评估分析物回收率和监测空气中半挥发性有机化合物暴露的报告标准

IF 7.3 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Anya Guo, Parshawn Amini, Celine Su, Erica Sharma, Jeffery Okoroma, Joseph O. Okeme
{"title":"评估分析物回收率和监测空气中半挥发性有机化合物暴露的报告标准","authors":"Anya Guo,&nbsp;Parshawn Amini,&nbsp;Celine Su,&nbsp;Erica Sharma,&nbsp;Jeffery Okoroma,&nbsp;Joseph O. Okeme","doi":"10.1016/j.envpol.2025.126342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Analyte recovery is a critical quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) metric widely used to quantify bias when using sampling methods and measurement technologies. However, no study has systematically evaluated how well studies adhere to recommended recovery guidelines and reporting standards for measuring airborne semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated 87 studies deploying passive and active air samplers to measure SVOC concentrations in air.</div><div>We compared recoveries in the assessed studies to the US EPA and European Union's recommended threshold of 70–120% mean recovery and ≤20% relative standard deviation (RSD). Overall, 39% of recoveries were outside either the recommendation for mean recovery or RSD regardless of compound class and sorbent type. This deviation may be reasonable for qualitative studies but is concerning for quantitative assessment of airborne SVOCs. In assessed calibration studies, differences in recovery between passive and active air samplers did not explain uptake rate variability. We also found wide variation in how recoveries are reported and treated in the literature.</div><div>Our findings highlight that poor recoveries are prevalent in studies assessing airborne exposure to SVOCs. Reporting and treatment of recoveries is also inconsistent across studies. We recommend future studies to report individual compound recoveries, their treatment, and to recovery correct. We also recommend studies to investigate sample preparation methods to identify steps that are most critical to poor recoveries. Our findings and recommendations presented in this work will help improve quantitative assessment of airborne chemical exposures and standardize recovery reporting across labs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":311,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Pollution","volume":"375 ","pages":"Article 126342"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing analyte recovery values and reporting standards for monitoring exposure to airborne semi-volatile organic compounds\",\"authors\":\"Anya Guo,&nbsp;Parshawn Amini,&nbsp;Celine Su,&nbsp;Erica Sharma,&nbsp;Jeffery Okoroma,&nbsp;Joseph O. Okeme\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envpol.2025.126342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Analyte recovery is a critical quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) metric widely used to quantify bias when using sampling methods and measurement technologies. However, no study has systematically evaluated how well studies adhere to recommended recovery guidelines and reporting standards for measuring airborne semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated 87 studies deploying passive and active air samplers to measure SVOC concentrations in air.</div><div>We compared recoveries in the assessed studies to the US EPA and European Union's recommended threshold of 70–120% mean recovery and ≤20% relative standard deviation (RSD). Overall, 39% of recoveries were outside either the recommendation for mean recovery or RSD regardless of compound class and sorbent type. This deviation may be reasonable for qualitative studies but is concerning for quantitative assessment of airborne SVOCs. In assessed calibration studies, differences in recovery between passive and active air samplers did not explain uptake rate variability. We also found wide variation in how recoveries are reported and treated in the literature.</div><div>Our findings highlight that poor recoveries are prevalent in studies assessing airborne exposure to SVOCs. Reporting and treatment of recoveries is also inconsistent across studies. We recommend future studies to report individual compound recoveries, their treatment, and to recovery correct. We also recommend studies to investigate sample preparation methods to identify steps that are most critical to poor recoveries. Our findings and recommendations presented in this work will help improve quantitative assessment of airborne chemical exposures and standardize recovery reporting across labs.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Pollution\",\"volume\":\"375 \",\"pages\":\"Article 126342\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Pollution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749125007158\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Pollution","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749125007158","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

分析物回收率是一个关键的质量保证和质量控制(QA/QC)指标,广泛用于在使用采样方法和测量技术时量化偏差。然而,没有研究系统地评估研究在多大程度上遵守了测量空气中半挥发性有机化合物(SVOCs)的建议回收指南和报告标准。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了87项使用被动和主动空气采样器测量空气中SVOC浓度的研究。我们将评估研究的回收率与美国环保局推荐的70-120%平均回收率和≤20%标准偏差(RSD)的阈值进行了比较。总体而言,39%的回收率超出了推荐的平均回收率或RSD,无论化合物类别和吸附剂类型如何。这种偏差对于定性研究可能是合理的,但对于空气中SVOCs的定量评估则是令人担忧的。在评估的校准研究中,被动式和主动式空气采样器之间的回收率差异并不能解释吸收率变异性。我们还发现,在文献中如何报道和治疗康复方面存在很大差异。我们的研究结果强调,在评估空气中SVOCs暴露的研究中,回收率很低是普遍存在的。报告和治疗的恢复也不一致的研究。我们建议未来的研究报告个别复合恢复和他们的治疗,恢复正确。我们还建议研究样品制备方法,以确定对低回收率最关键的步骤。我们在这项工作中提出的发现和建议将有助于改进空气中化学物质暴露的定量评估,并使实验室间的恢复报告标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing analyte recovery values and reporting standards for monitoring exposure to airborne semi-volatile organic compounds

Assessing analyte recovery values and reporting standards for monitoring exposure to airborne semi-volatile organic compounds

Assessing analyte recovery values and reporting standards for monitoring exposure to airborne semi-volatile organic compounds
Analyte recovery is a critical quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) metric widely used to quantify bias when using sampling methods and measurement technologies. However, no study has systematically evaluated how well studies adhere to recommended recovery guidelines and reporting standards for measuring airborne semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated 87 studies deploying passive and active air samplers to measure SVOC concentrations in air.
We compared recoveries in the assessed studies to the US EPA and European Union's recommended threshold of 70–120% mean recovery and ≤20% relative standard deviation (RSD). Overall, 39% of recoveries were outside either the recommendation for mean recovery or RSD regardless of compound class and sorbent type. This deviation may be reasonable for qualitative studies but is concerning for quantitative assessment of airborne SVOCs. In assessed calibration studies, differences in recovery between passive and active air samplers did not explain uptake rate variability. We also found wide variation in how recoveries are reported and treated in the literature.
Our findings highlight that poor recoveries are prevalent in studies assessing airborne exposure to SVOCs. Reporting and treatment of recoveries is also inconsistent across studies. We recommend future studies to report individual compound recoveries, their treatment, and to recovery correct. We also recommend studies to investigate sample preparation methods to identify steps that are most critical to poor recoveries. Our findings and recommendations presented in this work will help improve quantitative assessment of airborne chemical exposures and standardize recovery reporting across labs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Pollution
Environmental Pollution 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
16.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
2082
审稿时长
2.9 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Pollution is an international peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality research papers and review articles covering all aspects of environmental pollution and its impacts on ecosystems and human health. Subject areas include, but are not limited to: • Sources and occurrences of pollutants that are clearly defined and measured in environmental compartments, food and food-related items, and human bodies; • Interlinks between contaminant exposure and biological, ecological, and human health effects, including those of climate change; • Contaminants of emerging concerns (including but not limited to antibiotic resistant microorganisms or genes, microplastics/nanoplastics, electronic wastes, light, and noise) and/or their biological, ecological, or human health effects; • Laboratory and field studies on the remediation/mitigation of environmental pollution via new techniques and with clear links to biological, ecological, or human health effects; • Modeling of pollution processes, patterns, or trends that is of clear environmental and/or human health interest; • New techniques that measure and examine environmental occurrences, transport, behavior, and effects of pollutants within the environment or the laboratory, provided that they can be clearly used to address problems within regional or global environmental compartments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信