Search

This review examines the environmental occurrence and fate of aromatic amines (AAs), a group of environmental contaminants with possible carcinogenic and mutagenic effects. AAs are known to be partially responsible for the genotoxic traits of industrial wastewater (WW), and AA antioxidants are acutely toxic to some aquatic organisms. Still, there are gaps in the available data on sources, occurrence, transport, and fate in domestic WW and indoor environments, which complicate the prevention of adverse effects in aquatic ecosystems. We review key domestic sources of these compounds, including cigarette smoke and grilled protein-rich foods, and their presence indoors and in aquatic matrices. This provides a basis to evaluate the importance of nonindustrial sources to the overall environmental burden of AAs. Appropriate sampling techniques for AAs are described, including copper-phthalocyanine trisulfonate materials, XAD resins in solid-phase extraction, and solid-phase microextraction methods, which can offer insights into AA sources, transport, and fate. Further discussion is provided on potential progress in the research of AAs and their behavior in an aim to support the development of a more comprehensive understanding of their effects and potential environmental risks.

Polyurethane foam passive air samplers (PUF-PAS) are the most common type of passive air sampler used for a range of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including regulated persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and emerging contaminants (e.g., novel flame retardants, phthalates, current-use pesticides). Data from PUF-PAS are key indicators of effectiveness of global regulatory actions on SVOCs, such as the Global Monitoring Plan of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. While most PUF-PAS use similar double-dome metal shielding, there is no standardized dome size, shape, or deployment configuration, with many different PUF-PAS designs used in regional and global monitoring. Yet, no information is available on the comparability of data from studies using different PUF-PAS designs. We brought together 12 types of PUF-PAS used by different research groups around the world and deployed them in a multi-part intercomparison to evaluate the variability in reported concentrations introduced by different elements of PAS monitoring. PUF-PAS were deployed for 3 months in outdoor air in Kjeller, Norway in 2015–2016 in three phases to capture (1) the influence of sampler design on data comparability, (2) the influence of analytical variability when samplers are analyzed at different laboratories, and (3) the overall variability in global monitoring data introduced by differences in sampler configurations and analytical methods. Results indicate that while differences in sampler design (in particular, the spacing between the upper and lower sampler bowls) account for up to 50 % differences in masses collected by samplers, the variability introduced by analysis in different laboratories far exceeds this amount, resulting in differences spanning orders of magnitude for POPs and PAHs. The high level of variability due to analysis in different laboratories indicates that current SVOC air sampling data (i.e., not jus

Polyurethane foam passive air samplers (PUF-PAS) are the most common type of passive air sampler used for a range of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including regulated persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and emerging contaminants (e.g., novel flame retardants, phthalates, current-use pesticides). Data from PUF-PAS are key indicators of effectiveness of global regulatory actions on SVOCs, such as the Global Monitoring Plan of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. While most PUF-PAS use similar double-dome metal shielding, there is no standardized dome size, shape, or deployment configuration, with many different PUF-PAS designs used in regional and global monitoring. Yet, no information is available on the comparability of data from studies using different PUF-PAS designs. We brought together 12 types of PUF-PAS used by different research groups around the world and deployed them in a multi-part intercomparison to evaluate the variability in reported concentrations introduced by different elements of PAS monitoring. PUF-PAS were deployed for 3 months in outdoor air in Kjeller, Norway in 2015–2016 in three phases to capture (1) the influence of sampler design on data comparability, (2) the influence of analytical variability when samplers are analyzed at different laboratories, and (3) the overall variability in global monitoring data introduced by differences in sampler configurations and analytical methods. Results indicate that while differences in sampler design (in particular, the spacing between the upper and lower sampler bowls) account for up to 50 % differences in masses collected by samplers, the variability introduced by analysis in different laboratories far exceeds this amount, resulting in differences spanning orders of magnitude for POPs and PAHs. The high level of variability due to analysis in different laboratories indicates that current SVOC air sampling data (i.e., not jus

Polyurethane foam passive air samplers (PUF-PAS) are the most common type of passive air sampler used for a range of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), including regulated persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and emerging contaminants (e.g., novel flame retardants, phthalates, current-use pesticides). Data from PUF-PAS are key indicators of effectiveness of global regulatory actions on SVOCs, such as the Global Monitoring Plan of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. While most PUF-PAS use similar double-dome metal shielding, there is no standardized dome size, shape, or deployment configuration, with many different PUF-PAS designs used in regional and global monitoring. Yet, no information is available on the comparability of data from studies using different PUF-PAS designs. We brought together 12 types of PUF-PAS used by different research groups around the world and deployed them in a multi-part intercomparison to evaluate the variability in reported concentrations introduced by different elements of PAS monitoring. PUF-PAS were deployed for 3 months in outdoor air in Kjeller, Norway in 2015–2016 in three phases to capture (1) the influence of sampler design on data comparability, (2) the influence of analytical variability when samplers are analyzed at different laboratories, and (3) the overall variability in global monitoring data introduced by differences in sampler configurations and analytical methods. Results indicate that while differences in sampler design (in particular, the spacing between the upper and lower sampler bowls) account for up to 50 % differences in masses collected by samplers, the variability introduced by analysis in different laboratories far exceeds this amount, resulting in differences spanning orders of magnitude for POPs and PAHs. The high level of variability due to analysis in different laboratories indicates that current SVOC air sampling data (i.e., not jus

This study presents a comparison of seasonal variation, gas-particle partitioning, and particle-phase size distribution of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and current-use pesticides (CUPs) in air. Two years (2012/2013) of weekly air samples were collected at a background site in the Czech Republic using a high-volume air sampler. To study the particle-phase size distribution, air samples were also collected at an urban and rural site in the area of Brno, Czech Republic, using a cascade impactor separating atmospheric particulates according to six size fractions. Major differences were found in the atmospheric distribution of OCPs and CUPs. The atmospheric concentrations of CUPs were driven by agricultural activities while secondary sources such as volatilization from surfaces governed the atmospheric concentrations of OCPs. Moreover, clear differences were observed in gas-particle partitioning; CUP partitioning was influenced by adsorption onto mineral surfaces while OCPs were mainly partitioning to aerosols through absorption. A predictive method for estimating the gas-particle partitioning has been derived and is proposed for polar and non-polar pesticides. Finally, while OCPs and the majority of CUPs were largely found on fine particles, four CUPs (carbendazim, isoproturon, prochloraz, and terbuthylazine) had higher concentrations on coarse particles (> 3.0 mu m), which may be related to the pesticide application technique. This finding is particularly important and should be further investigated given that large particles result in lower risks from inhalation (re-gardless the toxicity of the pesticide) and lower potential for long-range atmospheric transport., Funding Agencies:Czech Ministry of Education LO1214 LM2011028EU FP7 project CSI: ENVIRONMENT PITN-GA-2010-264329EU FP7 project CSI: ArcRisk 226534Project "Employment of Best Young Scientists for International Cooperation Empowerment" CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0037European Social Fund and the state budget of the Czech Republic