Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the efficiencies of different types of adsorbents at trapping currently used pesticides in the gaseous phase using the technique of high-volume sampling

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Atmospheric samples were collected in an urban area (Strasbourg centre) in spring/summer 2004, in order to determine the concentrations of different pesticides in the gaseous and particulate phases and to compare the efficiencies of different adsorbents at trapping the gaseous phase. Two high-volume samplers were placed next to each other in the botanical garden in the centre of Strasbourg. Air sampling was carried out using a glass fibre filter and different adsorbents for 48 hrs. The following adsorbents and combinations of adsorbents were compared: XAD-2 with PUF, XAD4 with PUF, XAD-2 with a PUF-XAD2-PUF sandwich, PUF with a PUF-XAD4-PUF sandwich. In order of efficiency at trapping pesticides, the “sandwiches” are the most efficient, followed by XAD-2 and XAD-4 resins. However, although the “sandwiches” are slightly better at trapping than XAD-2, the use of XAD-2 is recommended for technical reasons. The PUFs are the least efficient at trapping. Among the 27 pesticides analysed, trifluralin, alachlor, metolachlor and captan were the most concentrated pesticides, followed by lindane, alpha-endosulfan and diflufenican. This result is in accordance with farming activity in the Alsace region, where the pesticides that are used on large crops (maize, cereals) are applied in the greatest quantities. Vineyards are another important form of agriculture in Alsace, but the quantities of pesticides applied in comparison to those used on large crops is very low, which explains the low detection of vineyard pesticides in air samples observed here. The concentrations are depend on the identities and properties of the pesticides analysed, but on the whole they remain rather low. It is important to perform measurements like these in the urban environment, as these compounds can be harmful to human health and the environment and so their concentrations need to be monitored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Glotfelty DE, Taylor AW, Turner BC, Zoller WH (1984) J Agric Food Chem 32:639–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Majewski MS, Desjardins R, Rochette P, Pattey E, Seiber J, Glotfelty D (1993) Environ Sci Technol 27:121–128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Van den Berg E, Kubiak R, Benjey WG, Majewski M, Yates SR, Reeves GL, Smelt JH, Van der Linden AMA (1999) Water Air Soil Pollut 115:195–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chérif S, Wortham H (1997) Int J Environ Anal Chem 68:199–212

    Google Scholar 

  5. Van Djick HFG, Guicherit R (1999) Water Air Soil Pollut 115:21–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kubiak R, Bürkle WL, Cousins I, Hourdakis A, Jarvis T, Jene B, Koch W, Kreuger J, Maier WM, Millet M, Reinert W, Sweeney P, Tournayre JC, Van den Berg F (2003) In: Del Re AAM, Capri E, Padovani L, Trevisan M (eds) Proc XII Conf of Pesticides Chemistry, La Goliardica Pavese s.r.l., Pavia, Italy, pp 473–485

  7. Bidleman TF (1988) Environ Sci Technol 22:361–367

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Scheyer A (2004) Thesis. University of Strasbourg I, Strasbourg, p 204

  9. Peck AM, Hornbuckle KC (2005) Environ Sci Technol 39:2952–2959

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Coutant RW, Brown L, Chuang JC, Riggin RM, Lewis RG (1981) Atmos Environ 22:403–409

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kaupp H, Umlauf G (1992) Atmos Environ 26A:2259–2267

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bidleman TF, Billings WN, Foreman WT (1986) Environ Sci Technol 20:1038–1043

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Millet M, Wortham H, Sanusi A, Mirabel Ph (1996) Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 31:543–556

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sanusi A, Millet M, Mirabel Ph, Wortham H (2000) Sci Tot Environ 263(1–3):263–277

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sauret N, Millet M, Herckes P, Mirabel Ph, Wortham H (2000) Environ Pollut 110:243–252

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Eisenreich SJ, Looney BB, Thorston JD (1981) Environ Sci Technol 15:30–38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lane DA, Johnson ND, Hanley M-JJ, Schroeder WH, Ort DT (1992) Environ Sci Technol 26:126–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Alegria HA, Bidleman TF, Shaw TJ (2000) Environ Sci Technol 34:1953–1958

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mejjers SN, Scheib M, Jantunen LMM, Jones KC, Harner T (2003) Environ Sci Technol 37:1292–1299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Scheyer A, Morville S, Mirabel Ph, Millet M (2005) Anal Bioanal Chem 381:1226–1233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sanusi A, Millet M, Mirabel Ph, Wortham H (1999) Atmos Environ 33:4941–4951

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Pyysalo H, Touminen J, Wickstrom K, Skytta E, Tikkanen L (1987) Atmos Environ 21:1167–1180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Garnier LK, Chevreuil M (1997) Atmos Environ 31:3787–3802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoff RM, Muir DCG, Grift NP (1992) Environ Sci Technol 26:266–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cessna AJ, Waite DT, Kerr LA, Grover R (2000) Chemosphere 40:795–802

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wania F, Shen L, Lei YD, Teixera C, Muir DC (2003) Environ Sci Technol 37:1352–1359

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the French Ministry of the Environment (MEDD) through the PRIMEQUAL-2 program, the “Région Alsace” through the “Appel à Projet 2001 and the “DRIRE-Alsace” for their financial support. The ADEME, “Région Alsace” and “Conseil Général du Bas-Rhin” are also greatly acknowledged for the PhD grants of Anne Scheyer and Anne-Laure Rizet.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l’Atmosphère, Centre de Géochimie de la Surface, UMR 7517 CNRS-Université Louis Pasteur, 1, rue Blessig, 67084, Strasbourg Cedex, France

    Rowan Dobson, Anne Scheyer, Anne Laure Rizet, Philippe Mirabel & Maurice Millet

Authors
  1. Rowan Dobson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Scheyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Laure Rizet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philippe Mirabel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maurice Millet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurice Millet.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dobson, R., Scheyer, A., Rizet, A.L. et al. Comparison of the efficiencies of different types of adsorbents at trapping currently used pesticides in the gaseous phase using the technique of high-volume sampling. Anal Bioanal Chem 386, 1781–1789 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-006-0737-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-006-0737-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation