure until pesticides reach the distribution equilibrium between the water and the receiving phase.…”