Cargando…

Detection of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents—a comparison of the performance of Chemcatcher® and polar organic compound integrative sampler

Chemcatcher(®) and POCIS passive sampling devices are widely used for monitoring polar organic pollutants in water. Chemcatcher(®) uses a bound Horizon Atlantic™ HLB-L sorbent disk as receiving phase, whilst the POCIS uses the same material in the form of loose powder. Both devices (n = 3) were depl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gravell, Anthony, Fones, Gary R., Greenwood, Richard, Mills, Graham A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7334249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32405945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09077-5
_version_ 1783553900249350144
author Gravell, Anthony
Fones, Gary R.
Greenwood, Richard
Mills, Graham A.
author_facet Gravell, Anthony
Fones, Gary R.
Greenwood, Richard
Mills, Graham A.
author_sort Gravell, Anthony
collection PubMed
description Chemcatcher(®) and POCIS passive sampling devices are widely used for monitoring polar organic pollutants in water. Chemcatcher(®) uses a bound Horizon Atlantic™ HLB-L sorbent disk as receiving phase, whilst the POCIS uses the same material in the form of loose powder. Both devices (n = 3) were deployed for 21 days in the final effluent at three wastewater treatment plants in South Wales, UK. Following deployment, sampler extracts were analysed using liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Compounds were identified using an in-house database of pharmaceuticals using a metabolomics workflow. Sixty-eight compounds were identified in all samplers. For the POCIS, substantial losses of sorbent (11–51%) were found during deployment and subsequent laboratory analysis, necessitating the use of a recovery factor. Percentage relative standard deviations varied (with 10 compounds exceeding 30% in both samplers) between individual compounds and between samplers deployed at the three sites. The relative performance of the two devices was evaluated using the mass of analyte sequestered, measured as an integrated peak area. The ratio of the uptake of the pharmaceuticals for the POCIS versus Chemcatcher(®) was lower (1.84x) than would be expected on the basis of the ratio of active sampling areas (3.01x) of the two devices. The lower than predicted uptake may be attributable to the loose sorbent material moving inside the POCIS when deployed in the field in the vertical plane. In order to overcome this, it is recommended to deploy the POCIS horizontally inside the deployment cage. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11356-020-09077-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7334249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73342492020-07-09 Detection of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents—a comparison of the performance of Chemcatcher® and polar organic compound integrative sampler Gravell, Anthony Fones, Gary R. Greenwood, Richard Mills, Graham A. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int Research Article Chemcatcher(®) and POCIS passive sampling devices are widely used for monitoring polar organic pollutants in water. Chemcatcher(®) uses a bound Horizon Atlantic™ HLB-L sorbent disk as receiving phase, whilst the POCIS uses the same material in the form of loose powder. Both devices (n = 3) were deployed for 21 days in the final effluent at three wastewater treatment plants in South Wales, UK. Following deployment, sampler extracts were analysed using liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Compounds were identified using an in-house database of pharmaceuticals using a metabolomics workflow. Sixty-eight compounds were identified in all samplers. For the POCIS, substantial losses of sorbent (11–51%) were found during deployment and subsequent laboratory analysis, necessitating the use of a recovery factor. Percentage relative standard deviations varied (with 10 compounds exceeding 30% in both samplers) between individual compounds and between samplers deployed at the three sites. The relative performance of the two devices was evaluated using the mass of analyte sequestered, measured as an integrated peak area. The ratio of the uptake of the pharmaceuticals for the POCIS versus Chemcatcher(®) was lower (1.84x) than would be expected on the basis of the ratio of active sampling areas (3.01x) of the two devices. The lower than predicted uptake may be attributable to the loose sorbent material moving inside the POCIS when deployed in the field in the vertical plane. In order to overcome this, it is recommended to deploy the POCIS horizontally inside the deployment cage. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11356-020-09077-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-05-13 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7334249/ /pubmed/32405945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09077-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Article
Gravell, Anthony
Fones, Gary R.
Greenwood, Richard
Mills, Graham A.
Detection of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents—a comparison of the performance of Chemcatcher® and polar organic compound integrative sampler
title Detection of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents—a comparison of the performance of Chemcatcher® and polar organic compound integrative sampler
title_full Detection of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents—a comparison of the performance of Chemcatcher® and polar organic compound integrative sampler
title_fullStr Detection of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents—a comparison of the performance of Chemcatcher® and polar organic compound integrative sampler
title_full_unstemmed Detection of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents—a comparison of the performance of Chemcatcher® and polar organic compound integrative sampler
title_short Detection of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents—a comparison of the performance of Chemcatcher® and polar organic compound integrative sampler
title_sort detection of pharmaceuticals in wastewater effluents—a comparison of the performance of chemcatcher® and polar organic compound integrative sampler
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7334249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32405945
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09077-5
work_keys_str_mv AT gravellanthony detectionofpharmaceuticalsinwastewatereffluentsacomparisonoftheperformanceofchemcatcherandpolarorganiccompoundintegrativesampler
AT fonesgaryr detectionofpharmaceuticalsinwastewatereffluentsacomparisonoftheperformanceofchemcatcherandpolarorganiccompoundintegrativesampler
AT greenwoodrichard detectionofpharmaceuticalsinwastewatereffluentsacomparisonoftheperformanceofchemcatcherandpolarorganiccompoundintegrativesampler
AT millsgrahama detectionofpharmaceuticalsinwastewatereffluentsacomparisonoftheperformanceofchemcatcherandpolarorganiccompoundintegrativesampler