Estimating pesticide sampling rates by the polar organic chemical integrative sampler (POCIS) in the presence of natural organic matter and varying hydrodynamic conditions

Effects of hydrodynamic conditions and temperature on polar organic chemical integrative sampling rates

“…Lastly, differences among sampling rates observed for bicyclopyrone and fomasefen were too sporadic to allow proper assessment of significant changes that may occur between stagnant and flow conditions or as a function of flow velocity. These observations are consistent with results reported in several previous studies (Alvarez et al 2004;Li et al 2010aLi et al , 2010bCharlestra et al 2012;Kaserzon et al 2013;Dalton et al 2014;Di Carro et al 2014) It is generally assumed that under lowflow conditions, the mass transfer of chemicals from water to the sorbent is governed by the water boundary layer. Under highflow conditions, water turbulence causes the water boundary layer to thin out and eventually reach a point where the increase in turbulence no longer affects sampling rates (Harman et al 2012).…”

“…Dashed line denotes the average C w POCIS/C w ISCO ratio. investigated the effects of fouling (Harman et al 2009), water quality (Bailly et al 2013), dissolved organic matter (Li et al 2011), and nonorganic matter (Charlestra et al 2012) on POCIS sampling rates. These studies have improved qualitative understanding of the potential effects these environmental factors may have on POCIS sampling rates, but further work is needed to determine quantitative relationships.…”

“…Studies have demonstrated that POCIS sampling rates increase significantly from stagnant to flow conditions (Alvarez et al 2004;Li et al 2010a;Charlestra et al 2012;Bayen et al 2014). However, there is some ambiguity related to the effect of increasing flow velocity on POCIS sampling rates.…”

Determining the suitability of a polar organic chemical integrated sampler (POCIS) for the detection of pesticide residue in the Ishikawa River and its tributary in Osaka, Japan

“…Although some reports suggested that the R s values significantly increased with the flow velocity, [22][23][24] one report suggested that there was less than a twofold increase in accumulated amounts between 0.026 and 0.37 m/s. 25) Harman et al 26) concluded that flow correction might not be necessary in some studies where water flow rates varied over the range studied; therefore, we did not adjust the R s values.…”

Experimental Estimation of 44 Pharmaceutical Polar Organic Chemical Integrative Sampler Sampling Rates in an Artificial River under Various Flow Conditions

“…Calibration experiments spanned a wide range of conditions, some of which were far from being environmental conditions, for example, compound concentrations from 10 to 10 000 ng/L, various matrices (such as wastewater, tap water, ultrapure water, or sea water), temperature and agitation modes adopted to induce water flow velocity (such as magnetic, flow system, quiescent), and the design and volumes of the laboratory‐scale pilot. For example, calibrations may be conducted in a beaker filled with 1 to 4.5 L of water (Alvarez et al 2004; Jones‐Lepp et al 2004; Matthiessen et al 2006; Arditsoglou and Voutsa 2008; Martínez Bueno et al 2009; Kohoutek et al 2010; Bartelt‐Hunt et al 2011; Rujiralai et al 2011; Thomatou et al 2011; Charlestra et al 2012; Amdany et al 2014; Magi et al 2018), or in a small tank filled with 2 to 10 L (Alvarez et al 2007; MacLeod et al 2007; Togola and Budzinski 2007; Li et al 2010a; Bayen et al 2014; Di Carro et al 2014; Metcalfe et al 2014; Martínez Bueno et al 2016; Miller et al 2016), 20 to 50 L (Hernando et al 2005; Zhang et al 2008; Bailly et al 2013; Morin et al 2013; Vallejo et al 2013; Belles et al 2014a; Djomte et al 2018), 50 to 100 L (Mazzella et al 2007; Lissalde et al 2011; Fauvelle et al 2012; Ahrens et al 2015; Poulier et al 2015), or 250 to 1400 L (Harman et al 2008; Belles et al 2014b; Kaserzon et al 2014) of water. Less frequently, calibrations are conducted in laboratory‐scale pilots with channels containing a large volume of water, on the order of 120 L (Li et al 2010b), 480 L (Vermeirssen et al 2012), or as much as 113 000 L (Lotufo et al 2018).…”