在荷兰的地表水中进行全面的查,使用目标,可疑和非目标方法
D Jérémy Liwara1, Carsten Baessmann2, Birgit Schneider2
1Amsterdam Institute for Life and Environment (A-LIFE), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987)
|February 19, 2026
概括
这项研究揭示了荷兰地表水中的和多基物质 (PFAS) 的范围比以前知道的更广泛. 先进的选方法发现了许多报告不足的PFAS,包括化药品和农药,提供了更全面的环境评估.
科学领域:
- 环境化学环境化学
- 分析化学 分析化学
- 环境科学 环境科学
背景情况:
- 常规监测多和多基基物质 (PFAS) 通常侧重于有限数量的已知化合物,如 perfluorooctane 硫酸 (PFOS).
- 这种有限的范围可能低估了水生环境中PFAS污染的真正程度.
- 需要全面的分析策略来识别环境样本中更广泛的PFAS.
研究的目的:
- 通过扩展分析方法调查荷兰地表水域中PFAS的广泛存在情况.
- 通过将目标分析与可疑和新型非目标查 (SNTS) 结合起来,识别超出传统监测范围的不足报告的PFAS.
- 为了更全面地了解水生生态系统中的PFAS污染.
主要方法:
- 采用液体染色学-双重质谱法 (LC-MS/MS) 和液体染色学-被困离子移动性飞行时间质谱法 (LC-timsTOF-MS).
- 对58种PFAS进行了目标分析,其中包括24种报告不足的硫胺基化合物和34种常见的PFAS,采用最新可用的分析标准.
- 通过测量碰撞截面 (CCS) 值和MassBank库进行了广泛的嫌疑人和新的非目标查 (SNTS) 来识别未知的PFAS.
主要成果:
- 通过目标分析确定了38种PFAS,包括与水性薄膜形成泡 (AFFF) 相关的N-基 perfluoroalkane硫胺酸 (例如,MeFBSAA高达50 ng/L) 和SPr-FHxSA (0.14-1.99 ng/L).
- 该系统确定了19种化合物 (安全级别为2a),主要是化药品和农药,并初步分类了22种额外的候选化合物 (2b或3级),包括一种新的PFOS类比物.
- 在最高可信度水平 (1a) 上证实了 6:2 甲硫 propanoamido-dimethylethyl sulfonate (6:2 FtSO2AoS).
结论:
- 与SNTS整合新的PFAS分析标准,与传统的目标监测相比,可以对荷兰地表水中的PFAS发生情况进行更全面的评估.
- 该研究强调了以前未报告的PFAS存在,包括药品和农药,强调了当前监测计划的局限性.
- 先进的分析方法有效地发现了意想不到的PFAS,有助于更好地了解复杂的PFAS污染景观.
更多相关视频
09:04Identifying Per- and Polyfluorinated Chemical Species with a Combined Targeted and Non-Targeted-Screening High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Workflow
Published on: April 18, 2019
07:06Investigating Long-Distance Transport of Perfluoroalkyl Acids in Wheat via a Split-Root Exposure Technique
Published on: September 28, 2022
相关概念视频
Sampling Methods: Sample Types
Sampling materials are classified into three main types: solid, liquid, and gas.
Solid samples include a variety of substances, such as sediments from water bodies, soil, metals, and biological tissues. Two standard methods for extracting sediments from water bodies are grab sampling and piston coring. Grab sampling involves using a device to collect a discrete sediment sample from the bottom of a water body with minimal disturbance. Grab samples do not always represent the entire area due to...
Solid samples include a variety of substances, such as sediments from water bodies, soil, metals, and biological tissues. Two standard methods for extracting sediments from water bodies are grab sampling and piston coring. Grab sampling involves using a device to collect a discrete sediment sample from the bottom of a water body with minimal disturbance. Grab samples do not always represent the entire area due to...
Testing Water Quality
When the quality of water for concrete preparation is uncertain, its impact on the setting time of cement and compressive strength of mortar is assessed by comparison with de-ionized or distilled water benchmarks. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C1602 requires the setting times to be within 90 minutes of the control, British Standard (BS) 3146:1980 allows a 30-minute variance in the initial setting, while British Standards European Norm (BS EN) 1008 specifies initial setting...
Non-destructive Tests for Concrete Strength
The rebound hammer test, also known as the Schmidt hammer test, is a non-destructive technique for evaluating the hardness of concrete and, indirectly, the strength of concrete. It operates on the principle that the rebound of a spring-driven mass from a concrete surface correlates to the surface's hardness. The device comprises a mass within a tubular housing, a spring mechanism, and a plunger that strikes the concrete. Upon release, the energy imparted to the mass by the spring causes it to...
