Field Performance of Seven Passive Sampling Devices for Monitoring of Hydrophobic Substances

Abstract

The performance of seven passive sampling devices for the monitoring of dissolved concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), hexachlorobenzene, and p,p'-DDE was evaluated through simultaneous field exposures of 7-28 days in the River Meuse (The Netherlands). Data from the Chemcatcher, low density polyethylene membranes, two versions of the membrane-enclosed sorptive coating (MESCO) sampler, silicone rods, silicone strips and semipermeable membrane devices (SPMD) was assessed through rate of dissipation of performance reference compounds (PRCs), mass of analyte absorbed by the samplers and time-weighted average concentration (C(TWA)) data. Consistent PRC data throughout the range of samplers tested here confirmed the transition from membrane- to boundary layer-controlled exchange at log K(ow) 4.5-5.0. The comparison of sampler surface area-normalized masses absorbed for analytes under boundary layer-control showed some variability between samplers that can be attributed to the conformation and deployment of the various samplers and to the uncertainty associated with the analysis conducted in different laboratories. Despite different modes of calculation, relatively consistent C(TWA) were obtained for the different samplers. The observed variability is likely to be due to the uncertainty of sampler-water partition coefficients and the extrapolation of analyte uptake rates at the high log K(ow) range (under boundary layer-controlled exchange) from a narrow PRC data range, and these issues require further work. Finally, the usefulness of passive sampler-generated contaminant concentrations is demonstrated through the comparison with institutional monitoring and with European Water Framework Directive Environmental Quality Standards (EQS).

Passive sampling for target and nontarget analyses of moderately polar and nonpolar substances in water

“…This is the reason why contaminant masses absorbed by exposed samplers made of LDPE or silicone of identical surface area have been observed to be the same [10]. For example, relatively consistent LDPE and silicone sampler data were obtained in a comparison of the performance of a range of passive sampling devices under field conditions for the measurement of PAHs, PCBs, and organochlorine compounds (OCs) [11].…”

An interlaboratory study on passive sampling of emerging water pollutants

“…A number of inter-laboratory studies addressing PS in the aquatic environment have been conducted so far, (Table 1) targeting mainly PS of hydrophobic persistent organic pollutants. Allan et al [6] showed that free dissolved water concentration values of nonpolar compounds obtained from LDPE strip samplers, SPMDs and silicone PSs deviated less than a factor of 2 from the average of six PSs. Similar results were reported by Miège et al [7], who evaluated the measurement of selected polar pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals by various available passive sampling techniques in freshwater and marine environments.…”

Pore Water Contribution to in-Situ Sampling of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediment Using Low Density Polyethylene

“…Several authors (e.g. Allan et al 2009) consider that passive samplers could provide an estimation of the bioavailable contaminants present in fluid matrices. Few studies allow interpreting the sampling in solid matrices owing to the key role of organic matter, especially in sediment (Cornelissen et al 2008, Sormunen et al 2008.…”