Comparison of surface freshwater PFAS sampling methods to evaluate potential for bias due to PFAS enrichment in the surface microlayer

IF 3 4区环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1002/ieam.4980

Shaun A. Roark, Alexander Wilson-Fallon, Amanda Struse, Heather Rectenwald, Dorin Bogdan, Chris Heron, Jennifer Field

{"title":"Comparison of surface freshwater PFAS sampling methods to evaluate potential for bias due to PFAS enrichment in the surface microlayer","authors":"Shaun A. Roark, Alexander Wilson-Fallon, Amanda Struse, Heather Rectenwald, Dorin Bogdan, Chris Heron, Jennifer Field","doi":"10.1002/ieam.4980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) accumulate at the air–water interface of the surface microlayer (SML) on marine and freshwater bodies. In order to determine if including the SML when sampling bulk surface water leads to a high bias in measured PFAS concentrations, a pilot study and a full field study were conducted. The pilot study conducted at two sites was aimed at determining the analytical precision and small-scale (~1 m) spatial variability in concentrations of PFAS in bulk water and the SML. The full field study was performed at 11 sites, where three commonly used bulk surface water sampling methods were compared: (1) a peristaltic pump with tubing that excludes the SML, (2) a fully submerged sample bottle that excludes the SML, and (3) a partially submerged sample bottle that allows inclusion of the SML. The SML was sampled using the glass plate method. The samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. The pilot study indicated that sampling variation was greater than analytical variation (although Levene's tests indicated that the differences were not statistically significant) and that relatively small differences in the mean concentration among sampling methods could be detected. The full investigation indicated that there was no evidence of high bias of PFAS concentrations in bulk surface water resulting from inclusion of SML using the partially submerged bottle sampling method. Unexpectedly, there was evidence that samples collected using the partially submerged bottle had slightly lower PFAS concentrations, particularly for less hydrophobic PFAS, than bulk water samples that excluded the SML. Additionally, the PFAS enrichment factor in the SML increased with increasing retention time, although the increase was not evident at all sampling sites for all PFAS. <i>Integr Environ Assess Manag</i> 2024;20:2271–2282. © 2024 SETAC</p>","PeriodicalId":13557,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","volume":"20 6","pages":"2271-2282"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.4980","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) accumulate at the air–water interface of the surface microlayer (SML) on marine and freshwater bodies. In order to determine if including the SML when sampling bulk surface water leads to a high bias in measured PFAS concentrations, a pilot study and a full field study were conducted. The pilot study conducted at two sites was aimed at determining the analytical precision and small-scale (~1 m) spatial variability in concentrations of PFAS in bulk water and the SML. The full field study was performed at 11 sites, where three commonly used bulk surface water sampling methods were compared: (1) a peristaltic pump with tubing that excludes the SML, (2) a fully submerged sample bottle that excludes the SML, and (3) a partially submerged sample bottle that allows inclusion of the SML. The SML was sampled using the glass plate method. The samples were analyzed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. The pilot study indicated that sampling variation was greater than analytical variation (although Levene's tests indicated that the differences were not statistically significant) and that relatively small differences in the mean concentration among sampling methods could be detected. The full investigation indicated that there was no evidence of high bias of PFAS concentrations in bulk surface water resulting from inclusion of SML using the partially submerged bottle sampling method. Unexpectedly, there was evidence that samples collected using the partially submerged bottle had slightly lower PFAS concentrations, particularly for less hydrophobic PFAS, than bulk water samples that excluded the SML. Additionally, the PFAS enrichment factor in the SML increased with increasing retention time, although the increase was not evident at all sampling sites for all PFAS. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:2271–2282. © 2024 SETAC

查看原文本刊更多论文

比较地表淡水全氟辛烷磺酸取样方法，评估地表微层中全氟辛烷磺酸富集可能导致的偏差。

全氟烷基和多氟烷基物质（PFAS）会在海洋和淡水水体表面微层（SML）的空气-水界面积聚。为了确定在对大体积地表水进行采样时，将 SML 包括在内是否会导致测得的 PFAS 浓度出现较大偏差，我们开展了一项试点研究和一项全面的实地研究。试点研究在两个地点进行，旨在确定散装水和 SML 中 PFAS 浓度的分析精度和小尺度（约 1 米）空间变化。全面实地研究在 11 个地点进行，比较了三种常用的地表水散装采样方法：(1) 不包括 SML 的带管道蠕动泵，(2) 不包括 SML 的完全浸没式样品瓶，以及 (3) 允许包括 SML 的部分浸没式样品瓶。采用玻璃板法对 SML 进行采样。样品采用液相色谱串联质谱法进行分析。试点研究表明，取样差异大于分析差异（尽管 Levene 检验表明差异不具有统计学意义），而且可以检测到不同取样方法的平均浓度差异相对较小。全面调查表明，没有证据表明使用部分浸没瓶采样法采样 SML 会导致地表水中 PFAS 浓度偏高。意外的是，有证据表明，使用部分浸没瓶采集的样本的 PFAS 浓度，尤其是疏水性较低的 PFAS 浓度，略低于不包括 SML 的散装水样本。此外，SML 中的 PFAS 富集因子随保留时间的增加而增加，但并非所有采样点的所有 PFAS 富集因子都明显增加。集成环境评估管理 2024；1-12。© 2024 SETAC.

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESTOXICOLOGY&nbs-TOXICOLOGY

CiteScore

5.90

自引率

6.50%

发文量

156

期刊介绍： Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM) publishes the science underpinning environmental decision making and problem solving. Papers submitted to IEAM must link science and technical innovations to vexing regional or global environmental issues in one or more of the following core areas: Science-informed regulation, policy, and decision making Health and ecological risk and impact assessment Restoration and management of damaged ecosystems Sustaining ecosystems Managing large-scale environmental change Papers published in these broad fields of study are connected by an array of interdisciplinary engineering, management, and scientific themes, which collectively reflect the interconnectedness of the scientific, social, and environmental challenges facing our modern global society: Methods for environmental quality assessment; forecasting across a number of ecosystem uses and challenges (systems-based, cost-benefit, ecosystem services, etc.); measuring or predicting ecosystem change and adaptation Approaches that connect policy and management tools; harmonize national and international environmental regulation; merge human well-being with ecological management; develop and sustain the function of ecosystems; conceptualize, model and apply concepts of spatial and regional sustainability Assessment and management frameworks that incorporate conservation, life cycle, restoration, and sustainability; considerations for climate-induced adaptation, change and consequences, and vulnerability Environmental management applications using risk-based approaches; considerations for protecting and fostering biodiversity, as well as enhancement or protection of ecosystem services and resiliency.