Publication Details

Category Text Publication
Reference Category Journals
DOI 10.1016/j.watres.2008.01.023
Title (Primary) Performance of the Chemcatcher® passive sampler when used to monitor 10 polar and semi-polar pesticides in 16 Central European streams, and comparison with two other sampling methods
Author Schäfer, R.B.; Paschke, A.; Vrana, B.; Mueller, R.; Liess, M.
Source Titel Water Research
Year 2008
Department OEC; OEKOTOX
Volume 42
Issue 10-11
Page From 2707
Page To 2717
Language englisch
Keywords Pesticides; Monitoring; Pollution; Passive sampling; Chemcatcher®
Abstract We investigated the performance of the Chemcatcher®, an aquatic passive sampling device consisting of a sampler body and an Empore® disk as receiving phase, when used to monitor acetochlor, alachlor, carbofuran, chlorfenvinphos, -endosulfan, fenpropidin, linuron, oxadiazon, pirimicarb and tebuconazole in 16 Central European streams. The Chemcatcher®, equipped with an SDB-XC Empore® disk, detected seven of the aforementioned pesticides with a total of 54 detections. The time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations reached up to 1 µg/L for acetochlor and alachlor. Toxic units derived from these concentrations explained reasonably well the observed ecological effects of pesticide stress, measured with the SPEAR index. In a follow-up analysis, we compared the Chemcatcher® performance with those of two other sampling systems. The results obtained with the Chemcatcher® closely matched those of the event-driven water sampler. By contrast, the TWA concentrations were not significantly correlated with concentrations on suspended particles. We conclude that the Chemcatcher® is suitable for the monitoring of polar organic toxicants and presents an alternative to conventional spot sampling in the monitoring of episodically occurring pollutants.
Schäfer, R.B., Paschke, A., Vrana, B., Mueller, R., Liess, M. (2008):
Performance of the Chemcatcher® passive sampler when used to monitor 10 polar and semi-polar pesticides in 16 Central European streams, and comparison with two other sampling methods
Water Res. 42 (10-11), 2707 - 2717 10.1016/j.watres.2008.01.023