4 Material und Umwelt
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2023 (4) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (4) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
Organisationseinheit der BAM
- 4.3 Schadstofftransfer und Umwelttechnologien (4) (entfernen)
Paper des Monats
- ja (1)
Solid wastewater-based fertilizers were screened for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by the extractable organic fluorine (EOF) sum parameter method. The EOF values for ten sewage sludges from Germany and Switzerland range from 154 to 7209 mg kg−1. For thermal treated sewage sludge and struvite the EOF were lower with values up to 121 mg kg−1. Moreover, the application of PFAS targeted
and suspect screening analysis of selected sewage sludge samples showed that only a small part of the EOF sum parameter values can be explained by the usually screened legacy PFAS. The hitherto unknown part of EOF sum parameter contains also fluorinated pesticides, pharmaceutical and aromatic compounds. Because these partly fluorinated compounds can degrade to (ultra-)short PFAS in wastewater treatment plants they should be considered as significant sources of organic fluorine in the environment. The combined results of sum parameter analysis and suspect screening reveal the need to update current regulations, such as the German fertilizer ordinance, to focus not solely on a few selected PFAS such as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) but
consider an additional sum parameter approach as a more holistic alternative. Moreover, diffusion gradient in thin-films (DGT) passive samplers were utilized as an alternative simplified extraction method for PFAS in solid wastewater-based fertilizers and subsequently quantified via combustion ion chromatography. However, the DGT method was less sensitive and only comparable to the EOF values
of the fertilizers in samples with >150 mg kg−1, because of different diffusion properties for various PFAS, but also kinetic exchange limitations.
Research on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) frequently incorporates organofluorine measurements, particularly because they could support a class-based approach to regulation. However, standardized methods for organofluorine analysis in a broad suite of matrices are currently unavailable, including a method for extractable organofluorine (EOF) measured using combustion ion chromatography (CIC). Here, we report the results of an international interlaboratory comparison. Seven laboratories representing academia, government, and the private sector measured paired EOF and PFAS concentrations in groundwater and eel (Anguilla rostrata) from a site contaminated by aqueous film-forming foam. Among all laboratories, targeted PFAS could not explain all EOF in groundwater but accounted for most EOF in eel. EOF results from all laboratories for at least one replicate extract fell within one standard deviation of the interlaboratory mean for groundwater and five out of seven laboratories for eel. PFAS spike mixture recoveries for EOF measurements in groundwater and eel were close to the criterion (±30%) for standardized targeted PFAS methods. Instrumental operation of the CIC such as replicate sample injections was a major source of measurement uncertainty. Blank contamination and incomplete inorganic fluorine removal may introduce additional uncertainties. To elucidate the presence of unknown organofluorine using paired EOF and PFAS measurements, we recommend that analysts carefully consider confounding methodological uncertainties such as differences in precision between measurements, data processing steps such as blank subtraction and replicate analyses, and the relative recoveries of PFAS and other fluorine compounds.
For the first time, µ-X-ray fluorescence (µ-XRF) mapping combined with fluorine K-edge µ-X-ray absorption near-edge structure (µ-XANES) spectroscopy was applied to depict per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination and inorganic fluoride in samples concentrations down to 100 µg/kg fluoride. To demonstrate the matrix tolerance of the method, several PFAS contaminated soil and sludge samples as well as selected consumer product samples (textiles, food contact paper and permanent baking sheet) were investigated. µ-XRF mapping allows for a unique element-specific visualisation at the sample surface and enables localisation of fluorine containing compounds to a depth of 1 µm. Manually selected fluorine rich spots were subsequently analysed via fluorine K-edge µ-XANES spectroscopy. To support spectral interpretation with respect to inorganic and organic chemical distribution and compound class determination, linear combination (LC) fitting was applied to all recorded µ-XANES spectra. Complementarily, solvent extracts of all samples were target-analysed via LC-MS/MS spectrometry. The detected PFAS sum values range from 20 to 1136 µg/kg dry weight (dw). All environmentally exposed samples revealed higher concentration of PFAS with a chain length >C8 (e.g. 580 µg/kg dw PFOS for Soil1), whereas the consumer product samples showed a more uniform distribution with regard to chain lengths from C4 to C8. Independent from quantified PFAS amounts via target analysis, µ-XRF mapping combined with µ-XANES spectroscopy was successfully applied to detect both point-specific concentration maxima and evenly distributed surface coatings of fluorinated organic contaminants in the corresponding samples.
Wie können industriell synthetisierte Schadstoffe aus einer Stoffklasse quantifiziert werden, deren genauer Umfang unbekannt ist und auf mehrere tausend Verbindungen geschätzt wird? Im Falle der per- und polyfluorierten alkylierten Substanzen (PFAS) stellen sich Wissenschaftler*innen weltweit seit über zehn Jahren diese Frage. Neben der etablierten Methodik der Einzelstoffanalytik (engl. target analytic) existieren Summenparameteranalysen zur Quantifizierung
organisch gebundener fluorierter Verbindungen in Umweltmedien und Konsumprodukten. An der Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM) beschäftigen wir uns mit der Weiterentwicklung von Summenparametermethoden am Beispiel von PFAS-belasteten Umweltkompartimenten wie Böden, Klärschlämmen und Gewässerproben sowie PFAS-haltigen Konsumgütern. In diesem Beitrag stellen wir zwei ausgewählte Fallbeispiele vor und diskutieren die Vor- und Nachteile der Methoden im Vergleich zur Einzelstoffanalytik.