Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 17, pp 15202–15205 | Cite as

Two important limitations relating to the spiking of environmental samples with contaminants of emerging concern: How close to the real analyte concentrations are the reported recovered values?

  • Costas MichaelEmail author
  • Josep Maria Bayona
  • Dimitra Lambropoulou
  • Ana Agüera
  • Despo Fatta-KassinosEmail author
Position Paper


Occurrence and effects of contaminants of emerging concern pose a special challenge to environmental scientists. The investigation of these effects requires reliable, valid, and comparable analytical data. To this effect, two critical aspects are raised herein, concerning the limitations of the produced analytical data. The first relates to the inherent difficulty that exists in the analysis of environmental samples, which is related to the lack of knowledge (information), in many cases, of the form(s) of the contaminant in which is present in the sample. Thus, the produced analytical data can only refer to the amount of the free contaminant ignoring the amount in which it may be present in other forms; e.g., as in chelated and conjugated form. The other important aspect refers to the way with which the spiking procedure is generally performed to determine the recovery of the analytical method. Spiking environmental samples, in particular solid samples, with standard solution followed by immediate extraction, as is the common practice, can lead to an overestimation of the recovery. This is so, because no time is given to the system to establish possible equilibria between the solid matter—inorganic and/or organic—and the contaminant. Therefore, the spiking procedure need to be reconsidered by including a study of the extractable amount of the contaminant versus the time elapsed between spiking and the extraction of the sample. This study can become an element of the validation package of the method.


Contaminants of emerging concern Free and conjugated forms Environmental samples Recoveries In-house analytical methods 



“This article is based upon work from COST Action ES1403 NEREUS “New and emerging challenges and opportunities in wastewater reuse”, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)”


  1. Calderón-Preciado D, Jiménez-Cartagena C, Peñuela G, Bayona JM (2009) Development of an analytical procedure for the determination of emerging and priority organic pollutants in leafy vegetables by pressurized solvent extraction followed by GC–MS determination. Anal Bioanal Chem 394:1319–1327. doi: 10.1007/s00216-009-2669-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. DG SANCO (2015) Guidance document on analytical quality control and method validation procedures for pesticides residues analysis in food and feed. Accessed 16 November 2016
  3. EURACHEM (2002) Eurachem Guide: The Selection and use of Reference Materials. Accessed 16 November 2016
  4. EURACHEM (2014) The Fitness for Purpose of Analytical Methods - A Laboratory Guide to Method Validation and Related Topics. Accessed 15 November 2016
  5. EURACHEM/CITAC (1998) Quality Assurance for Research and Development and Non-routine Analysis. Accessed 16 November 2016
  6. Göbel A, Thomsen A, McArdell CS et al (2005) Extraction and determination of sulfonamides, macrolides, and trimethoprim in sewage sludge. J Chromatogr A 1085:179–189. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2005.05.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graouer-Bacart M, Sayen S, Guillon E (2013) Macroscopic and molecular approaches of enrofloxacin retention in soils in presence of Cu(II). J Colloid Interface Sci 408:191–199. doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2013.07.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gulkowska A, Leung HW, So MK et al (2008) Removal of antibiotics from wastewater by sewage treatment facilities in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, China. Water Res 42:395–403. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2007.07.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Leclercq M, Mathieu O, Gomez E et al (2008) Presence and fate of carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and seven of their metabolites at wastewater treatment plants. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 56:408. doi: 10.1007/s00244-008-9202-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li J, Dodgen L, Ye Q, Gan J (2013) Degradation kinetics and metabolites of carbamazepine in soil. Env Sci Technol 47:3678–3684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li J, Ye Q, Gan J (2014) Degradation and transformation products of acetaminophen in soil. Water Res 49:44–52. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2013.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. NORMAN - Network of reference laboratories and related organizations for monitoring and bio-monitoring of emerging environmental pollutants (2009) Protocol for the validation of chemical and biological monitoring methods. Accessed 15 November 2016
  13. Ternes TA, Kreckel P, Mueller J (1999) Behaviour and occurrence of estrogens in municipal sewage treatment plants–II. Aerobic batch experiments with activated sludge. Sci Total Environ 225:91–99. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(98)00335-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thompson M, Ellison LRS, Fajgelj A et al (1999) Harmonized guidelines for the use of recovery information in analytical measurement. Pure Appl Chem 71:337–348. doi: 10.1351/pac199971020337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. United States Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Science and Technology (2007) Method 1694: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in Water, Soil, Sediment and biosolids by HPLC/MS/MS. Accessed 16 November 2016
  16. Vieno NM, Tuhkanen T, Kronberg L (2006) Analysis of neutral and basic pharmaceuticals in sewage treatment plants and in recipient rivers using solid phase extraction and liquid chromatography—tandem mass spectrometry detection. J Chromatogr A 1134:101–111. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2006.08.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yang JF, Ying GG, Zhao JL et al (2010) Simultaneous determination of four classes of antibiotics in sediments of the pearl rivers using RRLC-MS/MS. Sci Total Environ 408:3424–3432. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.03.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nireas-International Water Research CenterUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.Department of Environmental ChemistryIDÆA-CSICBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryAristotle University of ΤhessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  4. 4.Universidad de AlmeríaAlmeríaSpain
  5. 5.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations