Advertisement

Non-target screening analysis of river water as compound-related base for monitoring measures

  • Jan SchwarzbauerEmail author
  • Mathias Ricking
Research Article

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

Building up a comprehensive accurate monitoring program requires the knowledge on the contamination in principal, complemented by detailed information on individual contaminants. The selection of pollutants to be considered in monitoring actions is based dominantly on the information available about their environmental relevance (e.g., persistence, bioaccumulation potential, toxicological and ecotoxicological properties) and their occurrence within the affected environmental system. Therefore, this study focused on the identification of organic contaminants in selected German and European rivers to demonstrate the usefulness of a screening approach as complementary base for the compound selection process within monitoring activities.

Materials and methods

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-based screening analyses were performed on five and six samples from German and European rivers, respectively. Identification of individual contaminants was based on the investigation of mass spectral and gas chromatographic properties compared with databases and reference materials.

Results

This study summarized the results of non-target screening analyses applied to river water samples and focused dominantly on, so far, unnoticed organic contaminants. Numerous compounds have been identified belonging to the groups of pharmaceuticals, technical additives, pesticides, personal care products, and oxygen-, nitrogen-, and sulfur-containing compounds of obviously anthropogenic origin. They are discussed in terms of their structural properties, their possible application or usage, and the environmental information available so far.

Discussion

Generally, two different groups of compounds have been differentiated that might contribute to potential monitoring programs. Firstly, more specific contaminants characterizing the individual riverine systems have been depicted (e.g., 4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl)aniline, di-iso-propylurea). The consideration of these substances in monitoring analyses to be applied to the corresponding catchment areas is recommended in order to monitor the real state of pollution. Secondly, contaminants have been introduced that appeared with higher multiplicity throughout the different river systems (e.g., TMDD, TXIB). Since these compounds tend to obviously have an elevated environmental stability accompanied by a widespread distribution, it is recommended to consider them in international high-scale monitoring programs.

Conclusions

For monitoring purposes, a fundamental knowledge on the diversity of pollutants is an important precondition, which can be supported by screening analyses. Obviously, numerous organic contaminants have been neglected so far in environmental studies on river water, comprising also investigation on potential harmful effects and, therefore, their implementation in monitoring activities has been hindered.

Recommendations and perspectives

Therefore, based on the results of this study, screening analyses should be established as principle tools to improve and complement the substance spectra for monitoring purposes. Secondly, scientific efforts should be strengthened to expand our knowledge on actually appearing organic contaminants in riverine systems.

