Trends in the use of passive sampling for monitoring polar pesticides in water

Abstract

The presence of polar pesticides in environmental waters is a growing problem. After application their migration into the aqueous phase is promoted by their high water solubility. Transport processes are usually complex and inputs are generally stochastic; this makes monitoring of this class of pesticides challenging using low volume spot samples of water. Recently there has been a trend to use passive samplers to monitor pesticides in river catchments as it is an in-situ time integrative sampling technique. The three main types of device used for this purpose are, Chemcatcher ® , POCIS and o-DGT. This article reviews the fate and current state-of-the-art for monitoring polar pesticides in aqueous matrices. Principles and the theory of passive sampling and strategies for passive sampler design and operation are presented. Advances in the application of passive sampling devices for measuring polar pesticides are extensively critiqued; future trends in their use are also discussed.

Comparative Evaluation of the Polar Organic Chemical Integrative Sampler (POCIS) in Two Types of Validation Systems

“…It was revealed that POCIS could capture the concentration fluctuation when the device was deployed over the concentration peaks in natural water. This matched with the conclusion of a previous report (Taylor et al 2020).…”

“…When POCIS is to be used in an emergency, they would be deployed in a decreasing phase of contaminant concentration after the chemical concentration peak. All previous validations of POCIS sampling in natural water have investigated the response of POCIS to peaks of a contaminant concentration rather than the decreasing phase of a contaminant concentration only (Bernard et al 2019;Criquet et al 2017;Lotufo et al 2019;Noro et al 2020;Taylor et al 2020;Yabuki et al 2018).…”

Rapid direct analysis of river water and machine learning assisted suspect screening of emerging contaminants in passive sampler extracts

“…Extracts were dried using a Genevac centrifugal rotary evaporator (SP Scien-tic, Ipswich, UK) at 40 C for 2 h. Prior to instrumental analysis samples were reconstituted in 1 mL of MeOH. The full procedure is described in Taylor et al 28 2.3 River water sampling, preparation and CEC quantication procedures Grab samples (500 mL) were collected in pre-rinsed Nalgene® bottles (Sigma-Aldrich) at the start of each passive sampler deployment and were transported to the laboratory, acidied (to pH 2 with HCl) and frozen until analysis. Water samples were prepared for direct injection LC-MS/MS analysis as described by Ng et al 25 In brief, river water samples (10 mL sub-sample, n ¼ 3) were rst centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 10 min.…”

“…[44][45][46][47][48][49] The log D of all 18 compounds unique to water samples covered a range of À0.3 to 4.21. Despite methanol being a recognised solvent for passive sampler sorbent elution, 28 incomplete elution or ion suppression for some compounds may have occurred. However, a stronger solvent is likely to elute more heavily retained matrix components and successive elution using different solvents or at different pH was considered excessive for practical application.…”

Passive sampler phases for pesticides: evaluation of AttractSPE™ SDB-RPS and HLB versus Empore™ SDB-RPS

“…Furthermore, they greatly vary in their mobility and persistence. Grab sampling is an inadequate method to reliably detect these varying concentrations (Taylor et al 2020 ). For this reason, passive sampling, with advantages of time-weighted average concentrations and low detection limits, is very beneficial for sampling of event-based contaminations.…”