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, Parshawn Amini, Celine Su, Erica Sharma, Jeffery Okoroma, 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, Parshawn Amini, Celine Su, Erica Sharma, Jeffery Okoroma, 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}
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.
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.