Keywords

Screening analysis River water Organic pollutants GC/MS 

References

  1. Bester K (2009) Analysis of musk fragrances in environmental samples. J Chromatogr A 1216:470–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bester K, Gatermann R, Hühnerfuss H, Lange W, Theobald N (1998) Results of non-target screening of lipophilic organic pollutants in the German Bight. IV: identification and quantification of chloronitrobenzene and dichloronitrobenzenes. Environ Pollut 102:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Botalova O, Schwarzbauer J, Frauenrath T, Dsikowitzky L (2009) Identification and chemical characterization of specific organic constituents of petrochemical effluents. Wat Res 43:3797–3812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dsikowitzky L, Schwarzbauer J, Kronimus A, Littke R (2004) The anthropogenic contribution to the organic load of the Lippe River (Germany). Part 1: qualitative characterisation of low-molecular weight organic compounds. Chemosphere 57:1275–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duffield P, Bourne D, Tan K, Garruto RM, Duncan MW (1994) Analysis of the neurotoxic plasticizer n-butylbenzenesulfonamide by gas chromatography combined with accurate mass selected ion monitoring. J Anal Toxicol 18:361–368Google Scholar
  6. Franke S, Hildebrandt S, Schwarzbauer J, Link M, Francke W (1995a) Organic compounds as contaminants of the Elbe River and its tributaries Part II: GC/MS screening for contaminants of the Elbe water. Fresenius' J Anal Chem 353:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franke S, Hildebrandt S, Francke W, Reincke H (1995b) The occurrence of chlorinated bis(propyl)ethers in the Elbe River and its tributaries. Naturwissenschaften 82:80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Franke S, Grunenberg J, Schwarzbauer J (2007) The isomer-specific analysis of di-iso-propylnaphthalenes. Int J Environ Anal Chem 87:437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guedez AA, Frömmel S, Diehl P, Püttmann W (2009) Occurrence and temporal variations of TMDD in the river Rhine, Germany. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi: 10.1007/s11356-009-0191-8
  10. Hankemeier T, Steketee PC, Vreuls JJ, Brinckmann UAT (1999) At-line SPE-GC-MS of micropollutants in water using the prepstation. Fresenius’ J Anal Chem 364:106–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heberer T, Schmidt-Bäumler K, Stan HJ (1998) Occurrence and distribution of organic contaminants in the aquatic system in Berlin. Part I: drug residues and other polar contaminants in Berlin surface and groundwater. Acta Hydochim Hydrobiol 26:272–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heberer T, Dünnbier U (1999) DDT metabolite bis(chlorophenyl)acetic acid: the neglected environmental contaminant. Environ Sci Technol 33:2346–2351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heim S, Schwarzbauer J, Littke R (2004) Monitoring of waste deposit derived groundwater contaminations by organic tracers. Environ Chem Lett 2:21–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huppert N, Würtele M, Hahn HH (1998) Determination of the plasticizer N-butylbenzenesulfonamide and the pharmaceutical Ibuprofen in wastewater using solid phase microextraction (SPME). Fresenius’ J Anal Chem 362:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kallenborn R, Gattermann R, Rimkus GG (1999) Synthetic musks in enviromental samples: indicator compounds with relevant properties for environmental monitoring. J Environ Monit 1:N70–N74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kettrup AAF (2003) Environmental specimen banking. In: Markert BA, Breure AM, Zechmeister, HG (eds.), Bioindicators and biomonitors, Ch. 21:775-798Google Scholar
  17. Koren G, Matsui D, Bailey B (2003) DEET-based insect repellents: safety implications for children and pregnant and lactating women. Can Med Assoc J 169:209–212Google Scholar
  18. Kronimus A, Schwarzbauer J, Dsikowitzky L, Heim S, Littke R (2004) Anthropogenic organic contaminants in sediments of the Lippe River, Germany. Wat Res 38:3473–3484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kronimus A, Schwarzbauer J, Dsikowitzky L, Littke R (2006) Compound specific stable carbon isotope analyses of riverine water organic contaminant. Environ Chem Lett 4:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loraine GA, Pettigrove ME (2006) Seasonal variations in concentrations of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in drinking water and reclaimed wastewater in southern California. Environ Sci Technol 40:687–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Osimitz TG, Murphy JV (1997) Neurological effects associated with use of the insect repellent N, N-Diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET). Clin Toxicol 35:435–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paxeus N (1996) Organic pollutants in the effluents of large wastewater treatment plants in Sweden. Wat Res 30:1115–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Quednow K, Püttmann W (2009) Temporal concentration changes of DEET, TCEP, terbutryn, and nonylphenols in freshwater streams of Hessen, Germany: possible influence of mandatory regulations and voluntary environmental agreements. Environ Sci Pollut Res. doi: 10.1007/s11356-009-0169-6
  24. Ricking M, Schwarzbauer J, Franke S (2003) Molecular markers of anthropogenic activity in sediments of the Havel and Spree-Rivers (Germany). Wat Res 37:2607–2617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ricking M, Koch M, Rotard W (2005) Organic pollutants in sediment cores of NE-Germany: comparison of the marine Arkona Basin with freshwater sediments. Mar Pollut Bull 50:1699–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ricking M, Schwarzbauer J (2008) HCH residues in point-source contaminated samples of the Teltow Canal in Berlin, Germany. Environ Chem Lett 6:83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rüdel H, Schröder W, von der Trenck KT, Wiesmüller GA (2009) Substance-related environmental monitoring—work group «Environmental Monitoring» position paper. ESPR 16:486–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwarzbauer J (2006) Organic contaminants in riverine and groundwater systems—aspects of the anthropogenic contribution. Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg 464ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwarzbauer J, Heim S (2005) Lipophilic organic contaminants in the Rhine river (Germany). Wat Res 39:4735–4748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SedNet (2009) Download from homepage at www.sed.org
  31. Sheldon LS, Hites RA (1979) Sources and movement of organic chemicals in the Delaware River. Environ Sci Technol 13:574–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trova C, Cossa G, Gandolfo G (1991) Behavior and fate of chloronitrobenzenes in a fluvial environment. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 47:580–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weigel S, Kuhlmann J, Hühnerfuss H (2002) Drugs and personal care products as ubiquitous pollutants: occurrence and distribution of clofibric acid, caffeine and DEET in the North Sea. Sci Total Environ 295:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Geology and Geochemistry of Petroleum and CoalRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Department of GeosciencesFree University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations