4 Material und Umwelt
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (2) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (2)
Referierte Publikation
- ja (2)
Schlagworte
- Combustion ion chromatography (CIC) (2) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
In this study, we compare combustion ion chromatography (CIC) and high resolution-continuum source-graphite furnace molecular absorption spectrometry (HR-CS-GFMAS) with respect to their applicability for determining organically Bound fluorine sum parameters. Extractable (EOF) and adsorbable (AOF) organically bound fluorine as well as total fluorine (TF) were measured in samples fromriver Spree in Berlin, Germany, to reveal the advantages and disadvantages of the two techniques used as well as the two established fluorine sum Parameters AOF and EOF. TF concentrations determined via HR-CS-GFMAS and CIC were comparable between 148 and 270 μg/L. On average, AOF concentrations were higher than EOF concentrations, with AOF making up 0.14–0.81% of TF (determined using CIC) and EOF 0.04–0.28% of TF (determined using HR-CSGFMAS).
The results obtained by the two independent methods were in good agreement. It turned out that HR-CS-GFMAS is a more sensitive and precise method for fluorine analysis compared to CIC. EOF and AOF are comparable tools in Risk evaluation for the emerging pollutants per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances; however, EOF is much faster to conduct.
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.