Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 20, pp 20231–20240 | Cite as

Analyzing the uncertainty of diffusive gel-based passive samplers as tools for evaluating the averaged contamination of surface water by organic pollutants

  • Angel Belles
  • Claire Alary
  • Nellaïdeve Laguerre
  • Christine Franke
Research Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Agarose gel-based passive samplers are nowadays one of the most effective sampling devices able to provide a quantitative evaluation of water contamination level for a broad range of organic contaminants. These devices show significant improvements in comparison to the previous passive samplers dedicated to hydrophilic compounds because they tend to reduce the effect of hydrodynamic flow conditions on the uptake rate of compounds and thus subsequently to improve their accuracy. However, albeit their effects minimized, hydrodynamic water flow and temperature are reported as variables likely to change the uptake rate of compounds that may lead to some inaccuracy if they are not adequately taken into account. This work aims to investigate the magnitude of effects of such uncorrected variables on the bias of the deduced water contamination level. The analysis of the error structure shows that the uncertainty on the diffusivity of contaminants in agarose gel and its dependency on temperature are the most inferring factors. At 8 °C, these factors are, respectively, responsible of 34 and 33% of the squared uncertainty on the final deduced contamination level. The overall uncertainty for a single exposed passive sampler is in the order of 39% and drops to 23% if threesamplers are co-exposed (at 8 °C). Despite this uncertainty, we present results for a set of pesticides and personal care products throughout a field monitoring conducted over a 4-month period, which show the potential of passive samplers to allow assessing the temporal trend of water contamination.

Keywords

Passive samplers Diffusive gel Uncertainty analysis Water Pollutants 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by the project “Traversière” of the French Institute Carnot M.I.N.E.S (PFGSYS-50501).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_2246_MOESM1_ESM.docx (120 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 120 kb)

References

  1. Bäuerlein PS, Mansell JE, ter Laak TL, de Voogt P (2012) Sorption behavior of charged and neutral polar organic compounds on solid phase extraction materials: which functional group governs sorption? Environ Sci Technol 46(2):954–961.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es203404x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belles A, Pardon P, Budzinski H (2014) Development of an adapted version of polar organic chemical integrative samplers (POCIS-nylon). Anal Bioanal Chem 406(4):1099–1110.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-7286-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belles A, Alary C, Mamindy-Pajany Y (2016) Thickness and material selection of polymeric passive samplers for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water: which more strongly affects sampler properties? Environ Toxicol Chem 35(7):1708–1717.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belles A, Alary C, Aminot Y, Readman JW, Franke C (2017) Calibration and response of a novel agarose gel based passive sampler to record short pulses of aquatic pollutants. Talanta 165:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2016.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Challis JK, Hanson ML, Wong CS (2016) Development and calibration of an organic-diffusive gradients in thin films aquatic passive sampler for a diverse suite of polar organic. Contaminants. Anal Chem 88(21):10583–10591.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b02749 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen C-E, Zhang H, Jones KC (2012) A novel passive water sampler for in situ sampling of antibiotics. J Environ Monit 14:1523–1530.  https://doi.org/10.1039/c2em30091e CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen C-E, Zhang H, Ying G-G, Jones KC (2013) Evidence and recommendations to support the use of a novel passive water sampler to quantify antibiotics in wastewaters. Environ Sci Technol 47(23):13587–13593.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es402662g CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen C-E, Zhang H, Ying G-G, Zhou L-J, Jones KC (2015) Passive sampling: a cost-effective method for understanding antibiotic fate, behaviour and impact. Environ Int 85:284–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crank J (1975) The mathematics of diffusion. Oxford University Press Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Fatin-Rouge N, Starchev K, Buffle J (2004) Size effects on diffusion processes within agarose gels. Biophys J 86(5):2710–2719.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(04)74325-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fauvelle V, Mazzella N, Belles A, Moreira A, Allan IJ, Budzinski H (2014) Optimization of the polar organic chemical integrative sampler for the sampling of acidic and polar herbicides. Anal Bioanal Chem 406(13):3191–3199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-014-7757-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guibal R, Buzier R, Charriau A, Lissalde S, Guibaud G (2017) Passive sampling of anionic pesticides using the diffusive gradients in thin films technique (DGT). Anal Chim Acta 966:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2017.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawker DW (2010) Modeling the response of passive samplers to varying ambient fluid concentrations of organic contaminants. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(3):591–596.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huckins J, Petty J, Booij K (2006) Monitors of organic Chemicals in the Environment: semipermeable membrane devices. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Jeong Y, Schäffer A, Smith K (2017) Equilibrium partitioning of organic compounds to OASIS HLB® as a function of compound concentration, pH, temperature and salinity. Chemosphere 174:297–305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.01.116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morrison SA, Belden JB (2016) Calibration of nylon organic chemical integrative samplers and sentinel samplers for quantitative measurement of pulsed aquatic exposures. J Chromatogr A 1449:109–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2016.04.072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Novic AJ, O’Brien DS, Kaserzon SL, Hawker DW, Lewis SE, Mueller JF (2017) Monitoring herbicide concentrations and loads during a flood event: a comparison of grab sampling with passive sampling. Environ Sci Technol 51(7):3880–3891.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02858 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roll IB, Halden RU (2016) Critical review of factors governing data quality of integrative samplers employed in environmental water monitoring. Water Res 94:200–207.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.02.048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Warnken KW, Zhang H, Davison W (2006) Accuracy of the diffusive gradients in thin-films technique: diffusive boundary layer and effective sampling area considerations. Anal Chem 78(11):3780–3787.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac060139d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhang H, Davison W (1995) Performance characteristics of diffusion gradients in thin films for the in situ measurement of trace metals in aqueous solution. Anal Chem 67(19):3391–3400.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00115a005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zhang H, Davison W (1999) Diffusional characteristics of hydrogels used in DGT and DET techniques. Anal Chim Acta 398(2–3):329–340.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-2670(99)00458-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geosciences-Centre for Geosciences and GeoengineeringMINES ParisTech, PSL Research UniversityFontainebleau CedexFrance
  2. 2.EA 4515-LGCgE-Civil and Environmental Engineering DepartmentIMT Lille Douai, University LilleLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations