U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Water Science Center, 520 North Park Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.
U.S. Geological Survey, Arizona Water Science Center, 520 North Park Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.
Sci Total Environ. 2014 Mar 1;473-474:731-41. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.082. Epub 2014 Jan 11.
A continuous active sampling method was compared to continuous passive and discrete sampling methods for the sampling of trace organic compounds (TOCs) in water. Results from each method are compared and contrasted in order to provide information for future investigators to use while selecting appropriate sampling methods for their research. The continuous low-level aquatic monitoring (CLAM) sampler (C.I.Agent® Storm-Water Solutions) is a submersible, low flow-rate sampler, that continuously draws water through solid-phase extraction media. CLAM samplers were deployed at two wastewater-dominated stream field sites in conjunction with the deployment of polar organic chemical integrative samplers (POCIS) and the collection of discrete (grab) water samples. All samples were analyzed for a suite of 69 TOCs. The CLAM and POCIS samples represent time-integrated samples that accumulate the TOCs present in the water over the deployment period (19-23 h for CLAM and 29 days for POCIS); the discrete samples represent only the TOCs present in the water at the time and place of sampling. Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling and cluster analysis were used to examine patterns in both TOC detections and relative concentrations between the three sampling methods. A greater number of TOCs were detected in the CLAM samples than in corresponding discrete and POCIS samples, but TOC concentrations in the CLAM samples were significantly lower than in the discrete and (or) POCIS samples. Thirteen TOCs of varying polarity were detected by all of the three methods. TOC detections and concentrations obtained by the three sampling methods, however, are dependent on multiple factors. This study found that stream discharge, constituent loading, and compound type all affected TOC concentrations detected by each method. In addition, TOC detections and concentrations were affected by the reporting limits, bias, recovery, and performance of each method.
一种连续的主动采样方法与连续被动和离散采样方法进行了比较,以用于水中痕量有机化合物(TOCs)的采样。比较和对比了每种方法的结果,以便为未来的研究人员提供信息,以便在为其研究选择适当的采样方法时使用。连续低水平水监测(CLAM)采样器(C.I.Agent®Storm-Water Solutions)是一种潜水式、低流速采样器,可通过固相萃取介质连续抽取水样。CLAM 采样器与极性有机化学综合采样器(POCIS)的部署以及离散(抓)水样的采集一起部署在两个以废水为主的溪流现场。所有样品均分析了 69 种 TOC。CLAM 和 POCIS 样品代表时间积分样品,在部署期间(CLAM 为 19-23 小时,POCIS 为 29 天)积累水样中存在的 TOC;离散样品仅代表采样时和采样地点存在的 TOC。非度量多维标度和聚类分析用于检查三种采样方法之间 TOC 检测和相对浓度的模式。CLAM 样品中检测到的 TOC 数量多于相应的离散和 POCIS 样品,但 CLAM 样品中的 TOC 浓度明显低于离散和(或)POCIS 样品。三种方法均检测到 13 种不同极性的 TOC。然而,三种采样方法获得的 TOC 检测和浓度取决于多个因素。本研究发现,水流、组分负荷和化合物类型都影响每种方法检测到的 TOC 浓度。此外,每种方法的报告限、偏差、回收率和性能也会影响 TOC 的检测和浓度。