4 Material und Umwelt
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Schlagworte
- Combustion ion chromatography (CIC) (3) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
- 4.3 Schadstofftransfer und Umwelttechnologien (3) (entfernen)
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.
Abstract: Since it is unknown for many applications, which PFASs are used and how they enter the environment, target analysis-based methods reach their limits. The two most frequently used sum parameters are the adsorbable organically bound fluorine (AOF) and the extractable organically bound fluorine (EOF). Both can be quantified using either combustion ion chromatography (CIC) or high resolution-continuum source-graphite furnace molecular absorption spectrometry (HR-CS-GFMAS). Here we provide an insight on the advantageous and disadvantageous of both sum parameters and both detection methods. Our study is based on the analysis of surface water samples. Next to total fluorine (TF) analysis, AOF and EOF were determined as well as CIC and HR-CS-GFMAS are compared and results are comparatively discussed. Fluorine mass balancing revealed that, the AOF/TF proportion was higher than the EOF/TF proportion. The AOF made up 0.14–0.81% of TF and the EOF 0.04–0.28% of TF. Although, organically bound fluorine represents only a small portion of TF, PFASs are of worldwide concern, because of their extreme persistence and their bioaccumulation potential. The EOF-HR-CS-GFMAS method turned out to be more precise and sensitive than the AOF-CIC method and is a promising tool for future monitoring studies/routine analysis of PFASs in the environment.
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.