Passive sampler phases for pesticides: evaluation of AttractSPE™ SDB-RPS and HLB versus Empore™ SDB-RPS

Abstract

In this study, three different passive sampling receiving phases were evaluated, with a main focus on the comparability of established styrene-divinylbenzene reversed phase sulfonated (SDB-RPS) sampling phase from Empore™ (E-RPS) and novel AttractSPE™ (A-RPS). Furthermore, AttractSPE™ hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) disks were tested. To support sampling phase selection for ongoing monitoring needs, it is important to have information on the characteristics of alternative phases. Three sets of passive samplers (days 1–7, days 8–14, and days 1–14) were exposed to a continuously exchanged mixture of creek and rainwater in a stream channel system under controlled conditions. The system was spiked with nine pesticides in two peak scenarios, with log K OW values ranging from approx. − 1 to 5. Three analytes were continuously spiked at a low concentration. All three sampling phases turned out to be suitable for the chosen analytes, and, in general, uptake rates were similar for all three materials, particularly for SDB-RPS phases. Exceptions concerned bentazon, where E-RPS sampled less than 20% compared with the other phases, and nicosulfuron, where HLB sampled noticeably more than both SDB-RPS phases. All three phases will work for environmental monitoring. They are very similar, but differences indicate one cannot just use literature calibration data and transfer these from one SDB phase to another, though for most compounds, it may work fine. Graphical abstract

Bibliographic Information