Modelling passive sampling of hydrophilic compounds under time-variable aqueous concentrations

TL;DR

This study evaluates how well passive samplers capture fluctuating concentrations of water-soluble compounds in aquatic environments.

Contribution

The study introduces a comparison of two models for analyzing passive sampling under time-variable concentrations.

Findings

The diffusion model provided better data fits than the sampling rate model, though differences were small.

SDB-RPS samplers with a polyethersulfone membrane performed best despite some lag times.

Biofouling affected all compounds similarly, consistent with a 150 µm thick layer.

Abstract

Passive sampling is a crucial method for evaluating concentrations of hydrophilic organic compounds in the aquatic environment, but it is insufficiently understood to what extent passive samplers capture the intermittent emissions that frequently occur for this group of compounds. In the present study, silicone sheets and styrene-divinyl benzene-reversed phase sulfonated extraction disks with and without a polyethersulfone membrane were exposed under semi-field conditions in a 31 m3 flume at three different flow velocities. Natural processes and spiking/dilution measures caused aqueous concentrations to vary strongly with time. The data were analyzed using two analytical models that account for these time-variable concentrations: a sampling rate model and a diffusion model. The diffusion model generally gave a better fit of the data than the sampling rate model, but the difference in residual errors was quite small (median errors of 19 vs. 25% for silicone and 22 vs. 25% for SDB-RPS samplers). The sampling rate model was therefore adequate enough to evaluate the time-integrative capabilities of the samplers. Sampler performance was best for SDB-RPS samplers with a polyethersulfone membrane, despite the occurrence of lag times for some compounds (0.1 to 0.4 days). Sampling rates for this design also spanned a narrower range (80 to 110 mL/day) than SDB-RPS samplers without a membrane (100 to 660 mL/day). The effect of biofouling was similar for all compounds and was consistent with a biofouling layer thickness of 150 µm.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11356-024-34460-x.

Figures