These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Characterization of five passive sampling devices for monitoring of pesticides in water.
    Author: Ahrens L, Daneshvar A, Lau AE, Kreuger J.
    Journal: J Chromatogr A; 2015 Jul 31; 1405():1-11. PubMed ID: 26087968.
    Abstract:
    Five different passive sampler devices were characterized under laboratory conditions for measurement of 124 legacy and current used pesticides in water. In addition, passive sampler derived time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations were compared to time-integrated active sampling in the field. Sampling rates (RS) and passive sampler-water partition coefficients (KPW) were calculated for individual pesticides using silicone rubber (SR), polar organic chemical integrative sampler (POCIS)-A, POCIS-B, Chemcatcher(®) SDB-RPS and Chemcatcher(®) C18. The median RS (Lday(-1)) decreased as follows: SR (0.86)>POCIS-B (0.22)>POCIS-A (0.18)>Chemcatcher(®) SDB-RPS (0.05)>Chemcatcher(®) C18 (0.02), while the median logKPW (Lkg(-1)) decreased as follows: POCIS-B (4.78)>POCIS-A (4.56)>Chemcatcher(®) SDB-RPS (3.17)>SR (3.14)>Chemcatcher(®)C18 (2.71). The uptake of the selected compounds depended on their physicochemical properties, i.e. SR showed a better uptake for more hydrophobic compounds (log octanol-water partition coefficient (KOW)>5.3), whereas POCIS-A, POCIS-B and Chemcatcher(®) SDB-RPS were more suitable for hydrophilic compounds (logKOW<0.70). Overall, the comparison between passive sampler and time-integrated active sampler concentrations showed a good agreement and the tested passive samplers were suitable for capturing compounds with a wide range of KOW's in water.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]